Zone1 The biggest difference between Catholicism and Protestantism.

[Ace Nova]

God is dumping Catholics in favor of Evangelical Protestants.

A 'god' may do that.

But God The Father, Son and Holy Spirit likely won't anytime soon. Just a guess.

 

[Woodznutz]

A 'god' may do that.

But God The Father, Son and Holy Spirit likely won't anytime soon. Just a guess.

Catholicism is declining in the Christian west. However, it is increasing in the developing countries of the east and Africa. Latin America is seeing declines in Catholicism and increases in Protestantism.

 

[ninja007]

Yes, and Catholic/Orthodox beliefs may be more strongly rooted in Jewish beliefs and insights. Purgatory is one, and the way Catholics/Orthodox view salvation may well be another.

purgatory is not in the bible.

 

[Meriweather]

purgatory is not in the bible.

Purification is.

 

[Donald H]

Most of modern "Christianity" wouldn't recognize or approve of the real Jesus or His apostles.

Christianity is undergoing change that makes it quite impossible for one Christian to believe the same as another. There's no way of knowing if that can ever end in agreement amongst all Christians. For example: Stories in their bibles are being interpreted as literal truths by some, while some others are saying that the stories can't be literally true.

This could be found to be acceptable if there was any rational approach to their differences, but when they still disagree on tales such as Jonah living in the belly of a big fish, there's no starting point from which to work from on ever reaching agreement.

Why do modern Christians such as our Ding, allow the 'literal' believers to stay hidden in their faith closets? If the differences were addressed in good faith, the Christian faith could perhaps at least start to come together as one faith, instead of constantly dividing again and again.

Even the Catholic church is sending signals that it's about to split down the middle! If Jews and Christians can live in harmony with completely contrary belief systems, why can't Catholics and Protestants or other catholic just agree that their bibles aren't meant to mean anything?

In a world of modern science, the only bible that can be safe from everlasting contrary interpretations, would have to be a black covered book with blank pages.

 

[Donald H]

Purification is.

You see Meri? There's an attitude amongst the different brands of Christians of needing to find disagreement in order to uphold one sect's interpretation of simple questions, when there could be an attitude of finding agreement.

As atheists we aren't hogtied with preconceived conditions that your faith demands be upheld.

Is that because agreement is always going to be impossible?

In actual practice, Christians are still trying to write a bible, while modern science is erasing everything that was jotted down on page 1!

 

[Meriweather]

You see Meri? There's an attitude amongst the different brands of Christians of needing to find disagreement in order to uphold one sect's interpretation of simple questions, when there could be an attitude of finding agreement.

Is that because agreement is always going to be impossible?

Which do you think is better worship:

• Praying in words to God
• Meditating on scripture
• Contemplative prayer
• Praying the Rosary
• Praying Psalms
• Daily Practice of the Beatitudes
• Going to Daily Mass
• Reading/Researching Scripture
• Reading/Researching Early Church History and the Church Fathers
• Reading/Researching Christianity's Jewish roots
• Church Bible Study
• Participating in Various Church Ministries

I could argue these...and I would only be arguing with myself at different points in my life.

There is a lot of discussion, debate, arguing here in this forum, and in the end it is the Body of Christ arguing different points in different stages of growth and development. Understanding is what is important to us.

Take Mary for example, and the insistence of some that she had other children after Jesus. They are certain Jesus had brothers named James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. (Matthew 13:55) In those days, the Greek and Hebrew used the same word to mean blood siblings and other close relatives. This was Adelphoi in Greek. For some reason this is so important that Mary and Joseph had these sons that they skip over other Gospel verses and writings of the early Church Fathers.

Both Matthew and John write of three Mary's at the crucifixion. One of these was Mary, wife of Clopas. This Mary was identified as a close relative (Adelphi) of Mary the mother of Jesus. Her husband, Clopas, was Adelphoi to Joseph. Clopas and Mary's children were (you guessed it) James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (sometimes called Thaddeus). They were Jesus' close relatives, not his siblings. Interesting family, and interesting family dynamics, but not to those who insist they were Mary and Joseph's sons, not the sons of Clopas and his wife Mary. Does it really matter? Probably only to genealogists, but I love genealogy! While genealogy matters to me, clearly it matters greatly to others that Mary and Joseph had at least four sons after the birth of Jesus.

 

[Meriweather]

As atheists we aren't hogtied with preconceived conditions that your faith demands be upheld.

This makes me laugh. Some atheists argue scripture more than theists do. The difference is atheists play only one card while theists have dozens and can delve much deeper.

In actual practice, Christians are still trying to write a bible, while modern science is erasing everything that was jotted down on page 1!

