Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:Out of curiosity, what kind of criticism do you get from other atheists? The worst thing another Catholic has ever said to me is "you're not Catholic."

Most often I hear "You're not an atheist." But the worst has been "You're a racist, homophobic, [series of ironic expletives deleted], because you don't reject a Christian God!" That was, however, relatively recent, and from a student (not one of mine) in a central Illinois college town, where tensions between students from Chicago (and out of state) and students from the rest of the state are known to run high. I've also been called "Republican!", "Stupid.", "Incompetent." and "Woman-hating!"

This was an American speaking, I've found that atheists in Europe tend to be much more jovial or simply indifferent (not counting Italy). I believe it has to do with the prevalence of Christianity as an American political topic, and the simple mass of self-identified Christians in that country.

I say Christianity because I've also been called a "Traitor!" for suggesting that Islam and Christianity are equally legitimate from an objective perspective, also in America.

In sum, atheists, at least American atheists, are often more virulent than the religious folk I meet; though that may be a result of mostly meeting clergy, rather than lay religious folk.

I don't find that it's generally "more of the same".

dogma wrote:

Manchu wrote:Out of curiosity, what kind of criticism do you get from other atheists? The worst thing another Catholic has ever said to me is "you're not Catholic."

Most often I hear "You're not an atheist." But the worst has been "You're a racist, homophobic, [series of ironic expletives deleted], because you don't reject a Christian God!" That was, however, relatively recent, and from a student (not one of mine) in a central Illinois college town, where tensions between students from Chicago (and out of state) and students from the rest of the state are known to run high. I've also been called "Republican!", "Stupid.", "Incompetent." and "Woman-hating!"

This was an American speaking, I've found that atheists in Europe tend to be much more jovial or simply indifferent (not counting Italy). I believe it has to do with the prevalence of Christianity as an American political topic, and the simple mass of self-identified Christians in that country.

I say Christianity because I've also been called a "Traitor!" for suggesting that Islam and Christianity are equally legitimate from an objective perspective, also in America.

In sum, atheists, at least American atheists, are often more virulent than the religious folk I meet; though that may be a result of mostly meeting clergy, rather than lay religious folk.

As an American college student I'd like to add that college types tend to be more active and virulent in general. Christian students would have anti-abortion rallies on campus complete with large graphic pictures on display illustrating their controversial cause. At times some Christians would find their way to a soapbox and just start reading from the Bible and try to convert his crowd while often mentioning other controversial subjects.

But in general I think American atheists can be just as annoying especially since several will parrot the demeanor seen by Bill Maher, Bill Hicks, and other speakers that are trying to rile people up in their acts. Especially college kids.

dogma wrote:Most often I hear "You're not an atheist." But the worst has been "You're a racist, homophobic, [series of ironic expletives deleted], because you don't reject a Christian God!"

The "you are not a Catholic" thing was not joined with other slurs because, as you know, it does not need to be. That's the most stringent thing one believer could say to another as it implies mortal sin and peril of hell.

Mannahnin wrote:I don't find that it's generally "more of the same".

Oh I don't know. The proposition isn't "the world would be a better place with a more progressive church" (although Fry at one point simplistically says that Church would be alright if it just sold off its art and gave the proceeds to the poor) but rather "the world would be a better place with no Catholic Church." And the Church is not a hypothetical, abstract thing. It is a real community made up of real communities of real people. So the idea is that the world would be better if we could somehow erase those groups of people or at least erase a significant part of their core identity. That seems rather similar to what gay people have been told in the past: if we could erase who you are, the world would be better off.

I think there's a significant and material difference between wanting an organization disbanded and wanting a particular kind of human being to be dead or to stop being themselves.

Note that I'm not saying that all Catholics or Christians want gay people dead or changed.

My counterpoint is that this is not a matter of a mere organization. The institution of the Church is the full expression of the Christian identity. The Christian identity is fulfilled only in the institutional Church. You can't be Catholic by yourself. There is no such thing as Christianity (in the Catholic sense) without the Church. The Church is not only a temporal thing, sure, but it is inextricably a temporal thing. If the proposition that the Church should be disbanded is made in ignorance of the idea that this directly implies the erasure of personal identity across a billion people then the statement is not thereby rehabilitated.

Manchu wrote:Ah, mattyrm: fighting the good fight against the DakkaDakka rules once again, eh? As you know, calling religion "mass delusion" is flamebait and flamebait is against our rules.

