I don't use natural remedies, but I do prefer to not use medicine possible.

Jack's opinion on the Catholic Church is valid and somewhat backed up by evidence, but it is rather sectarian. Perhaps it would be less sectarian to describe Catholicism as "bad Christianity", rather than excommunicating, if you'll excuse the word, the entire Church on the basis of its historic abuses of power and its accretions to the original religious texts.

You get exactly the same arguments within Islam (which has been going through a long and drawn-out Reformation), and no doubt Judaism as well. It's fine that this debate has come to be about the definition of Christianity, as you can't really answer the question of why it's acceptable to target Christianity without an understanding of what that means. However I'd hope that we can come to a consensus for the purposes of this debate, which is about the general perceptions of the lay person about Christianity, that we should include the most prominent Christian sects under the label of "Christianity". After all, when a person criticises the religion they are likely to be basing it on assumptions about one of these prominent sects, but generalising the criticism to Christianity in general.

So why is it socially acceptable? Well there's the fact that we have moved in the direction of secularism rather strongly since the 19th century, due to advances in science and the impact these have had on politics and the beliefs of the general public. There's the fact that some Christians engage in sectarian conflict over their beliefs and lead to it being seen as a source of violence (see Northern Ireland and Scotland), there's the fact that Christianity has been involved in political and moral repression (especially in Catholic Spain).

However, I think the main reason why these criticisms have come to be seen as acceptable is because our societies (thinking of the "Anglo-Saxon" world here) have come to hold "freedom of thought" as a very desirable value. Christianity, because it is seen as necessarily restrictive of freedom of thought due to the fact that it is based on dogma, is therefore "fair game" because it contradicts the values of society.

So, about that double standard?

I saw that story on Facebook Voy. It makes me sad. I can only hope people realize that isn't how all Christians (or theists for that matter) view those things. Actually, at graduation my commencement ceremony had a moment of reflection which I think is where the prayer had gone before it was removed. Not that anyone really cared about the moment of reflection, since most of the graduating seniors were on facebook at the time. >.<

A quick update, as the ceremony just concluded - the school held a 5 second "moment of silence" after which a student led the crowd in the Lord's Prayer over the PA system. So yeah.

Its very sad and completely true! I would almost guess that only 10% of "Christians" are really Christians. Alot of people consider themselves "Christians" because it's the closest religion to their beliefs...
I wish everyone to take time to open a bible to see what you can learn about true Christianity!

I thought a Bolshevik would be an atheist.

And it's the rest of us good honest people who get the brunt of the stereotypes. The "fakes" drop out of sight at the slightest sign of trouble, leaving all of us to defend ourselves from the backlash their so called Chritianity.

I knew you would think those thoughts in a well thought out thinking extravaganza, So i thought up this name

No it isn't.
I didn't say "You are wrong in saying Catholics are not Christian because you're ignorant."
I said "IF you're ignoring the proofs presented to you, you're ignorant [on that matter]."

Now that sounds much more reasonable. You may say you don't like how Catholics are acting/have acted and that it's not according to your perception of a Christian. But the fact remains that they are still Christian.

I've made it clear I believe that the catholic church isn't a christian church, so you're calling me ignorant. If it isn't ad hominem it's flaming.

Anyway I'll depart sd for a while now. Although apparently the world ends today.

I think according to the guy who predicted it today is the "beginning of the end" which could mean anything for us today O.o

It's not flaming, it's a factual statement as you refuse to accept facts without even trying to refute the presented proofs.

You need to realize that your personal belief won't change history. But there's no point in going on when you're changing subject instead of addressing the points Vrael, Will and I made. So you leave. Gj.

Nude, you really haven't made any points at all.


The Bible defines a church as a group of people who believe in the same thing. It isn't a building, and it's not a hierarchy. In fact, The catholic "church" goes against practically everything that the Bible teaches that a church should be. So by your definition, perhaps they are a christians, but to me and many others who follow what the Bible says about being a christian, most of them are not. Why do you think catholic people are so insistant on their being catholic, while the rest of us define outselves as christians. Your argument is just as pointless to me, as it is for me to argue that Confucionism and Atheism are the same thing to you. You both don't believe in any gods so you must be the same. Don't ever think that you can define who a person is.

I did try to explain why, for the purposes of this topic, we should consider Catholicism Christian. However it seems to have been ignored.

Will, I thought you made an excellent point, but Nude was just arguing instead of adding to the discussion.
You are saying that Catholics are a large part of the christian stereotype.
I personally think that the Catholic Church is responsible for most of the stereotyping that goes on.
Instead of defining Catholocism as a corrupted sect of Christianity, people are defining Christianity as Catholocism.

Why do you think every other denomination defines themselves by that denomination instead of being Christian?
It's not because the're being individualistic, it's because of the bad name the Catholic church has given to Christianity.

I agreed with that statement before you even wrote it.

It's just sad that all the good in the world can't save you from a few evils made by a few idiots in some people's eyes.
I didn't know there were Catholics who didn't believe in Jesus Christ. Can you name me a few, so that we can put this to rest that the Catholic Church is not a church because it doesn't believe in the same thing?

Dramatized fiction, not a real social experiment.

Agreed.

Debatable. It depends on what dogma you believe in.

Agreed.

All I'm trying to do is to settle this silly dispute so the discussion can go on. But since you're not accepting history (protestants branched off from catholics because they didn't like how things were handled), definitions from English dictionaries and accepted encyclopedias (Christian = believing in Jesus being the son of God) this won't happen.

Same as I said to Jack: You may think what Catholics are doing is bad or not worthy of Christianity but it's not like you could wish it away if you try believe it hard enough. Catholics are Christian. By any definition. Even your own (orange). (thx rockz)

Christian does not equal believing in Jesus remember. "Even the demons believe in God, and tremble at his name. I'm pretty sure a Christian is a person who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. If any church directly goes against the teachings of Jesus, then they are not to be considered Christians.