Christians study and delve into the philosophy(s) of mankind. Try as they might (and true scientists haven't the interest) no "scientist" has erased or can erase any Biblical philosophy. That's like claiming cooks are erasing every pattern seamstresses and tailors design...that all chefs and bakers have to do is spread chocolate frosting over the pattern.

 

[Picaro]

As atheists we aren't hogtied with preconceived conditions that your faith demands be upheld.

lol rubbish. 'Atheists' make up dumb crap all the time re religion. Example:

Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars, regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now. Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[5] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[6]

Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-Earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over biological evolution. Russell claims "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat", and ascribes popularization of the flat-Earth myth to histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving.Washington Irving - Wikipedia

This one still pops here now and then, usually from some dufus deviant trying to pretend they're 'all about science n rationalism n stuff'.

And, we're still waiting on all that scientific genetic stuff re homos and evolution; so far zilch on both of those 'sciencey' claims.

 

[ninja007]

Purification is.

where? certainly not pertaining to us after we accept christ.

 

[Meriweather]

certainly not pertaining to us after we accept christ.

Especially then.

 

[Donald H]

lol rubbish. 'Atheists' make up dumb crap all the time re religion. Example:

Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars, regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now. Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[5] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[6]

Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-Earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over biological evolution. Russell claims "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat", and ascribes popularization of the flat-Earth myth to histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving.Washington Irving - Wikipedia

This one still pops here now and then, usually from some dufus deviant trying to pretend they're 'all about science n rationalism n stuff'.

And, we're still waiting on all that scientific genetic stuff re homos and evolution; so far zilch on both of those 'sciencey' claims.

According to you, some Christian got the 'round' earth theory right!

Catholics appear to have got the 'big fish and Jonah' belief right too but it took them until the late 20th. century to say so.

While atheists can and do start with 'we dunno' and don't find ourselves having to pretend that we believed ini the

'big fish' ,etc. tales. That's all I'm saying. We're not encumbered by hocus-pocus.

 

[Donald H]

This makes me laugh. Some atheists argue scripture more than theists do. The difference is atheists play only one card while theists have dozens and can delve much deeper.

Christians study and delve into the philosophy(s) of mankind.

Yes, some do

Try as they might (and true scientists haven't the interest) no "scientist" has erased or can erase any Biblical philosophy.

A scientist's objective is not to erase biblical beliefs. Some are Christians themselves and have double-barreled beliefs that they don't allow to clash in their minds. We've discussed that matter but we need to pursue the question more.

That's like claiming cooks are erasing every pattern seamstresses and tailors design...that all chefs and bakers have to do is spread chocolate frosting over the pattern.

The tailors and bakers don't have issues concerning their work that need to be discarded as being wrong. They can simply decide to turn to new and improved methods of baking a cake or sewing a torn shirt with a machine. As with the atheist, they have noting invested in needing to continue with outdated methods or beliefs.

I have nothing invested in believing the 'one' big bang, while our Ding is totally invested in the theory.

Christianity had invested in theories that rejected the fossil records, for one alternative example of the point I've made.

Allow me to get down to our basic differences. You contend that the bibles have always been completely understood as not being literally true. vs. My contention that most of the bibles were accepted as being literally true until the early 20th. century when some churches turned to damage control by asking their flocks to accept that all the stories were never meant to be literally true.

Some churches and their flocks' beliefs are still evolving in the early 21st. century!

 

[Donald H]

Which do you think is better worship:

• Praying in words to God
• Meditating on scripture
• Contemplative prayer
• Praying the Rosary
• Praying Psalms
• Daily Practice of the Beatitudes
• Going to Daily Mass
• Reading/Researching Scripture
• Reading/Researching Early Church History and the Church Fathers
• Reading/Researching Christianity's Jewish roots
• Church Bible Study
• Participating in Various Church Ministries

I could argue these...and I would only be arguing with myself at different points in my life.

While I as an atheist can't have an opinion on preferring any one method over another of course. You must know why, and so why do you ask the question?

There is a lot of discussion, debate, arguing here in this forum, and in the end it is the Body of Christ arguing different points in different stages of growth and development. Understanding is what is important to us.

You're always free to not accept an argument on the basis of only understanding is important. But you and other Christians must feel that a counter-argument is necessary. That appears to be because Christians fear that their interpretations are being rejected by some. Having said that, I also need to say that the missionary's motivation is playing a part too.

Take Mary for example, and the insistence of some that she had other children after Jesus. They are certain Jesus had brothers named James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. (Matthew 13:55) In those days, the Greek and Hebrew used the same word to mean blood siblings and other close relatives. This was Adelphoi in Greek. For some reason this is so important that Mary and Joseph had these sons that they skip over other Gospel verses and writings of the early Church Fathers.

