• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which Religion is more "pushy?" Christianity or Islam?

Which Religion is more "pushy?" Christianity or Islam?


  • Total voters
    65
The Crusades were not a series of wars of aggression, they were a RESPONSE to centuries of Islamic aggression. You DO know that the areas that Islam conquered in the 7th century were largely CHRISTIAN at the time of Conquest and were part of the Roman Empire, and had been for CENTURIES. You ARE aware of this, right? I presume you are also aware of the fact that in the late 11th century, the Great Seljuk Empire was marching through Asia Minor and threatening the capital of the Roman Empire, namely Constantinople? I presume you know these things.
I guess according to you the Albigensian Crusade was also a response to Islamic 'aggression'.
 
I was actually messing around because I knew somebody would take it seriously and get offended... but your response is funny, because I said nothing incorrect.

As for history...

Christianity is older, and it was aggressively spread... Have you ever heard of the Inquisition?

The Inquisition (are you refering to the Spanish Inquisition) was employed LONG AFTER the founding of Islam. The initial spread of Christianity was largely peaceful. The spread through the Roman Empire was in spite of severe persecution. The conversion of Armenia and Axum were peaceful. The initial spread of Islam, on the other hand, was very violent and bloody. Muhammad even had to use war and violence to take Mecca.

As for the Spanish Inquisition, you DO know that it was under the control of the Spanish monarch, NOT the pope and that it was primarily used to secure control of the state by the monarchs. Furthermore, the most common punishment meted out was reconciliation, and death and more severe punishments were comparatively rare. Furthermore, it was used far more against Protestants in the mid and late 16th century than it was used against Jews and Moriscos ... in fact, Moriscos, in particularly, were able to BUY their way out of punishment, though many of them deserved it as they were well known to have AIDED Ottoman and Maghrib raiding parties along the Spanish coast all through the 16th century.


Did you know Pope Urban II of the Catholic Church lead the first crusade, and it's known and accepted that the Holy Roman Empire and the Catholic Church waged the crusades, not the Muslims?

Did you know that the First Crusade was in response to HUNDREDS of years of aggression by the Islamic world? That Pope Urban was responding specfically to a plea from the emperor of the Roman Empire in Constantinople begging for assistance due to the aggression of the Great Seljuq Empire?

No, didn't suppose you were knowledgable of these historical facts... typical anti-Christian/Catholic whitewash of history...


I don't think I said anything historically incorrect...

No, you just don't understand history IN DEPTH...
 
As for the Spanish Inquisition, you DO know that it was under the control of the Spanish monarch, NOT the pope and that it was primarily used to secure control of the state by the monarchs.

This is factually incorrect:

Pope Sixtus IV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On November 1, 1478, Pope Sixtus IV published the Papal bull Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus, through which the Spanish Inquisition was established in the Kingdom of Castile.
 
This is factually incorrect:

Pope Sixtus IV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On November 1, 1478, Pope Sixtus IV published the Papal bull Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus, through which the Spanish Inquisition was established in the Kingdom of Castile.

His statement is correct...

Alonso de Hojeda, a Dominican friar from Seville, convinced Queen Isabel of the existence of Crypto-Judaism among Andalusian conversos during her stay in Seville between 1477 and 1478.[7] A report, produced by Pedro González de Mendoza, Archbishop of Seville, and by the Segovian Dominican Tomás de Torquemada, corroborated this assertion.

The monarchs decided to introduce the Inquisition to Castile to discover and punish crypto-Jews, and requested the Pope's assent. Ferdinand II of Aragon pressured Pope Sixtus IV to agree to an Inquisition controlled by the monarchy by threatening to withdraw military support at a time when the Turks were a threat to Rome. The Pope issued a bull to stop the Inquisition but was pressured into withdrawing it. On November 1, 1478, Pope Sixtus IV published the Papal bull, Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus, through which the Inquisition was established in the Kingdom of Castile. The bull also gave the monarchs exclusive authority to name the inquisitors. The first two inquisitors, Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martín were not named, however, until two years later, on September 27, 1481 in Medina del Campo.
- Inquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
This is factually incorrect:

Pope Sixtus IV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On November 1, 1478, Pope Sixtus IV published the Papal bull Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus, through which the Spanish Inquisition was established in the Kingdom of Castile.

