Aren't Catholics Christians, too?

[3 to be 4]

3, I'm not singling you out in particular, and I'm sorry if I made you feel this way. Perhaps my meaning isn't coming out right. What I'm saying is that the majority of Protestants, including Fundamentalists, ( not necessarily you,) feel that way. Am I right in that presumption?

I thank you for your apology.

I dont believe a majority feel that way. A small misguided minority do. I go to a church of 1,200 Evangelicals and i have never heard anything like that. Nor did I hear this amongst the people I knew in the Black Churches of South Carolina or the Non-denominational Church I went to there. I did run across it in the Southern Baptist circle and its one of the reasons I wouldnt go there.

I also believe its irresponsible for a society not to talk about birth control and if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy the option of adoption.

Young people must be reasonably talked to about the consequences of pregnancy, birth control must be made available, care must be provided to poor woman and children and this country must talk more about adoption than it does the abortion vs abstinance.

Abortion is the saddest, most horrific thing imaginable. People in my office were passing out the 3D pictures of a womans unborn baby. When you see that, it makes the urge to do more to talk up adoption, safety nets for the poor, anything that can be done, to reduce a practice that is poisoning our culture.

 

[Tunescribe]

Abortion is the saddest, most horrific thing imaginable.

Worse than twisting in utter agony in hell for all eternity? (Yeah, a cheap shot but couldn't resist. )

 

[3 to be 4]

Worse than twisting in utter agony in hell for all eternity? (Yeah, a cheap shot but couldn't resist. )

most horrific thing on earth then.

 

[thesmee1]

Ok, 3, I'm not feigning ignorance. I'm really, really ignorant about this. What is the difference of the belief system between the Evangelicals and Baptists?I dont need a long manifesto, just a simple outline, if that's possible, will do.

 

[3 to be 4]

Ok, 3, I'm not feigning ignorance. I'm really, really ignorant about this. What is the difference of the belief system between the Evangelicals and Baptists?I dont need a long manifesto, just a simple outline, if that's possible, will do.

to be honest, im not hung up on denominations because its unbiblical. We are supposed to be one body of Christ, free of division. There is room for people will different gifts and talents to worship as one. so I am not an expert on every blank of each ones platform.

But this is from Wikipedia:
Baptists
Theologically, most Baptists emphasize a believer's baptism by full immersion, which is performed on non-infants after a public profession of faith in Jesus as Saviour. Baptists traditionally do not baptize infants, as do most Christian denominations, because of their belief that a person must be old enough to make a public profession of faith in order to be baptized. Another feature of most Baptist churches is that they operate on the congregational governance system, which gives autonomy to individual local Baptist churches. Baptists have traditionally avoided the "top-down" hierarchy which is found in many Christian denominations, such as the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches. However, Baptist churches will often associate in organizations such as the Southern Baptist Convention in the United States, which is the largest Baptist association in the world, and the second-largest Christian denomination in the USA, after the Roman Catholic church.

Evangelical
The word evangelicalism usually refers to religious practices and traditions which are found in conservative, almost always Protestant Christianity. Evangelicalism is typified by an emphasis on evangelism, a personal experience of conversion, biblically oriented faith and a belief in the relevance of Christian faith to cultural issues. In the late 20th century and early 21st century, Protestant people, churches and social movements have often been called evangelical in contrast to Protestant liberalism

so a Baptist can be Evangelical. But a Evangelical isnt always Baptist. In other words Evangelical refers to basic belief that Jesus is Son of God, died for our sins, rose from the grave, we belief in full immersion baptism etc.

Baptists believe in all that but are more of its own denomination that is more controlling and self contained. Evangelicals in general believe once you are baptised you are part of the body anywhere. Baptists often require a commitment to a particular church, in fact that you get Baptised there. I found it much more controlling and "religious". And in the south full of judgement on other denominations.