Both Matthew and John write of three Mary's at the crucifixion. One of these was Mary, wife of Clopas. This Mary was identified as a close relative (Adelphi) of Mary the mother of Jesus. Her husband, Clopas, was Adelphoi to Joseph. Clopas and Mary's children were (you guessed it) James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (sometimes called Thaddeus). They were Jesus' close relatives, not his siblings. Interesting family, and interesting family dynamics, but not to those who insist they were Mary and Joseph's sons, not the sons of Clopas and his wife Mary. Does it really matter? Probably only to genealogists, but I love genealogy! While genealogy matters to me, clearly it matters greatly to others that Mary and Joseph had at least four sons after the birth of Jesus.

I get your point that different beliefs don't matter. I'll just say that that narrative doesn't matter to me. You know that too. I'm good/not good, with either interpretation, and so we've found a beginning on agreement!

But for instance, the fossil records matter, and some churches still reject that science. Perhaps 'all' churches rejected the fossil records at one point in time? The Catholic church doesn't reject it, at last printing but Ken Ham's church (Answers in Genesis) certainly does continue to reject it. It matters a lot because his church makes a mockery of the science.

I think that the Catholic church and atheists are now equally invested in the science together!

 

[Donald H]

This is absolutely disgusting nonsense of course:

The Fossil Record

Extensive fossil graveyards and coal deposits are more consistent with a global catastrophe than with slow and steady processes over millions of years.

answersingenesis.org

But a large number of Christians still fear to say it's so! It's not a large portion of Christianity's beliefs dating back to before Darwin's time, it is today's beliefs by a reasonable large portion of modern Christianity.

But an even larger number of Christians are refusing to distance themselves with A in G's beliefs.

And therefore it's quite reasonable to suggest that all Christianity takes the hit for it!

The answer for that hesitation by Christians is clear. They still regard that sort of nonsense as the truth that must not be spoken!

 

[Meriweather]

some churches still reject that science

Shouldn't matter. By that I mean, there are many small branches of science I simply ignore because they don't interest me and do not affect how I live my life. Whether creation took place in six literal 24-hour days, or over a few billion years does not affect how I live my life today. How I live my life lies in the realm of philosophy, not physical science.

 

[Donald H]

Shouldn't matter. By that I mean, there are many small branches of science I simply ignore because they don't interest me and do not affect how I live my life. Whether creation took place in six literal 24-hour days, or over a few billion years does not affect how I live my life today.

Fair enough and so I won't argue that with you because only you can know how much science you can ignore.

How I live my life lies in the realm of philosophy, not physical science.

I could get involved in a debate with you over your assertion that you don't live your life shackled with the reality of physical science. But is there anything to gain by doing that, when some Christians reject the fossil record and others have moved on. Your church moved on and you've obeyed their direction.

Actually I've never criticized you or your beliefs because you've moved on.

I would dare say that it's almost impossible to find a difference in our respective beliefs! Can you?

It's not a can of worms any Christian should want to open, with an atheist around!

 

[Meriweather]

you've obeyed their direction.

You forget...I didn't get any "direction" from the Church. Further, as I've noted before, the Church says each person can make up his/her own mind about how creation came about. The Church could not care less if someone believes in evolution while the parishioner siting next to him believes in a literal six day creation.

 

[ding]

Fair enough and so I won't argue that with you because only you can know how much science you can ignore.

I could get involved in a debate with you over your assertion that you don't live your life shackled with the reality of physical science. But is there anything to gain by doing that, when some Christians reject the fossil record and others have moved on. Your church moved on and you've obeyed their direction.

Actually I've never criticized you or your beliefs because you've moved on.

I would dare say that it's almost impossible to find a difference in our respective beliefs! Can you?

It's not a can of worms any Christian should want to open, with an atheist around!

You're kind of cunty. Are you like that in real life too?

 

[Donald H]

You forget...I didn't get any "direction" from the Church. Further, as I've noted before, the Church says each person can make up his/her own mind about how creation came about.

Well that infers that it's not important doesn't it? To modern science it's not important, because it's clearly stated in the fossil record that it didn't come about. But that's not important to you. And so, we again fail to find any difference in our respective beliefs that are important. Will you accept my suggestion that life evolved from the simplest of life forms? I think you already have if I remember right?

I can assure you that it's extremely important to an atheist on how 'creation' came about. And too, the question on whether creation even actually did come about, as opposed to evolution still coming about.

The Church could not care less if someone believes in evolution while the parishioner siting next to him believes in a literal six day creation.

The Catholic church cares a great deal if one of it's flock believes in evolution and not creation.
You didn't state whether the 'xomeone' was a member or not, and so we still lack any disagreement.