He established it. but at the request of the Spanish monarchs, who controlld it for centuries. You also did not address the point that the most common punishment was reconciliation and that it was more commonly used against Protestants in the reign of Philip III than against Moriscos (who DESERVED to be prosecuted as they were known to aid and abet Ottoman and North African coastal raiders).
 
Last edited:
Which Religion is more "pushy?" Christianity or Islam? When I say "pushy" I mean which religion did more to spread itself by any means necessary and which one had more oppressive governments?

For me, it's Christianity, seeing as how it was spread from Europe around the world and was used as a reason to screw over the indigenous peoples of the world.
That's an easy one, "I KILL YOU.........." That damn Evil Christianity with its hate filled doctrine of Peace, Love, and Brotherhood, its fooled so many people around the world, it began with One self professed Son of God and twelve close friends, and has been so Evil that over 1/3 the worlds population have freely chosen to be duped into accepting the outrageous mindset of peace, love and brotherhood. Clearly, they are stupid gullible people, with the only group of people in the world that can be numbered among ALL THE SMART PEOPLE are the 2.37% of the world's population that don't fall for the brained washed doctrine of accepting the existence of a divine creator, who call themselves Atheists because they don't believe in nut'n but the worship of their own mind.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go
 
Last edited:
The Inquisition (are you refering to the Spanish Inquisition) was employed LONG AFTER the founding of Islam. The initial spread of Christianity was largely peaceful. The spread through the Roman Empire was in spite of severe persecution. The conversion of Armenia and Axum were peaceful. The initial spread of Islam, on the other hand, was very violent and bloody. Muhammad even had to use war and violence to take Mecca.

As for the Spanish Inquisition, you DO know that it was under the control of the Spanish monarch, NOT the pope and that it was primarily used to secure control of the state by the monarchs. Furthermore, the most common punishment meted out was reconciliation, and death and more severe punishments were comparatively rare. Furthermore, it was used far more against Protestants in the mid and late 16th century than it was used against Jews and Moriscos ... in fact, Moriscos, in particularly, were able to BUY their way out of punishment, though many of them deserved it as they were well known to have AIDED Ottoman and Maghrib raiding parties along the Spanish coast all through the 16th century.




Did you know that the First Crusade was in response to HUNDREDS of years of aggression by the Islamic world? That Pope Urban was responding specfically to a plea from the emperor of the Roman Empire in Constantinople begging for assistance due to the aggression of the Great Seljuq Empire?

No, didn't suppose you were knowledgable of these historical facts... typical anti-Christian/Catholic whitewash of history...




No, you just don't understand history IN DEPTH...

Did you know that there were more Inquisitions than just the Spanish??? Are you telling me that the Catholic Church didn't persecute Pagans in the early days of Christianity?

Early Christians even persecuted their own and labeled them Christian heretics... Practicing the religion "incorrectly" or with too much Pagan influence, was unacceptable.

After Constantine I converted to Christianity, it became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. Already beginning under his reign, Christian heretics were persecuted; The most extreme case (as far as historians know) was the burning of Priscillian and six of his followers at the stake in 383.[2] In the view of many historians, the Constantinian shift turned Christianity from a persecuted into a persecuting religion.[3] Beginning in the late 4th century A.D. also the ancient pagan religions were actively suppressed.

I'd say Constantine's Inquisition didn't work out very well since most modern Christians still worship Jesus, and celebrate Pagan holidays for his b-day and resurrection..

Christian debate on persecution and toleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would say that the initial spread of Christianity wasn't peaceful... no religion is free of violence. You just want to argue that Christianity was nothing but peaceful and cherry pick the facts because you are a Christian and want to believe you have one up on Islam. If you want to belong to the least violent religion, then you should convert to Buddhism.