Many, not all, but many Southern Baptists will tell you often that Catholicism is of the devil. I find that absurd and offensive.

anyways, it did kind of go long but...............

 

[thesmee1]

Not long at all, 3. You've been very helpful in showing me the differences and yet the subtle similarities of both faiths. Thank you.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I want to say that the Coptic Christians were the first. I'm probably wrong, though. I believe they have a sect over in Egypt. I find this fascinating though, that the majority of the fundamentalists, ( not all, ) believe that their way is the only way, and that all others are doomed. I have a friend who's a fundamentalist. I'm Catholic, and she invited me to visit her church, which I did. It was an evening service, and a kid about 12 was going to be baptized. The pastor asked him why he wanted to be baptized, and he replied, ' I saw the movie " Left Behind " and I don't want to be left behind.'

I sat there in utter shock that his parents would let him watch that movie at his age, and that this child was so scared from retribution from God that he felt compelled to do this. Myself, I think God made all these different religions to make the world interesting. Of course their are ultra- right wingers in all things that we do, including religion.

Saw the interesting question about the first Christians, and the interesting "left behind" note... wait til he plays the video game!

Anyway, in terms of surviving churches, my understanding is the Armenians claim the oldest roots, followed by the Ethiopian Orthodox. I believe "Coptic" is different, since "Copt" is a word for Egyptian Christian (although I believe I've also heard of the Ethiopian Coptic church.)

I think Catholicism diverged from Orthodoxy rather than the other way around, but the schism was over very minor liturgical matters.

As to the earliest Christians, we do not know for certain. We do know that the surviving Christianity is Pauline Christianity; as to what came before, you have to interpret to say the Pauline tradition dominated, and you have to interpret to say definitively that they did not. What we know is that the Paulines won.

At the very earliest phase, you have to wonder what different communities believed, in the lapse between Jesus' ministry and the commitment of the gospels to writing some decades after. In the upheaval of the '60s and '70s, you have to think it was much more important that Jesus return, than it would be in the business-as-usual 30s. So, the gospels are markedly concerned with the parousia. After all, the end of the world looked to be at hand! What better time?

Anyway, these are the observations of an avowed outsider to Christianity, so please take them for what they are, historical-based observations, not faith based observations. I do think the question of "what was an early Christian?" is interesting.

I would love to be a fly on the wall to hear what J. thought of the whole thing... "Oh for my sake! Would you just act nice toward each other and forget about the whole 'coming back' thing..."

PFnV

 

[thesmee1]

Saw the interesting question about the first Christians, and the interesting "left behind" note... wait til he plays the video game!

Anyway, in terms of surviving churches, my understanding is the Armenians claim the oldest roots, followed by the Ethiopian Orthodox. I believe "Coptic" is different, since "Copt" is a word for Egyptian Christian (although I believe I've also heard of the Ethiopian Coptic church.)

I think Catholicism diverged from Orthodoxy rather than the other way around, but the schism was over very minor liturgical matters.

As to the earliest Christians, we do not know for certain. We do know that the surviving Christianity is Pauline Christianity; as to what came before, you have to interpret to say the Pauline tradition dominated, and you have to interpret to say definitively that they did not. What we know is that the Paulines won.

At the very earliest phase, you have to wonder what different communities believed, in the lapse between Jesus' ministry and the commitment of the gospels to writing some decades after. In the upheaval of the '60s and '70s, you have to think it was much more important that Jesus return, than it would be in the business-as-usual 30s. So, the gospels are markedly concerned with the parousia. After all, the end of the world looked to be at hand! What better time?

Anyway, these are the observations of an avowed outsider to Christianity, so please take them for what they are, historical-based observations, not faith based observations. I do think the question of "what was an early Christian?" is interesting.

I would love to be a fly on the wall to hear what J. thought of the whole thing... "Oh for my sake! Would you just act nice toward each other and forget about the whole 'coming back' thing..."

