Do the majority of christians know the history of there religion?

[Saquist]

No one truly understands Christianity. Think about it. They have 1000s of denominations because they have 1000s of interpretations of their Holy book because they all have a different idea of what Christianity and its teachings mean. To top it all off most of it is passed down from parents to children where many of those parents are no more qualified to teach religion to their children than they are to teach math or science. Any idiot that has a kid teaches their version of Christianity to their kids no matter how their version compares with anyone else's. Its truly an example of the blind leading the blind.

Also, consider that the Catholic Church provides evident disclosure of it's own contradictionx with the Bible in the volumes of the Catholic Encyclopedia. It offers origins and some confessions of lack of support on the bible.

Roman Catholic Cristianity also has a distrubingly long list of attrocities that many have accused Chrisitianity it's self for commiting. They have been consistently and knowling neglect, opportunistic, immoral and rife with conflict through out thousands of years. They have been a blinding source of darkness not only in relation to bible facts but also to truth as a whole holding back scientific progress not to mention jumping in bed with dictators to ensure the churche's dominance.

Ironic as Hitler would have destroyed the Chruch eventutually.

 

[Myles]

Also, consider that the Catholic Church provides evident disclosure of it's own contradictionx with the Bible in the volumes of the Catholic Encyclopedia. It offers origins and some confessions of lack of support on the bible.

Roman Catholic Cristianity also has a distrubingly long list of attrocities that many have accused Chrisitianity it's self for commiting. They have been consistently and knowling neglect, opportunistic, immoral and rife with conflict through out thousands of years. They have been a blinding source of darkness not only in relation to bible facts but also to truth as a whole holding back scientific progress not to mention jumping in bed with dictators to ensure the churche's dominance.

Ironic as Hitler would have destroyed the Chruch eventutually.

That rotten history is known to every informed person. So, who is attempting to deny evolution and stop stem cell research today ? I suggest it's people with the same mindset as the catholics you refer to.

The whole point is that reason and religious faith have always been at odds and will continue to be so.

 

[Saquist]

Oh yeah despite this being a scientific forum ...They have also agreed with scientist on evolution counter to the Bible so they're hypocrisy is thorough.
Without going into dept the Bible shows a thread of events that do corespond with the occurence of life better than evolution. While the evolution premise is still up in the air the the churches' understanding of evolution and creation are both quite ignorant. They propose to decide for they're partitioners as too how God created the Earth now and before subjected them to unlikely hood that God created the Earth is just six days despite the solid stand of the biblical facts.

(oh and Miles I know you'll respond to that but do not expect a rejoinder)

 

[fusion4577]

their history is actuly quite impresive and scary. in 100 years, euroupe is almost all christian due to the addition of the holiday's that were traditnial to the pagens. from there, it was you are with us or dead. thoose who didn't like it, pop.

 

[Myles]

Oh yeah despite this being a scientific forum ...They have also agreed with scientist on evolution counter to the Bible so they're hypocrisy is thorough.
Without going into dept the Bible shows a thread of events that do corespond with the occurence of life better than evolution. While the evolution premise is still up in the air the the churches' understanding of evolution and creation are both quite ignorant. They propose to decide for they're partitioners as too how God created the Earth now and before subjected them to unlikely hood that God created the Earth is just six days despite the solid stand of the biblical facts.

(oh and Miles I know you'll respond to that but do not expect a rejoinder)

I won't hold my breath waitning for a rejoinder but why not tell others where to find evidence of evolution in the Bible ? I suggest that one can interpret the Bible to mean anything one wants and that goes a long way to explain all th in fighting among Christians . I may be wrong, but I am not aware of a cognate of "evolution" in Ancient Greek. Give me a reference and I shall check it out

How come there was no mention of evolution before Darwin and Huxley? And why was it rejected by ALL Christians at that time ? Were they all misreading the Bible ?

 

[Adstar]

I am Catholic because it is expected of me.

Who expects it of you?


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Saquist]

their history is actuly quite impresive and scary. in 100 years, euroupe is almost all christian due to the addition of the holiday's that were traditnial to the pagens. from there, it was you are with us or dead. thoose who didn't like it, pop.

Scary is right...from being hunted and ostracized suddenly they were accepted and popularized as you said through paganism.

Who expects it of you?


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Likely the parents. He should follow what his parents have outlined though but he should also know that there will be a time for him to make the decision on his own awell.

 

[Tnerb]

as well.

...

 

[Adstar]

Likely the parents. He should follow what his parents have outlined though but he should also know that there will be a time for him to make the decision on his own awell.

If someone is in a religion because some other human being "expects it of them" then that is one of the worst possible reason to be a part of a religion.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Saquist]

...

Yes, Thanks.

If someone is in a religion because some other human being "expects it of them" then that is one of the worst possible reason to be a part of a religion.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

It depends if he's an adult...or a child. Children expect to be taught. They've been taught wrong for thousands of years but it's our thirst to exceed that relationship...especially men that seems to define us as human beings...wer're not satisfied with dictation...we want to know why.

 

[Myles]

If someone is in a religion because some other human being "expects it of them" then that is one of the worst possible reason to be a part of a religion.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I am delighted to be able to agree with you for once.The only problem I see is that a child does not think for itself; it tends to go along with what its "elders and betters" tell it. I broke away when I was fifteen but I imagine a lot of people fail to take religion seriously after a certain age so they drop it or judt go through the motions. For others, its a matter of peer group pressure.

 

[Myles]

Oh yeah despite this being a scientific forum ...They have also agreed with scientist on evolution counter to the Bible so they're hypocrisy is thorough.
Without going into dept the Bible shows a thread of events that do corespond with the occurence of life better than evolution. While the evolution premise is still up in the air the the churches' understanding of evolution and creation are both quite ignorant. They propose to decide for they're partitioners as too how God created the Earth now and before subjected them to unlikely hood that God created the Earth is just six days despite the solid stand of the biblical facts.

(oh and Miles I know you'll respond to that but do not expect a rejoinder



Just something I missed first time round. "evolution premise is stll up in the air "

Evolution is a THEORY based on SOLID SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE and it has the support of scientists worldwife. Only the scientifically illiterate or a handful of scientists with a religious agenda reject it. To say it is still up in the air betrays a total misunderstanding of the standing of evolutionary theory.

 

[John99]

their history is actuly quite impresive and scary. in 100 years, euroupe is almost all christian due to the addition of the holiday's that were traditnial to the pagens. from there, it was you are with us or dead. thoose who didn't like it, pop.

A holiday has little to do with someone's beliefs. AFAIK many Christians believe in stuff like this and it gets people thinking:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

Also the 'Shroud of Turin' is pretty compelling, either way for me it does not matter.

To add to that, i had never heard of that miracle until a few days ago and the shroud of turin cannot be replicated. The way i feel about that is if it cannot be done in present times it could be legitimate.

 

[Myles]

A holiday has little to do with someone's beliefs. AFAIK many Christians believe in stuff like this and it gets people thinking:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

Also the 'Shroud of Turin' is pretty compelling, either way for me it does not matter.

To add to that, i had never heard of that miracle until a few days ago and the shroud of turin cannot be replicated. The way i feel about that is if it cannot be done in present times it could be legitimate.

The Shroud of Turin was subjected to scientific analysis a few years ago and was shown , if I remember correctly, to be about 800-1,000 years old. So it is a fake.

But religious minds are never bothered by facts. When the results were made known to him. a bishop said he was not at all concerned because he considered the Shroud to be a relic, or something of the kind. It is still on display.

 

[John99]

That is not correct, the shroud has never been shown to be fake, and from what i have read about it it is a negative image.

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/shroud-of-turin-negativity.htm

"It is hard to imagine how a faker of relics created a negative image hundreds of years before the discovery of photographic negativity. How did he know that he had it right with no ability to test his work. The negativity is extraordinarily precise and correct. And how did he do so by altering the chemical properties of the carbohydrate coating in which the image resides? But the big question is why?"

I dont think it has ever been reproduced with close to the level of detail and accuracy to call it a reproduction.

The other thing about the 'miracle of the sun' is that kid predicted it and on that very day it happened. She also predicted many other things that can be read about which i cant post because they will be deleted. To be clear i am reading all this stuff off the internet, which is how i learned about them but i try to read a variety of sources and so far i have not seen any that dispute the two thing i mentioned. I would like to see links that do.

From Wikipedia:

As early as July the lady had promised a miracle for the final apparition, on October 13, so that all would believe. What transpired became known as "Miracle of the Sun.

The Miracle of the Sun is an alleged miraculous event that was witnessed by as many as 100,000 people on 13 October 1917 in the Cova da Iria fields near Fátima, Portugal.
--------------------
Pretty compelling.

 

[joepistole]

I would say no, but then is it really necessary? What is striking to me is that most of the seminary school graduates do not know the history of the religion either. I think history while not necessary, does yield a much better understanding and a much better Christian.
It also appears to me that followers of Islam are equally if not more ignorant of the history of their religion.