And as for the Crusades... You're not addressing the fact that the Crusades were also waged against Jews, Pagans, Christian-Russian Orthodox and other followers of Byzantine version of Christianity as well. The crusades were violent and that is where the myth of the Jewish blood libel came from. Christian persecution of Jews continued long after that and continued to perpetuate the myth of blood libel, and then blamed them for the black plague...

Christianity isn't blameless... so even if you argue that the Crusades were just a response to Muslim violence and nothing else (not spreading Christianity, not keeping the Holy Lands under Christian control), you are overlooking the facts yourself. How violent were the Muslims being and how violent was the Christian response? And why was the violence inflicted by the Christians, not only directed at Muslims but at other faiths as well?

No matter how you roll the dice, the Christians still come out as acting violently during the Crusades...
 
Did you know that there were more Inquisitions than just the Spanish??? Are you telling me that the Catholic Church didn't persecute Pagans in the early days of Christianity?

Early Christians even persecuted their own and labeled them Christian heretics... Practicing the religion "incorrectly" or with too much Pagan influence, was unacceptable.



I'd say Constantine's Inquisition didn't work out very well since most modern Christians still worship Jesus, and celebrate Pagan holidays for his b-day and resurrection..

Christian debate on persecution and toleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would say that the initial spread of Christianity wasn't peaceful... no religion is free of violence. You just want to argue that Christianity was nothing but peaceful and cherry pick the facts because you are a Christian and want to believe you have one up on Islam. If you want to belong to the least violent religion, then you should convert to Buddhism.

And as for the Crusades... You're not addressing the fact that the Crusades were also waged against Jews, Pagans, Christian-Russian Orthodox and other followers of Byzantine version of Christianity as well. The crusades were violent and that is where the myth of the Jewish blood libel came from. Christian persecution of Jews continued long after that and continued to perpetuate the myth of blood libel, and then blamed them for the black plague...

Christianity isn't blameless... so even if you argue that the Crusades were just a response to Muslim violence and nothing else (not spreading Christianity, not keeping the Holy Lands under Christian control), you are overlooking the facts yourself. How violent were the Muslims being and how violent was the Christian response? And why was the violence inflicted by the Christians, not only directed at Muslims but at other faiths as well?

No matter how you roll the dice, the Christians still come out as acting violently during the Crusades...

Funny how you cut out this line....

Early Christianity was a minority Religion in the Roman Empire and the early Christians were themselves persecuted during that time. - Christian debate on persecution and toleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So his point stands and the white washing continues on your part.
 
Funny how you cut out this line....

Early Christianity was a minority Religion in the Roman Empire and the early Christians were themselves persecuted during that time. - Christian debate on persecution and toleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So his point stands and the white washing continues on your part.

He already mentioned that early Christians were persecuted in Rome, and I am not debating that part. It's true, it's a fact... I am not white washing anything. They were victims, but they also victimized and persecuted other religions.
 
The persecution of early Christians is also given in the quote.

After Constantine I converted to Christianity, it became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. Already beginning under his reign, Christian heretics were persecuted; The most extreme case (as far as historians know) was the burning of Priscillian and six of his followers at the stake in 383.[2] In the view of many historians, the Constantinian shift turned Christianity from a persecuted into a persecuting religion.[3] Beginning in the late 4th century A.D. also the ancient pagan religions were actively suppressed.
 
He already mentioned that early Christians were persecuted in Rome, and I am not debating that part. It's true, it's a fact... I am not white washing anything. They were victims, but they also victimized and persecuted other religions.

You highlighted his comment "The initial spread of Christianity was largely peaceful." and went on to say "Are you telling me that the Catholic Church didn't persecute Pagans in the early days of Christianity?" You then proceeded to cut out the first sentence which sets the precedent about the early spread of Christianity.

His comments are factual and correct. By time the Romans became Chrsitians hundreds of years had passed. So you are trying to compare what happend long after Christianity had spread and was no longer a fledging religion.