PFnV

I find your post quite informative. I was always under the assumption that the copts were one of the originals. The one church I haven't visited and have always wanted to was an orthodox church. I'm sure some people don't like the pomp of a catholic or orthodox service, but in some way, I like it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and more often than not, I am, but didn't the orthodox christians come into being because of Paul? Versus the Catholics with Peter?

 

[thesmee1]

http://maryourmother.net/Eastern.html

I didn't realize how diverse the Catholic church was/ is.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Thesmee, I just did about an hour of posting that got eaten.

You turned out to be right on the Coptic church, on looking at several pages... Coptic is listed as Egyptian/Ethiopian, dating from ce350, the same time as the Armenian church. Basically, the Ethiopian Orthodox used to get their bishop from Alexandria, but Alexandria started slacking in providing this bishop, so in the 20th century they won the right to name their own bishop.

So yeah, when the Ethiopian Orthodox church is saying it is the second oldest church (on a page I visited yesterday,) they're saying their tradition is second oldest. Oh and by the way, we're talking about the Coptic tradition...although its the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition the page was calling that.

http://www.waupun.k12.wi.us/Policy/other/****hut/religions/20 Branches of Christ.html

On the Orthodox/Catholic split, it was in 1054, so its about a millenium late for Peter and Paul. Pauline Christianity, though, is pretty much all surviving Christianity, the Christian "mainstream" as it was recognized and reinforced during the time of Paul and further systematized in subsequent councils, particularly Nicea.

This is not to say, however, that Christianity under Peter, which may have been quite heterodox, was necessarily doctrinally very different from Paul's ideas, whence came (for instance) Acts and the Letters of Paul. All we can really say without too much dispute is that Paul and his followers were concerned, as evidenced by the texts from that time, with recording and collecting texts, and systematizing Christian belief and practice. It is more accurate to say that Peter did not concern himself with Christian "Branding" and consistency to the extent that Paul did, so during Peter's leadership, there was an oral Christianity which may or may not be fully and faithfully duplicated in the written Christianity that succeeded Peter's death (Paul's ascendency.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity

During the time from Jesus' death, for instance, the gospels did not yet exist in their current form, although source documents may have been floating around. This makes "WWJD" a much more interesting question.

Anyway, I'm aware that early Christian history tends to piss off current Christian dogmatists, so I'll let the Wiki pages serve as jumping off points (of course, any page on religion has "disputed neutrality" warnings on Wikipedia.) You can look these up elsewhere as well, but I would definitely complement sources like Catholic Encyclopedia with sources like Wikipedia, or better yet, Sanders' Jesus and Judaism.

Realize when you're reading sacred documents, that the sacred has a history, and that religions have an interest in that history being as sacred as the text it produces (this is not an exclusively Christian phenomenon, of course.)

The Jesus of history may or may not have been what we cobble together out of the 4 canonical gospels, but the beginning of finding that answer is the knowledge that Pauline Christianity shaped what survives in those gospels; and that later at Nicea, other competing doctrines were again culled out.

Question: Was the Jesus who walked the earth identical to the Jesus of faith?

Happy reading!

 

[thesmee1]

Thesmee, I just did about an hour of posting that got eaten.

You turned out to be right on the Coptic church, on looking at several pages... Coptic is listed as Egyptian/Ethiopian, dating from ce350, the same time as the Armenian church. Basically, the Ethiopian Orthodox used to get their bishop from Alexandria, but Alexandria started slacking in providing this bishop, so in the 20th century they won the right to name their own bishop.

So yeah, when the Ethiopian Orthodox church is saying it is the second oldest church (on a page I visited yesterday,) they're saying their tradition is second oldest. Oh and by the way, we're talking about the Coptic tradition...although its the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition the page was calling that.

http://www.waupun.k12.wi.us/Policy/other/****hut/religions/20 Branches of Christ.html

On the Orthodox/Catholic split, it was in 1054, so its about a millenium late for Peter and Paul. Pauline Christianity, though, is pretty much all surviving Christianity, the Christian "mainstream" as it was recognized and reinforced during the time of Paul and further systematized in subsequent councils, particularly Nicea.

