By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - You are forced to change your religious beliefs - pick a new religion

 

What religion would you choose if you had to change?

Atheist/Agnostic/Pastafarian/Jedi 39 20.31%
 
Christianity 15 7.81%
 
Islam 25 13.02%
 
Judaism 8 4.17%
 
Hinduism 5 2.60%
 
Buddhism 66 34.38%
 
Scientology 1 0.52%
 
Wicca 6 3.13%
 
Norse 6 3.13%
 
Roman/Greek 21 10.94%
 
Total:192
sapphi_snake on 31 August 2011
Kasz216 said:

Well

A) It does.  Note how it mentions "Catholic" Claims having been settled.  The term Catholic was used to refer to the Church as early as like, the year 100 something.

B) Those are just titles for the Catholic Church... The Bishop of Rome... aka The Pope, was considered the "head" of Christianity before the First council of Nicaea.  He worked as the "head" of the three main Bishops of Rome, Antioch... and Alexandria I want to say.

C) The Bishop of Rome is also known as the Pope. 

A. The term wasn't used in the sense you think it was. The term means 'all-embracing', and was originally used as an adjective to stress the universality of the Christian Church (unlike Judaism for example, anybody was welcomed to become a Christian; there were no ethnical constraints to conversion). It was later adopted by the Western Church as part of their official name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic#History_of_ecclesiastical_use_of_.22catholic.22

B. Obviously that is the Catholic POV. Non-Catholics clearly disagree with this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#The_Role_of_the_Bishop_of_Rome

The Bishop of Rome was never seen as the head of the Christian Church.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html

Check item #41. While the bishop of Rome was seen as protos, that didn't mean that he was the head of the Church, or that he had the prerogatives that the Pope currently has in the Catholic Church.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 31 August 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

Well

A) It does.  Note how it mentions "Catholic" Claims having been settled.  The term Catholic was used to refer to the Church as early as like, the year 100 something.

B) Those are just titles for the Catholic Church... The Bishop of Rome... aka The Pope, was considered the "head" of Christianity before the First council of Nicaea.  He worked as the "head" of the three main Bishops of Rome, Antioch... and Alexandria I want to say.

C) The Bishop of Rome is also known as the Pope. 

A. The term wasn't used in the sense you think it was. The term means 'all-embracing', and was originally used as an adjective to stress the universality of the Christian Church (unlike Judaism for example, anybody was welcomed to become a Christian; there were no ethnical constraints to conversion). It was later adopted by the Western Church as part of their official name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic#History_of_ecclesiastical_use_of_.22catholic.22

B. Obviously that is the Catholic POV. Non-Catholics clearly disagree with this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#The_Role_of_the_Bishop_of_Rome

The Bishop of Rome was never seen as the head of the Christian Church.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html

Check item #41. While the bishop of Rome was seen as protos, that didn't mean that he was the head of the Church, or that he had the prerogatives that the Pope currently has in the Catholic Church.

A) Except... it excluded christians like Gnostics.  The universal church WAS the Catholic Church.

B) They may disagree with it... but they're wrong and only wish to disagree with it because they don't like the Catholics. 

C) Again... that's simply splitting hairs.  Heck the rest of the numbers after 41 basically admt this as it talks about the authority of the pope.

If he wasn't the head of the Christian Church... who was?  The term protos is just a splitting head term to ignore the fact that Eastern Orhtodox is a branch religion.  I mean it was specifically made up for that reason.



sapphi_snake on 31 August 2011
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

Well

A) It does.  Note how it mentions "Catholic" Claims having been settled.  The term Catholic was used to refer to the Church as early as like, the year 100 something.

B) Those are just titles for the Catholic Church... The Bishop of Rome... aka The Pope, was considered the "head" of Christianity before the First council of Nicaea.  He worked as the "head" of the three main Bishops of Rome, Antioch... and Alexandria I want to say.

C) The Bishop of Rome is also known as the Pope. 

A. The term wasn't used in the sense you think it was. The term means 'all-embracing', and was originally used as an adjective to stress the universality of the Christian Church (unlike Judaism for example, anybody was welcomed to become a Christian; there were no ethnical constraints to conversion). It was later adopted by the Western Church as part of their official name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic#History_of_ecclesiastical_use_of_.22catholic.22

B. Obviously that is the Catholic POV. Non-Catholics clearly disagree with this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#The_Role_of_the_Bishop_of_Rome

The Bishop of Rome was never seen as the head of the Christian Church.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html

Check item #41. While the bishop of Rome was seen as protos, that didn't mean that he was the head of the Church, or that he had the prerogatives that the Pope currently has in the Catholic Church.

A) Except... it excluded christians like Gnostics.  The universal church WAS the Catholic Church.

B) They may disagree with it... but they're wrong and only wish to disagree with it because they don't like the Catholics. 

C) Again... that's simply splitting hairs.  Heck the rest of the numbers after 41 basically admt this as it talks about the authority of the pope.

If he wasn't the head of the Christian Church... who was?  The term protos is just a splitting head term to ignore the fact that Eastern Orhtodox is a branch religion.  I mean it was specifically made up for that reason.

A. No, it wasn't. There was no Catholic Church then. I thought I already explained this. *sigh*

B. Or Catholics are wrong and don't want to admit it, because that would mean admitting that the Pope is a power-hungry con artist. The stakes are high for both sides (more so for Catholics). And considering that Catholics have a history of fabricating fictions to support the ideea of the Pope's supremacy (see, the Donation of Constantine), I'm inclined to think they're in the wrong.

C. It's not splitting hairs, it's just the reality of it. The bishop of Rome never had the prerogatives that the Pope currently has in the Catholic Church, and he was no more a successor to Peter as any other bishop.