You are indeed trying to whitewash the time progression to suit your argument. The facts however refute your statements.
 
I defy anyone to find one passage of Christian Scripture that propagates the spread of Christianity through violence. There are many false premises attempting to be established. The Holy Bible is the only valid source that Christian Faith derives (Romans 10:16), "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God". All the messages that are propagated by Christianity profess that All SCRIPTURE is inspired of God and only THE WORD holds the capacity to make the man of God perfect in seeking righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

One false premise is presented in attempting to Blame the religion of Christianity for the Crusades and Inquisitions, again I defy anyone to find one passage where Christianity is to be spread at the point of the sword...just one. The Crusades and Inquisitions came about due to CATHOLIC DOGMA as declared through Papal "TRADITION"....not because of the Doctrine presented in the Inspired Word of God. In fact the Vatican ruled most of the European States during that time period, and one Papal Edict made it illegal for any lay person to be in possession of any Biblical Text...thus, the only Doctrine being taught was a doctrine of Dogma and Tradition which brought us such noble traditions as the Crusades and Inquisitions.

With the Advent of the printing press and the translation of the Holy Bible from Latin into the King James English...the PEOPLE found the chance and opportunity to discover what the actual record presented, and the rest is history...its Called the Protestant Reformation of the Church when the people rose up in mass and decided to go back to the Written Word as the only source of Christian Doctrine which in turn lead to the eventual founding of these United States of American which really was nothing but a rebellion against Roman Catholic Doctrine and its totalitarian despotism. Thus, the very first amendment to the United States Constitution....WE the PEOPLE made it clear that no CENTRAL GOVERNMENT had the authority to ESTABLISH a STATE MANDATED CHURCH to the exclusion of any one protestant movement of which there were many in the early days of this nation's founding.

The Argument being made that CHRISTIANITY is someone responsible for the evil that lays in the heart of men who have been endowed will FREE WILL is absurd. The comparison is like making the statement because you were bitten by a certain breed of DOG....I am responsible because I own the same bread of dog, therefore ALL SUCH animals are evil...without the consideration that any domestic animal only reflects the teaching their masters have bestowed upon them, its an absurd argument. What? Are we to outlaw the practice of OPEN HEART SURGERY because up to 10% of those who undergo that life saving procedure are lost due to the danger of that operation? The same applies to the use of modern Technology, are we to ban the use of Electrical Energy because some have abused that source of energy and have been killed through IGNORANCE? MY DOG BITES....so YOURS MUST? Really? Not logical in the least.
 
Last edited:
You highlighted his comment "The initial spread of Christianity was largely peaceful." and went on to say "Are you telling me that the Catholic Church didn't persecute Pagans in the early days of Christianity?" You then proceeded to cut out the first sentence which sets the precedent about the early spread of Christianity.

His comments are factual and correct. By time the Romans became Chrsitians hundreds of years had passed. So you are trying to compare what happend long after Christianity had spread and was no longer a fledging religion.

You are indeed trying to whitewash the time progression to suit your argument. The facts however refute your statements.

I look at early days of Christianity and the spread of the religion throughout Rome and Europe as two separate things. The spread of Christianity met a lot of resistance in Rome and then in Europe, and Europe wasn't completely converted until after the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire... which was after Rome fell of course.

Inquisitions and persecution of European Pagans lasted well into the Medieval Era, and the slowest places to accept the religion in Europe was the North. The Catholic Church also sent crusaders to northern Europe, so even after the majority of Romans accepted the religion it was still spreading to Europe.

I honestly don't think I am white washing the facts... I was always thinking about the spread of Christianity in these terms, not as you define it.

By time the Romans became Chrsitians hundreds of years had passed.


... Yes that's true, but that doesn't mean I am being dishonest, because even though 100 years may have passed, the religion wasn't done spreading.

The quote pretty much sums it up...
 
This question is a lot like asking whether Coke or Pepsi taste better.