@all: please keep in mind that flamebaiting (and flaming) can result in suspension of your account -- especially if you are a repeat offender.

Allowing a thread like this to exist verges on entrapment for anyone with certain views on organized religion, and you know it.

Anyway, when I heard that woman's voice I was dumbfounded. I thought that when the Men of Monty Python's Flying Circus performed their comical impression of female vocalizations, they were entirely exaggerating, but now it seems that their screeching and wailing has a basis in reality after all. That's bloody terrifying.

warpcrafter wrote:Allowing a thread like this to exist verges on entrapment for anyone with certain views on organized religion, and you know it.

Not at all. Self-control is expected. Threads about politics and religion are not necessarily flamebait in and of themselves..

Manchu wrote:My counterpoint is that this is not a matter of a mere organization. The institution of the Church is the full expression of the Christian identity. The Christian identity is fulfilled only in the institutional Church.

There are, as I'm sure you're aware, many millions of Christians who disagree with that opinion.

Manchu wrote: You can't be Catholic by yourself. There is no such thing as Christianity (in the Catholic sense) without the Church.

No? Can you not be Catholic by yourself in the jungle, or on a mountaintop, or in a prison surrounded by other people who don't share your religion (without access to a priest)? Can you not maintain the same beliefs and offer the same prayers? I think I know what you mean, though. The larger structure and the organized rituals and community are central to the concept. Understood.

Manchu wrote: The Church is not only a temporal thing, sure, but it is inextricably a temporal thing. If the proposition that the Church should be disbanded is made in ignorance of the idea that this directly implies the erasure of personal identity across a billion people then the statement is not thereby rehabilitated.

You make an interesting point. I suspect that you are correct that the people making this suggestion (that the Catholic Church be abolished or disbanded) are making it without taking into consideration how central it is to the identity of a great number of people. And that the people making this suggestion are being too cavalier in assuming that Catholics could worship easily on their own, or within the structure of a smaller or younger church (say, the Episcopal Church) without so many centuries of history, or the same track record of morally dubious acts.

From my perspective it seems like it would not be impossible for Catholics to worship in functionally the same manner within the structure of a smaller and younger church, but I can definitely see how it would not be the same thing and would not have the same continuity or meaning.

It seems to me that there is a larger and more personal sacrifice, or "erasure of personal identity" asked of homosexuals by the Church.

Manchu wrote:The "you are not a Catholic" thing was not joined with other slurs because, as you know, it does not need to be. That's the most stringent thing one believer could say to another as it implies mortal sin and peril of hell.

Ah, I didn't immediately catch your meaning. I understand now though, and depending on the person the phrase "You're not an atheist." carries similar baggage. Dawkins is a good example of that sort of person.

Mannahnin wrote:

Manchu wrote:My counterpoint is that this is not a matter of a mere organization. The institution of the Church is the full expression of the Christian identity. The Christian identity is fulfilled only in the institutional Church.

There are, as I'm sure you're aware, many millions of Christians who disagree with that opinion.

Agreed. Jesus Christ says there is only one 'church', but the word refers to those who are part of His community not any one specific denomination. Simple proof of this, those people who Jesus himself called 'not far from the Kingdom of God' were not part of any identifiable denomination. The redeemed thief on the cross certainly wasnt.

Mannahnin wrote:

Manchu wrote: You can't be Catholic by yourself. There is no such thing as Christianity (in the Catholic sense) without the Church.

No? Can you not be Catholic by yourself in the jungle, or on a mountaintop, or in a prison surrounded by other people who don't share your religion (without access to a priest)? Can you not maintain the same beliefs and offer the same prayers? I think I know what you mean, though. The larger structure and the organized rituals and community are central to the concept. Understood.

The Vatican not longer agrees with this, for the most part. While it is not up to any man to determine salvation of individuals the Evangelical Alliance was set up to broadly categorise churches to seperate them from from cults that call themselves churches. There may indeed have been some difficulty but all major denominations including Roman Catholicism came up with a broad outline as to what makes a true church, namely based on the single doctrinal question: 'if someone followed the teaching of any particular denomination would it result in salvation through Jesus Christ'. This single core issue is the true heart of what makes a Christian, to say otherwise is to utterly reject the central message of Christianity on which all else rests. everything else can be up for interpretation. Even doctrines that are of great importance to many denomination such as the virgin birth, identity of Mary, baptism methods etc are secondary to the single pivotal message of salvation. This is understood by all major denominations including the Roman Catholics and agreed under treaty and ratified by the Vatican. While the intent was to cleanly seperate churches such as the Protestant, Orthodox and Roman Catholic denominations from "churches" such as the JW's and Christian Scientists it had braoder implications. Thus even from a Roman Catholic point of view there is valid Christianity outside of 'the Church', though they reserve the right to disagree with it on most issues.

