If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
This is as controversial as it gets…
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Catholicism verses Protestantism, is one right and the other wrong?
Do Catholics misinterpret the Bible?
Do Protestants disregard the Bible?
Who knows?
Do Catholics misinterpret the Bible?
Do Protestants disregard the Bible?
Who knows?
0
Comments
Curious, I decided why not post this here. Four questions, the last not really needing an answer, concerning whether one is right and not the other, and does it tie into the Bible's misinterpretation or disregard—two arguments that I’ve seen posed before.
Okay, you may not care about the religion, however that was not one of the questions.
*agree's 100%*
it is wrong however to use an interpretation of the bible as the basis to kill hundreds of people. those who do need to fuck off somewhere where they can do no harm.
So I guess it goes quite deep with the different parts.
But though it is also proved that the catholic priests held back information, to make the people dance after their sound.
I guess that one part will always find the flaws of the other part in that conflict, which means that end is very far away.
As I said, I’ve seen this argument on several sites already and the first time I saw it was within one of my posts—not on this site, I think I’ve posted enough States related threads on this site for now. Anyhow, I started a thread on two sites to start a discussion about how members of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has been handling child molestation charges in the U.S. That was it. I did not renounce any denomination or Christianity for that matter, however people started sending me private messages and one guy decided to change the thread into an attack on Protestantism. Actually, most threads later started on both of those sites concerning the molestation of children became somewhat of an attack on Protestantism, however recently the argument may be somewhat equal now.
Not quite understanding the differences between the two, I decided to ask in another thread on one of the sites and the same thing happened once again. It became an attack on Protestantism, however this time Protestants answered back. The questions I posted above were posed.
The debates were deep and after surfing, I saw that similar debates were going on elsewhere. However I begin to see why not here <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
The fact that we base our beliefs on giant "people" in the sky shows how fundamentally flawed religion really is.
I think this is the answer. Theyre both wrong, and theyre both right. The Bible is a very ambiguous book, like all holy texts, and is interpreted for organised religions own ends. especially seeing as the Catholic Church edited the bloody thing.
Dress it up in fanbcy language, but religion should be abolished. Only then will peace ever have a chance of happening.
Thanks for the tip of the hat, Turtle. So, for you lucky folks, I dust off my old sinature and show it the cold light of day once more...
You're damn right we need a rational code of morality and ethics. But not much progress can be made in that direction while we've still got a majority ranting about gods, devils, souls, and absolute morality, and using an ancient book written by ignorant nomads as a guide.
As a believer myself I stand 100% behind you on that! People often make wrong conclusions cause of fundementalists. Suddenly it seems like the world thinks that every believer stands behind every act done by the same group of believers.
Believeing and religion are very individual things. And I doubt that everyone with the same religion would define believeing in the same way and under the same kind of priorities.
I disagree. I think that religion is inherently wrong, since by its very nature it is a static and codified body of claimed knowledge. As such, it is unadaptable -- therefore has poor survival value and is wrong.
You say that religion "it instructs men how to behave and how to treat others." Personally, I shudder at the thought of human beings taking as momentous a journey as their own lives relying on someone else's moral judgement. For "instruction" read "intellectual slavery." Moreover, notice the correlation between cultural and technological advancement and decline of established religion; see the converse situation, the Dark Ages.
Evil? I think so. Totally false? Possibly not, but that doesn't matter if it's inconsistent -- absence of contradictions is the first (but not last) test of truth.
it's up to the individual to extract their own value systems from that spectrum of truths
At which point it is no longer a religion but an individual faith.
READ WHAT MELISSA IS SAYING. Take from it what you will. You choose not to take anything from it. Fine. You've made your choice. But in NOT choosing it you've in some way based a decision on what it says, like it or not.
Or perhaps "suggestion"? I mean, yes religion could be accused of a certain degree of 'scaremongering' ("do this and you're damned forever"), but it offers you a means to differentiate between basic right and wrong. Human morality. When I say 'basic' i do mean basic. Charity, love, respect for others. Official standpoints on sexuality, sex itself, women etc I don't believe in - and that's why I don't practise any one religion.
So....are you just being pedantic here, or what? It's an individual faith BASED in and on religion. You're defining the terms of faith and religion very rigidly here, and i don't think they can be. Religion hasn't moved into the modern world very well and has to be fluid if it's going to adapt. It doesn't have to compromise its stance to do that - just rethink its attitude.
I don't think you can ever say that religion is 'wrong' - for some people it's an enormous source of comfort, and I would hate to deny them that. We all have our codified views on the world, and those are influence by an infinite number of things - religion being one of them. Your family can be as institutional and instructional as any other organised group, but you wouldn't say they as a structure and influencing force were 'wrong' would you?
At least I define my terms, which is more than many people do. If you'd care to scuttle over to the "Defining Religion" thread you will see exactly how I use the terms and why. If you think that either definition needs work, please let me know.
A pitifully pathetic means that rests on ancient superstition and deliberately rejects any attempts to put ethics on a rational footing. Give in to that "suggestion"? Never.
And you call those things "basic"? Phew! <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Why shouldn't I, if I thought that they were? (Perhaps I didn't parse the question correctly? Restatement?)
lol....sorry to laugh chuck but that is a very naive thing to say. We all know that religion shouldn't matter, and to atheists it doesn't.
However to some people religion is what defines them as a person. to insult somebody's religion or to try and prove it wrong is like saying to one of us that our dad fucks your sister on a regular basis.
Like most things, life's a bitch.
Its ORGANISED religion that aften falls down, because it puts people and, even worse, groups of people in the place of the god (or whatever) your meant to be worshiping.
In Timothy something or other there is a passage which reads "Women shall not speak in the company of men". Now this goes against everything "Jesus" did during his time on earth, just an example which proves my point.
We also don't know how much the Church keeps hidden from the people. For all we know there have been signs towards the second coming but we wouldn't know about it.
Now I'm not saying this from a Christian perspective. I haven't been to Church in 8 years but I also believe that many people need some sort of faith in their lives if for no other reason than to give them hope, and that if their lives are a living hell, there's something waiting for them after they die.
If the whole world woke up tomorrow and knew for a FACT that when you die, that's it i.e no afterlife, no reincarnation, just nothing I guarentee the worldwide situation would be a lot worse. Also people would walk around in bubblewrap but that's another story <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Oh, and don't get me STARTED on the whole Genesis section of the Bible; "God created the world in 6 days etc" <IMG SRC="tongue.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
I really have no idea why they haven't removed it, as its been clearly proven this wasn't the case.
Ah, but the creation story was written as a purely mythical interpretation in the first place; it was never supposed to be taken literally (damn those fundamentalists! <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">), and so the fact that it's erroneous is irrelevant - it is supposed to be viewed as a myth. Or so a nun told me... <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: Forsythia ]