Except COKE does not propagate the sale of their product with the intent being world domination...at the point of a sword.
 
Except COKE does not propagate the sale of their product with the intent being world domination...at the point of a sword.

I believe I was using Coke as analogy for them both doing that. Christians just aren't as blatant about it. How recently isn't really an issue.
 
I look at early days of Christianity and the spread of the religion throughout Rome and Europe as two separate things. The spread of Christianity met a lot of resistance in Rome and then in Europe, and Europe wasn't completely converted until after the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire... which was after Rome fell of course.

Inquisitions and persecution of European Pagans lasted well into the Medieval Era, and the slowest places to accept the religion in Europe was the North. The Catholic Church also sent crusaders to northern Europe, so even after the majority of Romans accepted the religion it was still spreading to Europe.

I honestly don't think I am white washing the facts... I was always thinking about the spread of Christianity in these terms, not as you define it.

Then your response to his statement was not correct as I pointed out.

Then you purposely cut out the first sentence as I said. It may have been unintentional, but re-reading your post, I doubt it. So this more than anything else was a hit on the credibility of the statement you picked to use.

If I give you the benefit of the doubt about the whitewashing, at the very least you were manipulating the data to enforce your point.

... Yes that's true, but that doesn't mean I am being dishonest, because even though 100 years may have passed, the religion wasn't done spreading.

It is actually still spreading to this day in some places. So I guess the early expansion according to your statement never ended? ;)

The quote pretty much sums it up...

What quote?
 
Last edited:
I believe I was using Coke as analogy for them both doing that. Christians just aren't as blatant about it. How recently isn't really an issue.

And I demonstrated that you are WRONG. (not to be PROGRESSIVELY assumed to mean WRONG!!!!!) There is only one standard that calibrates the Christian Religion and that would be the Holy Bible, and no where can you find a declaration of converting anyone to the faith against their will.....nowhere. Are you suggesting that people are born with an innate faith in Christianity and that faith has not been translated from generation to generation by the content of the Holy Scriptures? Its absurd to blame Christianity for the wrongs preformed by man when there is nothing in the standard that accepts such an act as being righteous. While on the other hand its a most easy thing to point to the Holy book of Islam and see the contrasting difference between the two religions. Its a most simple thing....point to the Book, Chapter and Verse where anyone could even assume that Christianity is to be promoted by violence.....but on the other hand............


Islam promotes a message in the Koran that suggests when any Muslim "thinks" they are being persecuted that it is the duty of the loyal Muslim to "...smite them on the neck until you have routed them..." (Surah 47:4), "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you......slay the aggressors wherever you find them....fight them until PERSECUTION is no more" (persecution can be perceived as anything, one can be interpreted as being a persecutor for simply supporting the nation of Israel) -- Surah 2:190-194).

WARFARE IS ORDAINED IN YOU.................(Surah 2: 216-217).

One does not need a blindfold to take the COKE v PEPSI challenge, just "commonsense".
 
Last edited:
One false premise is presented in attempting to Blame the religion of Christianity for the Crusades and Inquisitions, again I defy anyone to find one passage where Christianity is to be spread at the point of the sword...just one. The Crusades and Inquisitions came about due to CATHOLIC DOGMA as declared through Papal "TRADITION"....not because of the Doctrine presented in the Inspired Word of God. In fact the Vatican ruled most of the European States during that time period, and one Papal Edict made it illegal for any lay person to be in possession of any Biblical Text...thus, the only Doctrine being taught was a doctrine of Dogma and Tradition which brought us such noble traditions as the Crusades and Inquisitions.

Source for that???

With the Advent of the printing press and the translation of the Holy Bible from Latin into the King James English...the PEOPLE found the chance and opportunity to discover what the actual record presented, and the rest is history...its Called the Protestant Reformation of the Church when the people rose up in mass and decided to go back to the Written Word as the only source of Christian Doctrine which in turn lead to the eventual founding of these United States of American which really was nothing but a rebellion against Roman Catholic Doctrine and its totalitarian despotism. Thus, the very first amendment to the United States Constitution....WE the PEOPLE made it clear that no CENTRAL GOVERNMENT had the authority to ESTABLISH a STATE MANDATED CHURCH to the exclusion of any one protestant movement of which there were many in the early days of this nation's founding.