This is not to say, however, that Christianity under Peter, which may have been quite heterodox, was necessarily doctrinally very different from Paul's ideas, whence came (for instance) Acts and the Letters of Paul. All we can really say without too much dispute is that Paul and his followers were concerned, as evidenced by the texts from that time, with recording and collecting texts, and systematizing Christian belief and practice. It is more accurate to say that Peter did not concern himself with Christian "Branding" and consistency to the extent that Paul did, so during Peter's leadership, there was an oral Christianity which may or may not be fully and faithfully duplicated in the written Christianity that succeeded Peter's death (Paul's ascendency.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity

During the time from Jesus' death, for instance, the gospels did not yet exist in their current form, although source documents may have been floating around. This makes "WWJD" a much more interesting question.

Anyway, I'm aware that early Christian history tends to piss off current Christian dogmatists, so I'll let the Wiki pages serve as jumping off points (of course, any page on religion has "disputed neutrality" warnings on Wikipedia.) You can look these up elsewhere as well, but I would definitely complement sources like Catholic Encyclopedia with sources like Wikipedia, or better yet, Sanders' Jesus and Judaism.

Realize when you're reading sacred documents, that the sacred has a history, and that religions have an interest in that history being as sacred as the text it produces (this is not an exclusively Christian phenomenon, of course.)

The Jesus of history may or may not have been what we cobble together out of the 4 canonical gospels, but the beginning of finding that answer is the knowledge that Pauline Christianity shaped what survives in those gospels; and that later at Nicea, other competing doctrines were again culled out.

Question: Was the Jesus who walked the earth identical to the Jesus of faith?

Happy reading!

Thanks! No kidding you can get lost in some of this stuff. How I myself interpret Jesus and his works through the Bible, is that he was a teacher, who lived as he spoke. Did he work miracles? Maybe. That's what having faith is all about, I guess.

Question: What were the differences between Paul and Peter that they formed two different, yet very similar sects of Christianity?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Thesmee,

Simple answer? I don't know.

Received wisdom (though received from respected "New Testament" scholars)?

Paul understood that Christianity needed to be preached to the gentiles, and Peter thought Christianity was basically a form of Judaism. Gross oversimplification, from "received wisdom," some years ago. But I think Paul's works bear out the distinction.

Real answer: IF you buy that certain "sayings" materials could not be excised from popular memory, then the "sayings" material from the gospels looks much more trustworthy than the editorial addititions. (For instance, he did thus and such that this prophecy would be fulfilled -- well, Jesus didn't say that. A writer of a gospel said that.)

I think during Peter's time the popular imagination had a broad idea of what Jesus preached, and one or another narrative that explained the meaning of Jesus' passion.

In Paul's time, gospels were written which set down the meaning of Jesus' death. This eventually overshadowed Jesus' meaning in life. Remember, on the day Peter died, the Temple was still standing; the crisis that was to rend Judaism had not fully hit. Once the Temple was destroyed (c. 67 CE, if memory serves,) the meaning of Jesus' death can become something very different (i.e., "replacement theology.")

I personally think Jesus thought he was speaking primarily if not exclusively to Jews, though he was a forward-looking and expansive thinker. I further think he hand-picked Peter to found and lead the church. I don't think he thought that, for instance, Christianity would do away with circumcision and kashruth (remember "every jot, every iota..."?)

I don't really think I have a guess as to whether Peter was waiting for Jesus' return, but certainly in most Paulline documents the return is very important.

Again, these are the guesses of an outsider, based on a good deal of study from the point of view of "best guesses" rather than faith. First and foremost, this is the point of view of a non-believer in the Christian bible.