Most Buddhist and Hindus I know don't feel put upon, they generally tend to feel like non-entities. Generally in the West when religion is discussed, it almost invariably means Christianity, Judaism, and Islam even if the general topic and word tossed around is 'religion'. It is only after it is pointed out that people act as if they meant to include them.

I'm too proud to feel like a nonentity, but it definitely does feel a bit odd sometimes to not even be accounted for, because of the massive size of the other groups. It often feels like there's a false dichotomy in place in a lot of people's thinking about religion. On the other hand, I got to see through Pascal's Wager pretty quick.

Ahtman wrote:Most Buddhist and Hindus I know don't feel put upon, they generally tend to feel like non-entities. Generally in the West when religion is discussed, it almost invariably means Christianity, Judaism, and Islam even if the general topic and word tossed around is 'religion'. It is only after it is pointed out that people act as if they meant to include them.

I'd imagine because in the West, those are the "big 3". If Dakka were an Indian board, or located somewhere in the Far East, I am sure discussion would focus far more heavily on Hindus, Buddists, etc because there would be more followers of those creeds represented.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Most Buddhist and Hindus I know don't feel put upon, they generally tend to feel like non-entities. Generally in the West when religion is discussed, it almost invariably means Christianity, Judaism, and Islam even if the general topic and word tossed around is 'religion'. It is only after it is pointed out that people act as if they meant to include them.

I'd imagine because in the West, those are the "big 3". If Dakka were an Indian board, or located somewhere in the Far East, I am sure discussion would focus far more heavily on Hindus, Buddists, etc because there would be more followers of those creeds represented.

I don't believe I said I didn't understand why they are overlooked. It still doesn't excuse using the general term religion when one isn't actually referring to religion in general but only specific manifestations of religion. Admittedly you run into this problem much more from athiests as they will say something like 'religion is X' in which X really only applies to the Religions of the Book, becuase, lets face, while there are a great deal of thoughtful athiests, many are alo emo teens rebelling and so it is a rant against the perceived power structure.

Also, understanding why they are often treated as non-entities doesn't mean that actually are non-entities. It isn't as if there are only 10 Hindus in the US or the UK so they can just be ignored.

Ahtman wrote:I don't believe I said I didn't understand why they are overlooked.

I wasn't meaning to suggest you didn't - I was putting the point out there for the sake of clarity.

It still doesn't excuse using the general term religion when one isn't actually referring to religion in general but only specific manifestations of religion. Admittedly you run into this problem much more from athiests as they will say something like 'religion is X' in which X really only applies to the Religions of the Book, becuase, lets face, while there are a great deal of thoughtful athiests, many are alo emo teens rebelling and so it is a rant against the perceived power structure.

I would suggest that as with many things, people will talk about what they know most about. I know virtually nothing about the beliefs of Hindus and Buddhists which means that if someone starts talking about them I have pretty much nothing to say without having to go away and look up even their most basic beliefs. However, living in a society where I come across Christians, Muslims, and to a much lesser degree, Jews, I have some understanding of their basic beliefs, religious structures, etc.

It is kind of like people talking about sport where people are discussing football and then someone comes in and starts talking about motor boat racing - I know it exists and I know you use a boat and that is pretty much all I can say on the matter

Also, understanding why they are often treated as non-entities doesn't mean that actually are non-entities. It isn't as if there are only 10 Hindus in the US or the UK so they can just be ignored.

I "knew" a handful of Hindus at university. Other than those relatively casual friends I've never knowingly interacted in any meaningful way with a Hindu. I've never knowingly met a Buddhist in the UK, though I have visited many of their temples and shrines in the far east (they are pretty damn amazing). In my day to day I simply don't interact with them which means I am unlikely ever to meaningfully discuss their religions and so build up my knowledge about them.

SilverMK2 wrote:I would suggest that as with many things, people will talk about what they know most about.