Umm.. you know that the printing press (in Europe) was invented by a Catholic, the Bible initially printed by a Catholic, and the first translations into vernacular languages were done by Catholics? Right? Protestants took books out of the Bible and changed important passages in the New Testamement, and your beloved King James version was written by someone representing a church created for the purpose of getting an annulment as well as to establish his personal control over the national Church.
 
Source for that???



Umm.. you know that the printing press (in Europe) was invented by a Catholic, the Bible initially printed by a Catholic, and the first translations into vernacular languages were done by Catholics? Right? Protestants took books out of the Bible and changed important passages in the New Testamement, and your beloved King James version was written by someone representing a church created for the purpose of getting an annulment as well as to establish his personal control over the national Church.

Source? What, another progressively educated person. Source History Actual. Why do you not present the evidence that proves that passages where taken out of the TEXT of the Holy Scriptures, and those supposedly omitted passages changed the CONTEXTUAL truth of that message being relayed? Truth is Truth. Regardless of who invented the PRINTING PRESS...that does not preclude the Papal Edicts from existing that made the possession of the Holy Scriptures illegal, nor does it hide from the fact that Europe was controlled from the Vatican. Simply look at the history of how the Catholics persecuted Galileo when they stuck to the FLAT EARTH SCIENCES offered in the Greco-Roman tradition, and they did the same thing in perverting the Christian Doctrine to use in Spreading the Modern Roman Empire which is Catholicism by instigating the Inquisitions and Crusades under dogmatic tradition instead of Scriptural Doctrine.

Roman Catholicism did not exist until the 4th Century when the Romans decided to USE Christianity under false premises to continue the falling empire. (if you can't bet them you join them)...but that did not stop the historical fact from existing that over 5000 copies of the Original Manuscripts existed long before any Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.
 
Last edited:
I look at early days of Christianity and the spread of the religion throughout Rome and Europe as two separate things. The spread of Christianity met a lot of resistance in Rome and then in Europe, and Europe wasn't completely converted until after the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire... which was after Rome fell of course.

Inquisitions and persecution of European Pagans lasted well into the Medieval Era, and the slowest places to accept the religion in Europe was the North. The Catholic Church also sent crusaders to northern Europe, so even after the majority of Romans accepted the religion it was still spreading to Europe.

I honestly don't think I am white washing the facts... I was always thinking about the spread of Christianity in these terms, not as you define it.

By time the Romans became Chrsitians hundreds of years had passed.


... Yes that's true, but that doesn't mean I am being dishonest, because even though 100 years may have passed, the religion wasn't done spreading.

The quote pretty much sums it up...

I never said it was completely without violance... look VERY closely at the words I chose... they were chosen deliberately. However, you deny only in the face of the facts that the early centuries of the spread of Christianity was, in fact, largely peaceful, and this is in stark contrast with the early centuries of the spread of Islam, which was largely violent.
 
No source? Not surprise...

Source for GENERAL KNOWLEDGE? Wait...you must be a progressive, RIGHT, you were not indoctrinated in history actual? Which is not a surprise. Of course the Printing press was not invented during this time period, The Pope did not make it illegal for a lay person to possess the Holy Bible...there were no Crusades nor Inquisitions directed by the Vatican during that time period, there was no Protestant Reformation, and the United States was not founded by that same protestant movement to escape Europe and Religious Persecution, and the 1st Amendment does not preclude the Central Government from ESTABLISHING a STATE RELIGION. All this is simply untrue because you are to lazy to read history? I have danced this dance before, regardless of the information presented...it will be deflected and the Circular Argumentation will do nothing but continue, because you do not wish to be enlightened you simply hate being proven WRONG. Pride is a wonderful thing...no?
 