 

[Nasor]

Also the 'Shroud of Turin' is pretty compelling, either way for me it does not matter.

To add to that, i had never heard of that miracle until a few days ago and the shroud of turin cannot be replicated. The way i feel about that is if it cannot be done in present times it could be legitimate.

The shroud is only "unexplainable" if you stick your fingers in your ears and hum loundly whenever perfectly reasonable explanations are offered (which many christians are admittedly very good at).

From wikipedia:

In 1977, a team of scientists selected by the Holy Shroud Guild developed a program of tests to conduct on the Shroud, designated the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP). Anastasio Cardinal Ballestrero, the archbishop of Turin, granted permission, despite disagreement within the Church. The STURP scientists conducted their testing over five days in 1978. Walter McCrone, a member of the team, upon analyzing the samples he had, concluded in 1979 that the image is actually made up of billions of submicrometre pigment particles....According to McCrone, the pigments used were a combination of red ochre and vermillion tempera paint. The Electron Optics Group of McCrone Associates published the results of these studies in five articles in peer-reviewed journals: Microscope 1980, 28, 105, 115; 1981, 29, 19; Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50 and Acc. Chem. Res. 1990, 23, 77–83. STURP, upon learning of his findings, confiscated McCrone's samples, and brought in other scientists to replace him. In McCrone's words, he was "drummed out" of STURP and continued to defend the analysis he had performed, becoming a prominent proponent of the position that the Shroud is a forgery. As of 2004, no other scientists have been able to confirm or refute McCrone's results with independent experiments, simply because the Vatican refuses to cooperate.

To sum up, a careful analysis that was published in a peer-reviewed journal determined that the shroud image was painted on with common medieval paints.

"It is hard to imagine how a faker of relics created a negative image hundreds of years before the discovery of photographic negativity."

That alone should be proof that this guy has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Negative images date back to at least 470 B.C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_camera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura

 

[Myles]

That is not correct, the shroud has never been shown to be fake, and from what i have read about it it is a negative image.

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/shroud-of-turin-negativity.htm

"It is hard to imagine how a faker of relics created a negative image hundreds of years before the discovery of photographic negativity. How did he know that he had it right with no ability to test his work. The negativity is extraordinarily precise and correct. And how did he do so by altering the chemical properties of the carbohydrate coating in which the image resides? But the big question is why?"

I dont think it has ever been reproduced with close to the level of detail and accuracy to call it a reproduction.

The other thing about the 'miracle of the sun' is that kid predicted it and on that very day it happened. She also predicted many other things that can be read about which i cant post because they will be deleted. To be clear i am reading all this stuff off the internet, which is how i learned about them but i try to read a variety of sources and so far i have not seen any that dispute the two thing i mentioned. I would like to see links that do.

From Wikipedia:

As early as July the lady had promised a miracle for the final apparition, on October 13, so that all would believe. What transpired became known as "Miracle of the Sun.

The Miracle of the Sun is an alleged miraculous event that was witnessed by as many as 100,000 people on 13 October 1917 in the Cova da Iria fields near Fátima, Portugal.
--------------------
Pretty compelling.

Only compelling if you are determined to believe such stuff. I saw a documentary on the Shroud, the material of which was not nearly as old as had been believed. The negative image was also explained. It was all clever stuff but a fake nonetheless. Even the bishop who was involved agreed.

The "miracle" of the sun was no miracle. If you have a knowledge of elementary physics you would realize what the effects on the earth would be if such a thing were to happen. I suggest you read up on mass hallucination for a natural, proven explanation of what was going on. Bear in mind that we often see what we wish to see, particularly if we have been subjected to an emotional build.

 

[Saquist]

The question is what is the purpose believing in the shrouds authenticity?
Will it become another worshiped Idol? If so it's best it burned. Chrisitians already worship the cross and the virgin Mary as well as a myriad of "saints" despite instruction against Idol worship.

 

[Myles]

The question is what is the purpose believing in the shrouds authenticity?
Will it become another worshiped Idol? If so it's best it burned. Chrisitians already worship the cross and the virgin Mary as well as a myriad of "saints" despite instruction against Idol worship.

Let them indulge in their superstitious practices just as you do in yours.

I like your bit " despite instruction against Idol worship ". I find it just as foolish that you believe the Bible as you do that Christians indulge in silly practices. You are all one of a piece in the end in that you share a common illusion.To paraphrase Orwell, some illusions are more illusory than others.