So are you saying most people are unaware that religions outside of Abrahamic ones exist? That, say for example, that most people on Dakka are reading this thread and are thinking that we just made up the word Hindu? You have been to the temples and seen there is a history and that 2 billion + people practice some form of other belief system, yet when you talk about religion yet seem to think that casually forgetting about them when discussion religion as a whole is somehow acceptable because, oops, forgot they existed. You know they exist. I am referring to the broad context of when people are trying to discuss religion in general, even here, they are almost never actually are referring to religion in general, but specific manifestations. My argument is, that more often than not people know these other religions exist so if they want to talk about religion in general they better make sure they actually are. To put it in a more clear way, if someone were to say all religions believe that Jesus is the son of God, you would realize that they actually aren't talking about all religion. It isn't that much different for people of these other faiths when they see discussion about religion.

As for not knowing much about religions, you weren't born with innate knowledge of Islam, Judaism or Christianity either.

All I know is that I find religion stressful and depressing. I think it has the potential for much good but can equally be misused.

Also Stephen Frys arguments are a bit thin.

halonachos wrote:That's the point about Ash Wednesday actually. On Ash Wednesday the church takes the ashes from the burned palms from Palm Sunday and the parishioners get a cross of ashes on their forehead to symbolize the fact that they are a sinner. The church's main thing is that man cannot be perfect because only God is perfect, the Pope and Catholic church only have authority over Catholics and then again its up to the individual to listen or not. As far as them having any authority, well its a consolation prize for not getting laid for 70+ years. Either that or they've been living a life prescribed by the church for that amount of time so they exhibit the qualitites of a good religious leader. John Paul II was put up for sainthood because of how he acted despite the fact that he was deteriorating mentally and physically, the guy also forgave his would be assassin which is something not a lot of people would even think of doing. That's why the higher church is supposed to have authority, because they're supposed to be devout followers of the creed who have dedicated their entire life to doing so.

Any authority that they imagine themselves to have is simply a measure of their influence over those that follow their particular religious creed, it has nothing to do with being a "consolation prize" for keeping their manhood in their pants for any length of time (something that many priests seem to have an issue with).

Neither does it seem to have anything to do with the actual actions taken by any religious leader, at least in the modern era. Religious figures such as Mother Teresa and the current Pope have presided over acts of terrible cruelty and inhumanity to their fellow human beings and yet the faithful still line up to proclaim that they were saints and the sun shone out of their rectums.

The sole claim to authority made on the part of religion and its leaders is and has always been: "I'm right and God agrees with me; if you disagree, you disagree with God and he'll punish you...so fall in line and shut up."

Orlanth wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I think I know what you mean, though. The larger structure and the organized rituals and community are central to the concept. Understood.

The Vatican not longer agrees with this, for the most part. While it is not up to any man to determine salvation of individuals the Evangelical Alliance was set up to broadly categorise churches to seperate them from from cults that call themselves churches.

The Catholic Church identifies only itself (including Eastern Orthodoxy) as the fullness of truth. From this perspective, every other group that professes the Nicene Creed is not a church in the proper sense. In Catholicism, "church" has a few specific meanings. Yes, it can be the specific building in which Christians worship and yes it can mean the mystical body of Christ that encompasses all believers. As a matter of specific communities, the label "church" adheres to the diocesan level -- the Church of Richmond, the Church of Cleveland, the Church of Detroit, etc. Church in this sense is therefore defined by the presence of a bishop in legitimate succession to the apostles. This explains why non-Catholic communities cannot be "churches," as they have no valid episcopate. This teaching, however, does not at all imply that non-Catholics or even non-Christians are beyond salvation.

Mannahnin wrote:

Manchu wrote: You can't be Catholic by yourself. There is no such thing as Christianity (in the Catholic sense) without the Church.

No? Can you not be Catholic by yourself in the jungle, or on a mountaintop, or in a prison surrounded by other people who don't share your religion (without access to a priest)? Can you not maintain the same beliefs and offer the same prayers? I think I know what you mean, though. The larger structure and the organized rituals and community are central to the concept. Understood.

I don't think you do understand given this comment:

Mannahnin wrote:It seems to me that there is a larger and more personal sacrifice, or "erasure of personal identity" asked of homosexuals by the Church.