If you don't believe, you look first at the history, and you are most concerned with the actual personages, and the schools of thought of the times, as best you can make them out. If you do believe, these are less important, and can be reconstructed as necessary to fit the belief system. You trumpet the certainty of the bible as received and do not entertain historical questions, which, after all, are not the point of the book. But if the book is not the point of view of the man (Jesus), you do it all in vain.

I only have questions, not answers, and I have them of my own faith as well. Life in God's service, in my world, is a process of asking and answering the questions, not a process of loudly proclaiming the answers regardless of the dictates of history.

If they come easy, or if they come hard, may your answers and your questions fulfil you!

PFnV

 

[Miss Gomezcat]

Isn't Christianity, by definition, worship of ************ and by that definition, aren't they all Christians?

BTW, I was very confused as a student when I shared a house with a Catholic lady from Northern Ireland. She talked about people of a 'different religion' and it took ages for me to realise that she simply meant Protestants. I had thought that Christians were Christians.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Miss Gomez, it depends who you're talking to. Here on the top edge of the American South, you see ads in papers for employment, where the prospective employer is looking for a "Christian" caregiver, or driver, or garderner (etc.)

It's one of those "you know what we mean, we know what we mean, don't bother" types of deals... "Christian" is used in these ads to mean protestants, and is likely to also cull out the mainline Protestant churches in favor of evangelical and charismatic movements.

Christianity describes all the sects, sure, but I have heard "Oh yes, he's a Christian..." "Oh I thought he was a Catholic..." or the equivalent of that conversation a number of times here.

Interesting trick - call yourself by the large group name, define your behavior by that name ("No, I don't dance, I'm a Christian," for example,) and watch as the name becomes narrowly construed. I've actually talked to Catholics who are confused when I talk about Catholics being Christians, because they're not used to the broad application of the word, so prevalent has the narrow definition become.

PFnV

 

[mcbee]

Here is what I don't get or like about Christianity, specifically evangelicals. And I was raised in a very conservative, evangelical church.

Anyway, so suppose one hears the story of Christ and all, but just isn't moved by it. You don't believe it. It's pretty much impossible to "make yourself" believe something. It's also very cultural. People in Japan, when hearing the story, probably have a harder time "accepting it" than Western people, for example. Even though Japanese are very nice people, they have 1,000 years of ancestors who were not christians, and thus are in hell. Nice!
Also Jesus was in the Middle East...did he forget about ministering to them? He damned their ancestors to hell because they didn't "know him", but there's no way they could have.

Now, Christians I've spoken to about this say, somewhat parochially, that non-Christians by definition are "lost" and "miserable sinners". Which is a funny thing to say about the Japanese as their culture has withstood the test of time and crime in Japan is miniscule when compared to the US, a Christian country for the most part. I've had one relative explain to me that there's simply no way for a non-Christian to be anything other than a sad, miserable, sinner. No happiness without Jesus. And people, or cultures, who act very happy, productive, etc...we'll they're just faking it. Or the devil makes it SEEM they are useful and happy, but they're not. He's trying to TRICK you.

This is just pure insanity, to me. I mention the Japanese because I have several friends/ business associates from there and they are some of the kindest, most polite people you could ever meet. Of course, they're all going to hell though. To be tortured. For eternity. Well, I mean God (the all loving God Jesus) gave them a choice. They blew it. Tsk-tsk, too bad. So the god of Love will torture them. Sounds fair!!

I mean suppose you're japanese and everyone you've known, parents, relatives, friends, teachers, professors has been a non-christian. Together you have built this incredible country, rich in history, very intelligent prosperous, hard working people. You hear the story of Jesus and just kind of shrug your shoulders "oh well, every country and people has its own religion, this is no different". You are told that you HAVE to believe it or be tortured. And of course, all your ancestors are in hell too. Because they were the wretched of the earth. You simply don't believe it. You don't find the story credible. Well, according to Christians, those people who didn't "believe" are to be tortured.