Anyways, I can't believe we're actually having this conversation. I for one have no personal stake in this issue (for obvious reasons), and I assume neither do you, so I'm gonna bow out and leave this to the Vatican vs. the rest of the Christian world.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Hephaestos on 31 August 2011

I currently know i'm god... so if this is disproven (good luck), i'll chose atheism.



OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO

sapphi_snake on 31 August 2011
Hephaestos said:
I currently know i'm god... so if this is disproven (good luck), i'll chose atheism.

If you're really god, then do something godlike.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 31 August 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

Well

A) It does.  Note how it mentions "Catholic" Claims having been settled.  The term Catholic was used to refer to the Church as early as like, the year 100 something.

B) Those are just titles for the Catholic Church... The Bishop of Rome... aka The Pope, was considered the "head" of Christianity before the First council of Nicaea.  He worked as the "head" of the three main Bishops of Rome, Antioch... and Alexandria I want to say.

C) The Bishop of Rome is also known as the Pope. 

A. The term wasn't used in the sense you think it was. The term means 'all-embracing', and was originally used as an adjective to stress the universality of the Christian Church (unlike Judaism for example, anybody was welcomed to become a Christian; there were no ethnical constraints to conversion). It was later adopted by the Western Church as part of their official name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic#History_of_ecclesiastical_use_of_.22catholic.22

B. Obviously that is the Catholic POV. Non-Catholics clearly disagree with this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#The_Role_of_the_Bishop_of_Rome

The Bishop of Rome was never seen as the head of the Christian Church.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html

Check item #41. While the bishop of Rome was seen as protos, that didn't mean that he was the head of the Church, or that he had the prerogatives that the Pope currently has in the Catholic Church.

A) Except... it excluded christians like Gnostics.  The universal church WAS the Catholic Church.

B) They may disagree with it... but they're wrong and only wish to disagree with it because they don't like the Catholics. 

C) Again... that's simply splitting hairs.  Heck the rest of the numbers after 41 basically admt this as it talks about the authority of the pope.

If he wasn't the head of the Christian Church... who was?  The term protos is just a splitting head term to ignore the fact that Eastern Orhtodox is a branch religion.  I mean it was specifically made up for that reason.

A. No, it wasn't. There was no Catholic Church then. I thought I already explained this. *sigh*

B. Or Catholics are wrong and don't want to admit it, because that would mean admitting that the Pope is a power-hungry con artist. The stakes are high for both sides (more so for Catholics). And considering that Catholics have a history of fabricating fictions to support the ideea of the Pope's supremacy (see, the Donation of Constantine), I'm inclined to think they're in the wrong.

C. It's not splitting hairs, it's just the reality of it. The bishop of Rome never had the prerogatives that the Pope currently has in the Catholic Church, and he was no more a successor to Peter as any other bishop.

Anyways, I can't believe we're actually having this conversation. I for one have no personal stake in this issue (for obvious reasons), and I assume neither do you, so I'm gonna bow out and leave this to the Vatican vs. the rest of the Christian world.

The Catholic Church started with the Bishop of Rome, aka Pope becoming leader.

That he wasn't as strong a leader as he is now is irrelevent.

Nor does he being a successor to Peter matter.

All that matters is, he was the leader of the Church at the time.  Which the made up word Proto was made up, specifically to admit, but not admit that the Eastern Orthodox Church is a breakaway.



sapphi_snake on 31 August 2011
Kasz216 said:

The Catholic Church started with the Bishop of Rome, aka Pope becoming leader.

That he wasn't as strong a leader as he is now is irrelevent.

Nor does he being a successor to Peter matter.

All that matters is, he was the leader of the Church at the time.  Which the made up word Proto was made up, specifically to admit, but not admit that the Eastern Orthodox Church is a breakaway.

'Don't confuse me with the facts, I've got my mind made up already'.  WOW, you used to be better at this debating stuff. Not anymore I guess.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Hephaestos on 31 August 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Hephaestos said:
I currently know i'm god... so if this is disproven (good luck), i'll chose atheism.

If you're really god, then do something godlike.

Anything I do is godlike... that's the definition of it ^^

 

but to amuse myself i'll "do" something....that rash on your tiny noodle... I made it appear!



OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO

sapphi_snake on 31 August 2011
Hephaestos said:
sapphi_snake said:
Hephaestos said:
I currently know i'm god... so if this is disproven (good luck), i'll chose atheism.

If you're really god, then do something godlike.

Anything I do is godlike... that's the definition of it ^^

 

but to amuse myself i'll "do" something....that rash on your tiny noodle... I made it appear!

Rash? What rash? I have no rash. You're a fraud! A fraud I say!!!



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Kasz216 on 31 August 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

The Catholic Church started with the Bishop of Rome, aka Pope becoming leader.

That he wasn't as strong a leader as he is now is irrelevent.

Nor does he being a successor to Peter matter.

All that matters is, he was the leader of the Church at the time.  Which the made up word Proto was made up, specifically to admit, but not admit that the Eastern Orthodox Church is a breakaway.

'Don't confuse me with the facts, I've got my mind made up already'.  WOW, you used to be better at this debating stuff. Not anymore I guess.

Ok... I'll stop confusing you with the facts.

Weird stance but ok... at least your being honest with yourself.

It's simple the pope was the top authority then, and as the catholic church evolved this did not change. 

For The Eastern Othrodox Church... the Pope was the head, the leader and the most important religious leader, but isn't anymore.

Which is the original?  Pretty obvious answer there.

 

Keep in mind that the Eastern Othrodx Church in fact argues that the church existed, it just was there church and not the Catholics then the catholics branced off them..  Not that no such church existed.