Last edited:
Source for GENERAL KNOWLEDGE? Wait...you must be a progressive, RIGHT, you were not indoctrinated in history actual?

Thanks for verifying my point...

Now, care to answer my points that CATHOLICS did all of those things??? thanks for playing...
 
Thanks for verifying my point...

Now, care to answer my points that CATHOLICS did all of those things??? thanks for playing...

I just did. There was no protestant reformation until the 16th century, the crusades occurred under Catholic direction from the Vatican in 11,12, and 13th Century. You do the math. The Printing Press was invented in the 15th Century by "Gutenberg", and the Holy Scriptures were translated into languages other than LATIN and into the King James English in 1604.

But, simply because the general public did not have access to the truth found in the Holy Bible does not preclude that record from existing from the 1st century to date. Its simple, The Catholics use Dogma and Tradition to propagate Christianity while the Scriptures teach that it is the Word of God that builds faith, not the Church Hierarchy.

Its a most easy thing to demonstrate through the historical record when certain Catholic Traditions began, with the major change being in 325 when the CHURCH and STATE were incorporated together. But the Scriptures were first perverted long before then, as per the warning contained in the scriptures themselves that such would happen (1 Tim. 4:1-3)

The blessing of WATER before use did not begin until the 2nd century. The Separation of the clergy from the laity (members)..early 2nd century. This in spite of the Scriptural Fact that the Church that the Christ built did not have any separation as each member could approach the throne of God in prayers as each person was considered a Priest with the Christ being the High Priest that we confess our sins to as he stands as advocate between God and our sins (1 Peter 2:9-10).

Special days being set aside for fasting which eventually began the practice of LENT -- 140 AD. Yet the actual Record in Scriptures tell us not to respect certain religious holidays or sabbath as that was the practice under the Old Law not the New (Col. 2:14-17). The wearing of Special Clothes by the Clergy did not begin until the 2nd Century, yet Christ Chastised the Jewish Clergy for doing the same thing, placing themselves above the people they served by marking their SPECIAL Identity with SPECIAL CLOTHES.

The tradition of regional meeting between the clergy began in the 2nd century. Sprinkling used in the stead of WATER BAPTISM in direct contradiction of the SCRIPTURES began in 180 AD. Its a most difficult thing to bury yourself with Christ in a few drops of water. The beginning of MAKING THE SIGN OF THE CROSS during prayer late 2nd century. The dogma of teaching PURGATORY 230 AD.

Making marriage by the Clergy illegal...3rd century. The first OFFICE OF BISHOP 3rd century. Easter was invented 325 AD. Confessing Sins to a priest 329 AD. The practice of CALLING Bishops from large cities ARCH BISHOPS 4th century. Monastic orders. 5th century (separation of certain orders of clergy from the public society). Christmast began in 360 AD. The doctrine of Inherited Sin began in the 400 AD. A Formal announcement that Roman Catholicism was the STATE RELIGION 360AD.

Candles used used in worship as a sacred element 417 AD. Mary was declared the MOTHER OF GOD 470AD. The dogma of TRANSUBSTANTIATION (the tradition that has the elements of the mass becomes the literal body of the Christ 492 AD

The anointing of the dead for spiritual forgiveness 528 AD. Gregory becomes the Archbishop of Rome and declares Rome the center of the universal church. 590 AD. The first official POPE, Boniface the 3rd accepts the title of POPE. The introduction of Organ Music was removed temporally 670 AD The organ was reintroduced in 775 and remains today.

The Eastern Orthodox Church was formed in 1053 when the Pope (Leo IX) excommunicated Michael Cerularius 1053.

Rosary introduced 1090. Sprinkling for ALL PEOPLE instead of some accepted. 1311. Laity does not partake of the CUP 1414. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary 1845. Finally the POPE is declared as GOD ON EARTH and his word stated to be INFALLIBLE 1870.

A little history never hurts anyone.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom