TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Fear and language are the culprits, or so it seems
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fear and language are the culprits, or so it seems

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
The English language, outright force, and a force-fed fear of damnation has led Christianity down its path of "righteousness."

Now this really makes sense to me!
post #2 of 26
this one made sense to me.
post #3 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by laureen227 View Post
this one made sense to me.
OK, but what does that have to do with the birth of fundamentalism?

Unless I am now supposed to be AFRAID that if I don't go to church I will die sooner than others?




IMO, heaven and hell are what you make of your time here on earth. For me, sometimes I think that death will be a blessed relief. I will welcome and embrace the nothingness when it is my time and the organism that is my human body ceases sentient existance.
post #4 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by GingersMom View Post
OK, but what does that have to do with the birth of fundamentalism?

Unless I am now supposed to be AFRAID that if I don't go to church I will die sooner than others?
absolutely nothing! actually, i consider myself a fundamentalist, in that i believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God... but i don't think it tells me to do mean/cruel things to people who believe otherwise.
maybe i'm a new-age fundamentalist? only, doesn't that sound like an oxymoron?
post #5 of 26
Ok! Now before anyone gets to wrapped up in any of these studies, remember this;

The Pastafarians from the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have studies and graphs that very convincingly contribute the increase in global temperature directly to the decrease in the number of 17th century pirates in the world!







post #6 of 26
Will I live longer if I attend the FSM's services every week?

Thanks for the link Ginger'sMom, I love history and showing that increased literacy lead to Fundamentalism is fascinating.

For living longer -- does it work only for fundamentalists or does it work if I go to a Buddhist meditation center once a week?
post #7 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by GingersMom View Post
The English language, outright force, and a force-fed fear of damnation has led Christianity down its path of "righteousness."

Now this really makes sense to me!
hmm besty, i think need you beer
post #8 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
hmm besty, i think need you beer
I'm there! Make that 2, with lime twists
post #9 of 26
All I want to know is; is it true that the part about "shalt not suffer a witch to live" was added in by King James scholars because King Jimmy was scared of witches?
post #10 of 26
That was, the old testment. back before the many of the rules changed :P
post #11 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
That was, the old testment. back before the many of the rules changed :P
Actually, that passage is in the new testament somewhere. Now I have to look it up
post #12 of 26
lol its in exodus, mike
post #13 of 26
You gotta remember that before the Bible was available in English, the people didn't read it. They relied on what the church said the Bible said. Once the people could actually read the Bible, they became aware that what the church said wasn't in agreement with what the Bible actually said. I don't care what you call it.....first fundamentalists might be as good of a term as protestants or reformers. First they tried to change the church and when the church wouldn't be changed, they split off from the church to worship in a way that they believed was truer to what the Bible said. And it was the beginning of the end of the Roman Catholic church's grip on the western world as the final arbiter of not only religion, but politics and society as well. They didn't let it go peacefully, either.

When people actually read the Bible for themselves, they can decide for themselves what it has to say. They don't have to rely on what the church says. They don't have to follow the church's "rules," they can follow what the Bible says, as they interpret it themselves.

Freedom of religion is kind of like freedom of choice. A very "American" thing.
post #14 of 26
"Scholarly consensus over the last decade or so is that most people did not convert to [Protestantism]. They had it forced upon them," Simpson told LiveScience."

Forgive me if I don't believe this for one moment. Not one shred of PROOF, just "scholarly consensus"


But I will admit it must have been difficult for people back then.

But if people, any people, at any time read the New Testament with an open mind and heart, NO WAY can they bring physical violence or harming your fellow man out of the New Testament. But there will always be the mentally ill nut cases that think THEY are God.
post #15 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
"Scholarly consensus over the last decade or so is that most people did not convert to [Protestantism]. They had it forced upon them," Simpson told LiveScience."

Forgive me if I don't believe this for one moment. Not one shred of PROOF, just "scholarly consensus"


But I will admit it must have been difficult for people back then.
As a Lutheran, you should know that after the Reformation the various princes, dukes, etc. who ruled the different parts of what is now Germany did indeed force their subjects to follow their own beliefs. As a result, even today the länder do not have all of the same Christian holidays. The Lutheran Church has a stronger hold in northern and eastern Germany, while southern Germany is still primarily Catholic.

Perhaps you should read up on post-Henry VIII England, too.
post #16 of 26
I'm sure there was SOME, but I sure don't consider that "most".

And most assuredly not because of some "consensus"

To tell you the truth, I am not a big Martin Luther fan. From what I have read he was pretty anti-Semitic and I think that is disgusting.
post #17 of 26
lol ok this will make my head hurt, i really dont want to get into all of that lol.
I had to do 25 page paper on Luther, lol.

"Scholarly consensus over the last decade or so is that most people did not convert to [Protestantism]. They had it forced upon them,"

but in the last decade? i dont see how that is

in the past yea. after henry 8th split from the church over the whole male child thing and started his own church, Catholics, and others who refused to follow where hunted down,ETc, that why later they came to america, and put in that whole The gover ment not allowed to set up "set up a state religon" which is where the left gets confused. lol anyway, yea, lots of europe was converted form being Catholics, at the point of a sword. But it was also due to catholics attacks on them. germany like england had there wars over it, which is why as jcat said have more of one type in the north and nother type in the south.
post #18 of 26
Oh, I thought it meant that scholars for the last 10 or so years have agreed that most people throughout history had protestantism forced on them, which, like you said, is true.
post #19 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by cata_mint View Post
Oh, I thought it meant that scholars for the last 10 or so years have agreed that most people throughout history had protestantism forced on them, which, like you said, is true.
Yes, that is what it meant. That for the last decade, scholars have agreed that this happened back in history
post #20 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by cata_mint View Post
Oh, I thought it meant that scholars for the last 10 or so years have agreed that most people throughout history had protestantism forced on them, which, like you said, is true.
Bah, humbug. Revisionist history. True, perhaps in the sense of the state church in England. But there were the dissenters. Even in the case of England this statement isn't true. Some people split from the state church, and others maintained their Roman Catholic faith, often at the cost of their lives. There was plenty of both on both sides, but the statement that "most people had protestantism forced on them" is patently false. So-called "scholars" who have an anti-religious agenda are trying to rewrite history. You can't believe everything you read. Especially not on the internet.

ETA - the author of the article is a professor of medieval english literature. Not exactly an expert source on religion or even history, and certainly doesn't merit the designation "most scholars."
post #21 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
Bah, humbug.
Bah, humbug?
Are we feeling a bit grumpy this Christmas Tim?
post #22 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
Bah, humbug. Revisionist history. True, perhaps in the sense of the state church in England. But there were the dissenters. Even in the case of England this statement isn't true. Some people split from the state church, and others maintained their Roman Catholic faith, often at the cost of their lives. There was plenty of both on both sides, but the statement that "most people had protestantism forced on them" is patently false. So-called "scholars" who have an anti-religious agenda are trying to rewrite history. You can't believe everything you read. Especially not on the internet.

ETA - the author of the article is a professor of medieval english literature. Not exactly an expert source on religion or even history, and certainly doesn't merit the designation "most scholars."
History has never been constant, nor should it be. For centuries, it was speculated that the Great Pyramids of Egypt were built by slaves, yet now, they are working a dig on a small city that appears to have been populated by worker class Egyptians just over the hill. Does that mean history is wrong? Not yet; but the dig is far from over. Should we just ignore these new facts to preserve history?

In the Korean war at a little town called No Gun Ri, the US Army killed hundreds of women and children in an "unintentional" shooting. The Army re-investigated No Gun Ri in 2001 and said the shooting was "not deliberate". NOW, the Army has revealed that it found a letter, DURING the investigation, that said the Army had a policy of firing on southbound civilians. But, history would be best served if we forgot that little tidbit.

Why should religious accounts have any additional protection? If they are wrong, they are wrong. We can simply either accept it or deny it.

In the protestant movement, my understanding is that a lot of people were happy to see Henry give the catholics the boot....but that might be wrong too.
post #23 of 26
Lots of people liked the whole redistribution of wealth from the rich monasteries part, it was also very popular with Anne Boleyn, at least until Henry got bored of her.
post #24 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
History has never been constant, nor should it be.
Quibbling about semantics here: HISTORY is constant. What actually happened never changes. It's the history BOOKS that change. The interpretation of history. The understanding of what were the causes behind the actual events. And yes, the outright altering of the story -- emphasizing some facts, omitting others -- to spin a particular point of view and/or support a certain agenda. That happens right here in the good 'ole USA. History gets revised. Not as bad as in Big Brother's world.

But it does get rewritten. Sometimes it's benign. For example, fifty years ago studying American history there would have been very little about slavery and even less about the plight of African Americans in their post-slavery America. Sometimes historical revisionism is insidious and not so benign. I don't think I even want to get into that. But the writers of textbooks and the publishers of same either have an agenda of their own, or a government or educational system agenda to slant the historical facts.

So, kiddies, keep in mind that what you're taught in school is only a very small window into the past, and that window might not even be facing the most interesting and the most important events, or it might be stained glass you're looking through, so you don't see the bad stuff. So if you want the whole, naked, unvarnished TRUTH, you'd best go out there and find it out for yourself, because you aren't necessarily being taught it.
post #25 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by xocats View Post
Bah, humbug?
Are we feeling a bit grumpy this Christmas Tim?
I'm ALWAYS grumpy, Lei, and especially so at Christmas!!
post #26 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
Quibbling about semantics here: HISTORY is constant.
Actually, according to several online dictionaries on the definition of History, definition 1) or a); a chronological record or logging of past events, is NOT constant, and can be changed as new information arises or new evidence located. definition 2), or b); completed or past events, IS constant.....so they are both right

edit: It must be the time of year, or the holidays, or the weather. I don't act like this!!

I'm going to stay out of IMO for awhile and just hang out in the "look at the cute kittens" forums.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Fear and language are the culprits, or so it seems