Catholicism is a preservation of tradition by transmission throughout time via community, not only in terms of its "teachings" (which could be easily preserved by text alone) but of its "experience" of salvation. In a cosmological sense, we call this the "communion of saints." Communion is the key word. When one says "I am Catholic" one does not only express belief in certain dogmas but more importantly membership in a certain community by which we are all, all Christians in all times in unbroken succession from the days when Christ founded His Church, linked together. In Catholic theology, this isn't just a matter of ritual -- this is how salvation history proceeds. Disbanding the Church means no more Catholicism. From any religious point of view, whether or not you think people of your own sex are attractive is a rather petty consideration. (I don't know of any religion premised on sexual orientation.) The possibility of redemption, the relationship to the divine, the meaningfulness of suffering -- these, by contrast, are far more significant issues. I'd say it's at least as "large" and "personal" as asking people, both hetero- and homosexual, not to engage in illicit sex acts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Carmine the Wolf wrote: Religious figures such as Mother Teresa and the current Pope have presided over acts of terrible cruelty and inhumanity to their fellow human beings and yet the faithful still line up to proclaim that they were saints and the sun shone out of their rectums.

Your understanding is totally out of touch with reality.

Ahtman wrote:So are you saying most people are unaware that religions outside of Abrahamic ones exist? That, say for example, that most people on Dakka are reading this thread and are thinking that we just made up the word Hindu? You have been to the temples and seen there is a history and that 2 billion + people practice some form of other belief system, yet when you talk about religion yet seem to think that casually forgetting about them when discussion religion as a whole is somehow acceptable because, oops, forgot they existed. You know they exist. I am referring to the broad context of when people are trying to discuss religion in general, even here, they are almost never actually are referring to religion in general, but specific manifestations. My argument is, that more often than not people know these other religions exist so if they want to talk about religion in general they better make sure they actually are. To put it in a more clear way, if someone were to say all religions believe that Jesus is the son of God, you would realize that they actually aren't talking about all religion. It isn't that much different for people of these other faiths when they see discussion about religion.

So, when you talk about football, do you expressly designate that you are talking about American football? Or are you happy for people to come in and start talking about actual football? When talking about motor sport, do you specifically say what league/brand you are talking about, or are you happy for people to start talking about F1 racing when you were talking about touring cars?

What happens if you don't know anything about proper football? Would you automatically think and talk about American football if someone asked you to talk about "football"?

That is the point - you talk about what you know, and you know what you experience.

By all means, open up the discussion to include other major religions if you really want to. I don't think anyone would attempt to stop you. Hell, I would be happy to learn more about religions I don't have much experience of.

As for not knowing much about religions, you weren't born with innate knowledge of Islam, Judaism or Christianity either.

And where did you learn most of what you know about those religions? From the people around you? I, like everyone in the UK did RE (or RS, or whatever it is called these days) at school (thankfully I was able to drop it rather than continue on to do a qualification in it). That was a long time ago - the last "official" religious lesson I attended was when I was about 12/13 - more than half my lifetime ago and I can't remember much other than I used to colour in the worksheets and wish I was doing science or playing computer games Since that time I have forgotten the little I learned about "world religions" (ie those outside the Abrahamic threesome) through disuse and, as I mentioned earlier, not interacting with members of those religions in any meaningful way. Pretty much everything I know about religion I have learned through interacting with others; friends, people I have met, guides in foreign places, etc. And yes, I have been over much of the world and seen many of the temples, shrines and so on of other cultures and religions - in the same way that I have taken tours of battlefields, seen mass graves, etc. I went because I wanted to see the architecture, sample the atmosphere and because it is not something you see every day and perhaps to learn a little on the side. That doesn't somehow give me the kind of in depth cultural and religious knowledge that I would need to discuss other religions in any meaningful depth other than to acknowledge their existence.

The vast majority of any religion (or lack thereof) rarely talk about their beliefs without being asked to. But the loudmouthed idiots who rub their beliefs in you face, the ones who question you before insulting whatever belief you say you follow, are the ones you remember. Meanwhile the rest of that religion walk on by, annoyed that these people are giving them a bad name.
That's why I think certain beliefs become hated. Because the idiotic minority are the ones you hear about.

SilverMK2 wrote:

So, when you talk about football, do you expressly designate that you are talking about American football?

Really? You were right to smack your own head. In the UK, USA, and any English speaking country, the word religion is the same.

SilverMK2 wrote:And where did you learn most of what you know about those religions?