This doesn't sound quite fair to me. People with different cultural backgrounds OF COURSE are going to have a harder time believing this crap than the western people who have been "christians" for 1,0000 years or so. It's easy to "believe" when your parents tell you to as a small child and tell you that "grandma" is in heaven. How about when you hear this non-sense as an adult and that all your ancestors (Japanese put a big emphasis on ancestors and family honor) are in hell? It's an insult, and it's ridiculous.

So there you have it. Be "lucky" enough or stupid enough to be able to believe this story, and you go to heaven! Be critical enough or from a different enough culture and you're going to be tortured for all eternity. Really nice god there.

And for the record, Japanese don't believe that people who don't follow Buddhism are going to be tortured or in hell.

 

[Harry Boy]

Catholics don't have to worry, according to them they are the only ones going to heaven.

A Baptist arrived in heaven and there was an Angel there to greet him and show him around, the Angel said "you can go anywhere you want to in the Kingdom Of Heaven except through that green door over there" the Baptist asked, "why am I not allowed in there Mr Angel" the Angel replied, "thats where the Catholics are and we don't want to upset them, you see, they think they are the only ones up here".
:bricks:
Our Father Who Art In Heaven

 

[thesmee1]

Catholics don't have to worry, according to them they are the only ones going to heaven.

A Baptist arrived in heaven and there was an Angel there to greet him and show him around, the Angel said "you can go anywhere you want to in the Kingdom Of Heaven except through that green door over there" the Baptist asked, "why am I not allowed in there Mr Angel" the Angel replied, "thats where the Catholics are and we don't want to upset them, you see, they think they are the only ones up here".
:bricks:
Our Father Who Art In Heaven

Lol, it reminds me when I was a kid, I was spending the weekend at a friends house, who happened to be a Baptist. My mother told me not to visit that church with them or I would not go to heaven. It scared the day lights out of me then, but I think the older catholics feel that way, Harry. I think the more enlightened and educated Catholics become, the less hold the Vatican has on them. Like in previous posts, the Vatican held sway in the lives of the uneducated and illiterate, ( ie., poor.) Way back in ancient times, and to some extent, today.

 

[Harry Boy]

Lol, it reminds me when I was a kid, I was spending the weekend at a friends house, who happened to be a Baptist. My mother told me not to visit that church with them or I would not go to heaven. It scared the day lights out of me then, but I think the older catholics feel that way, Harry. I think the more enlightened and educated Catholics become, the less hold the Vatican has on them. Like in previous posts, the Vatican held sway in the lives of the uneducated and illiterate, ( ie., poor.) Way back in ancient times, and to some extent, today.

Very True, young Catholics today are nowhere near as prejudiced as they were in my day.

 

[thesmee1]

Very True, young Catholics today are nowhere near as prejudiced as they were in my day.

When my father died, the local catholic church never acknowledged his death. The local protestant church sent her a beautiful floral display. This changed her ignorance about other religions. She became enlightened. Sometimes it's the little things that do it.

The young catholics that are in the 40's, 50's and 60's are showing their children how to be enlightened. Some get it, some don't..

 

[PatsFanInVa]

My funny little hunny was raised Catholic, but got Jewisher the longer she knew me, and now identifies as a reform Jew.

When she was much younger, she had a kid out of wedlock, and the local church would (naturally) not let him be baptised in the normal baptismal font, and couldn't be in the scheduled "group" baptism they did weekly... he had to have some sort of "back of the church" font of his very own, with nobody else there. It was incredibly hurtful to her, but I've met the guy, now a grown man and a good man, and he does not retain any notion that he's a "bastard." If anything it's a "back of the mind" knowledge that doesn't go to the front, from what I can tell. Just a fact, like he has brown hair.

Would that have been different, had she fought her instinct to say "screw this!" and attended church regularly instead? I don't know... just an old story, about the church as it once was, in a particular place.

PFnV