Books, talking to people, school. It is interesting to me that you keep pointing out that you traveled and met people yet are extremely ignorant of these things. I'm not talking about advanced knowledge but you admit to not even having rudimentary information. It is a strange combination claiming both to be savvy and informed while simultaneously claiming, and excusing, ignorance. You don't need in depth knowledge of these things to be able to know they exist, and once you do, pretending they don't is kinda silly. I never said people needed to be experts on the subject, and if you look at many threads on Dakka you'll see people who aren't experts offering opinions on subjects they have little training in.

Ahtman wrote:Really? You were right to smack your own head. In the UK, USA, and any English speaking country, the word religion is the same.

You missed my point. I say football, and what do you think of? American football? Or Soccer? Do you immediately think of the version of football you are most familiar with?

I say religion and what do you think of? [insert your religion here]? Possibly followed by [insert religions your are most familiar with outside your main belief]? Possibly followed by the other major religions? Possibly followed by some of the larger outlier religions? How about cults? You want to include those as well? What about philosophies? Hell, I am sure there are hundreds of extinct religions we could drag into the discussion as well - I hear Horus and the Jaguar god of South America would drink Thor under the table.

The point is that "religion" is a hell of a huge topic. I'm sure there are hundreds of "religions" that only a few people will have heard of and you will automatically filter out a lot of them when you talk about religion.

The point is that there is a limit to how much any one lay person can know about religion and there is no point in someone who has little or no knowledge on a subject holding forth on it. As I said, by all means bring in other religions - I'm happy to learn. But please, don't keep going on about how the "other" religions are not represented and then do nothing to remedy the situation even when directly asked to bring them into the discussion

Books, talking to people, school. It is interesting to me that you keep pointing out that you traveled and met people yet are extremely ignorant of these things. I'm not talking about advanced knowledge but you admit to not even having rudimentary information.

Rudimentary knowledge I have, knowledge enough to discuss comparative cultures and religion I do not. Perhaps your definition of rudimentary knowledge or expectation of knowledgeable discussion is different to mine.

You don't need in depth knowledge of these things to be able to know they exist, and once you do, pretending they don't is kinda silly.

... I'm struggling to think of when I implied that "other" religions don't exist simply because they are not being talked about...

I never said people needed to be experts on the subject, and if you look at many threads on Dakka you'll see people who aren't experts offering opinions on subjects they have little training in.

Indeed.

So, you want to talk about the fourth refuge now? I don't know anything much about it but I have wikipedia and I'm not afraid to use it to talk to you about something that I have no personal experience of if it will make you happy

SilverMK2 wrote:I say religion and what do you think of?

I think of a large, broad subject that encompasses an amazing amount of information and experiences going back as far as long as there have been humans. If I want to talk about Christianity I will use that term. If I want to talk about Islam I will use the term Islam. If I want to talk about Roman Mystery Religions I will refer to them as such. I won't use the generic term religion to refer to a specific religion. If I forget something, or overlook something, and it is pointed out I won't pretend it ok and make excuses and continue making the same mistake, I will recognize the problem and try to correct it. As is always true, context is king.

First you state:

SilverMK2 wrote:I know virtually nothing about the beliefs of Hindus and Buddhists

Now you are saying:

SilverMK2 wrote:Rudimentary knowledge I have

Make up your mind.

Manchu wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I think I know what you mean, though. The larger structure and the organized rituals and community are central to the concept. Understood.

The Vatican not longer agrees with this, for the most part. While it is not up to any man to determine salvation of individuals the Evangelical Alliance was set up to broadly categorise churches to seperate them from from cults that call themselves churches.

The Catholic Church identifies only itself (including Eastern Orthodoxy) as the fullness of truth. From this perspective, every other group that professes the Nicene Creed is not a church in the proper sense. In Catholicism, "church" has a few specific meanings. Yes, it can be the specific building in which Christians worship and yes it can mean the mystical body of Christ that encompasses all believers. As a matter of specific communities, the label "church" adheres to the diocesan level -- the Church of Richmond, the Church of Cleveland, the Church of Detroit, etc. Church in this sense is therefore defined by the presence of a bishop in legitimate succession to the apostles. This explains why non-Catholic communities cannot be "churches," as they have no valid episcopate. This teaching, however, does not at all imply that non-Catholics or even non-Christians are beyond salvation.

While that explains the standard Catholic mindset it still doesn't account for this statement if taken as a Christian doctrine:

Manchu wrote:
My counterpoint is that this is not a matter of a mere organization. The institution of the Church is the full expression of the Christian identity. The Christian identity is fulfilled only in the institutional Church.

You see the Catholic church can choose to 'identify itself' as the 'fullness of truth' if it pleases, it cannot effectively make any statement even within a Christian paradigm critical of other denominations with the backing of scripture, and this is the big difference.

Yes Catholism claims a apostolic succession and other denominations often do not, this is not a case of unique validity, merely of relevance. Taken from a purely Biblical point of view, apostolic succession is irrelevant to many Christians and is theologically baseless from some points of view. Catholics claim primacy based on a doctrine that is not in fact scriptural, but based purely on church tradition. Priestly succession is in fact an Old Testament concept with priests descending only from the tribe of Levi and this effectively ended with the New Covenant. The New Testament makes no comment on apostolic succession, the closest it does so is Jesus promise to Peter that his faction will endure, as indeed it has as Roman Catholicism, however the book of Acts pretty much debunks apostolic succession with the disagreement between Peter and Paul and the rivalry with Apollos. Paul's comments on authority to preach the Gospel can be summed up in Philippians 1:18 -

But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice,

If it is beneficial that the Gospel is preached by those who do so for ill motive, how much more those who do so without proper accreditation but potentially good motive. In either case authorisation from Peter (and thus Catholic authority) is not an absolute requirement. Brothers are expected to live in unity, but not necessarily in submission to any earthly faction under Christ but to Christ himself.

It is issues like this which point out the need for such bodies like the Evangelical Alliance, to provide a common ground, based solely on known scripture to determine what makes someone a genuine follower of Jesus Christ and what does not.

@Orlanth:

The Church has existed for longer than the collection of texts known as the New Testament. (As has the Gospel, please keep in mind.) There can be no necessity to find a scriptural basis for theology and liturgy because these things predate scripture. It's not as if Christians put everything on hold until the Church Fathers got around to defining the canon. The Protestant obsession with scriptural bases has never made any sense to me. In any case, the question is not authority to preach the gospel but rather authority to teach (interpret).

The "Evangelical Alliance" is just an attempt to do what the Catholic Church has always done. Historically, definitively being a follower of Jesus Christ or not comes down to one thing: confession of the Nicene Creed. We don't need a council of Protestant sects to further clarify that issue.

Ahtman wrote:Make up your mind.

Please, ignore the rest of the context of my posts after saying that context is king. Or do you think that throwing up strawmen is the best way to try and "win" a debate?

SilverMK2 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Make up your mind.

Please, ignore the rest of the context of my posts after saying that context is king. Or do you think that throwing up strawmen is the best way to try and "win" a debate?

How is it a strawman? You first said you didn't know almost anything about the subject, which in this day and age is admirable as people often would rather lie than admit to not knowing something, then a few posts later you turn around and say you do know something about it. They are contradictory statements made by you, all I am doing is trying to reconcile them.

We seem to be wondering off the subject, much like Orlanth and Manchu. My only point was that not all religious groups feel put upon, some feel non-existent. I'm not making a value judgment about the state of either, that is, to say that one situation is worse than the other, just that it is what happens.

Edit: I think I see the issue. We were talking about a subject (eastern/non-western religious movements) and referring to knowledge of those fields then you switched it up and used it to mean knowledge in general, thus throwing the conversation into a murky spot. I have no doubt you have a good amount of knowledge on a great many subjects.

Ahtman wrote:How is it a strawman?

Because you are misrepresenting my position and ignoring most of what I am saying in favour of picking out your own informal fallacy.

You first said you didn't know almost anything about the subject, which in this day and age is admirable as people often would rather lie than admit to not knowing something, then a few posts later you turn around and say you do know something about it. They are contradictory statements made by you, all I am doing is trying to reconcile them.

I know enough to know that I don't know enough to have any kind of informed in depth discussion on the nature of religion and the cultures they come from and the cultures they have helped shape. Which is something I have been saying all along and is, I will hope you see, not in fact contradictory. Indeed, I can only assume that your continued pursuit of this is to make up for any substantial return of your own.

My only point was that not all religious groups feel put upon, some feel non-existent. I'm not making a value judgment about the state of either, that is, to say that one situation is worse than the other, just that it is what happens.

Once, on one of my many journeys into the world I spoke to some locals who quite literally could not comprehend the fact that I did not believe in (a) god(s) - their world view simply did not allow their minds to process this way of thinking. Does that mean atheists don't exist?



Edit: I have seen your edit and agree - see my later post

We are all friends here