@krellin - I get that, but the Catholic church has a significatnly longer history and from a more barbaric time on which to draw it's historical attrocities, not just a few hundred years. Martin Luther wrote the Letters of Reformation in 1517, just under 500 years ago and that would be the catalyst that started the Protestant movement. So 500 years in a slightly more enlightened age or 2000 years that include the Dark Ages. Not a fair comparison.

And I agree that the pedophilia is an individual sin, but the Catholic Church's covering up for decades upon decades throughtout the 20th Century is very recent and is a sytemic sin of the organization. Likewise, their absolute refusal to recognize gay marriage (something they share with the extreme right Protestant faiths) or have gay clergy (also shared) or women as clergy (even many of the right wing extremist protestants like Baptists are startign to accept women behind the pulipt now) makes the Catholic church the great sinners of the Judeo-Christian faiths.

@Draug -- I acknowledge that the Catholic church come from a different time in histroy, etc. My *primary* beef with the Catholic church isn't even their political power and bad behavior. My *primary* beef with the Cathloic Church is their perversion of Biblical teachings.

Sure, they stopped putting people on the wrack. Yippee! But they held fast and firm to a lot of stuff that isn't in the Bible. Praying to Mary; confessing to priests instead of to directly to God (I can confess my sins 24/7, not just when the booth is open...), the hierachical structure of the Church that points to a Man as head of the Church instead of God - (churches in the Book of Acts were loosely affiliated, independent churches with local control); the setting up as individuals as Saints, when the Bible clearly states in a "Priesthood of Believers" in which all saved person's are Saints; the praying to Saints (madness); etc and so on.

THAT is my primary beef with the Church.

Yet the Protestant church picks and chooses which books of the bible they use. No Church is without flaw, nor is any faith without flaw.

So does the Catholic Church, CF. Ever heard of the book of Judas? There is one. But it isn't in either Bible. The differences in the two are only in the old testament.

Protestant Bibles
In the 1500s, Protestant leaders decided to organize the Old Testament material according to the official canon of Judaism rather than the Septuagint. They moved the Old Testament material which was not in the Jewish canon into a separate section of the Bible called the Apocrypha. So, Protestant Bibles then included all the same material as the earlier Bible, but it was divided into two sections: the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha until the mid 1800s, and the King James Version was originally published with the Apocrypha. However, the books of the Apocrypha were considered less important, and the Apocrypha was eventually dropped from most Protestant editions. The books of the Apocrypha are also known as the deuterocanonical books.

Catholic and Orthodox Bibles
The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches did not follow the Protestant revisions, and they continue to base their Old Testament on the Septuagint. The result is that these versions of the the Bible have more Old Testament books than most Protestant versions. Catholic Old Testaments include 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), additions to Esther, and the stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon which are included in Daniel. Orthodox Old Testaments include these plus 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees.

source: http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_bibles.htm

Oh I was looking on wikipedia which actually has a wonderful graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon. And this is one of the reasons I don't think I could ever be Christian. We don't actually know what has been said. SOme books conflict so they picked and choose the ones that went along with the message that the church wanted to present. Not necessarily what Jesus said. That and you know the whole female deity thing.. 2 biggest reasons.

The 39 books of the Old Testament form the Bible of Judaism, while the Christian Bible includes those books and also the 27 books of the New Testament. This list of books included in the Bible is known as the canon. That is, the canon refers to the books regarded as inspired by God and authoritative for faith and life. No church created the canon, but the churches and councils gradually accepted the list of books recognized by believers everywhere as inspired.

It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon.
•
He distinguished those from other books that were widely circulated and he noted that those 66 books were the ones, and the only ones, universally accepted.

•
The point is that the formation of the canon did not come all at once like a thunderbolt, but was the product of centuries of reflection.


Let's look first at the Old Testament. Obviously the first five books (sometimes called the Torah or the Pentateuch) were the first to be accepted as canonical. We're not sure when this occurred, but it was probably during the fifth century before Christ. Of course, the Hebrews had the "Law" for many centuries already, but they certainly did not pay very good attention to it. It was probably the work of the prophets Ezra and Nehemiah that restored it to general use and fixed it once for all as authoritative.

How about the rest of the Old Testament? The prophets' writings were also not brought together in a single form until about 200 BC. The remaining Old Testament books were adopted as canonical even later. The Old Testament list was probably not finally fixed much before the birth of Christ. The Jewish people were widely scattered by this time and they really needed to know which books were the authoritative Word of God because so many other writings claiming divine authority were floating around. With the fixing of the canon they became a people of one Book, and this Book kept them together.

Nor is there a single date when we can say that the canon of the New Testament was decided. In the first and second centuries after Christ, many, many writings and epistles were circulating among the Christians. Some of the churches were using books and letters in their services that were definitely spurious. Gradually the need to have a definite list of the inspired Scriptures became apparent. Heretical movements were rising, each one choosing its own selected Scriptures, including such documents as the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Epistle of Barnabas.

Gradually it became clear which works were truly genuine and which mixed truth with fantasy. By the end of the fourth century the canon was definitively settled and accepted. In this process Christians recognize the providence of God in providing us with his written revelation of himself and his purpose with the universe.

source: http://www.biblica.com/bibles/faq/7/

And while we say "God the Father", except in physical form, I don't believe in spiritual division of genders. Gender is for the purpose of recreation in our physical form. That is why I don't have a problem with same sex relationships. Spirtually, there is no difference in a man and a woman's sex because the spirit has no sex.

"Yet the Protestant church picks and chooses which books of the bible they use. No Church is without flaw, nor is any faith without flaw. "

Who said any church was flawless? Nobody here ever suggested that.

Human religions are all flawed.

"Faith" is a state of personal being...I don't put my faith in a "Religion". faith is one of the most misused words in religion. It is rather clearly defined in the book of Hebrews, and it has *nothing* to do with a particular brand of "religion".

Then again, I think Cathoics do tie "faith" to their specific "religion"...another strike against...

There is one truth and all the churches here seek it, but we only find it in glimpses and it will never be fully revealed until the return of Christ. So, yeah, all chruches are flawed. Man is flawed. Therefore all religion and his understanding of God is bound to be flawed. Take a computer with a bad copt on the hard drive or a faulty memory chip and it will produce erros. Well, what are we but biological computers and what is socitey and religion but a form of network and protocols? So with every human being flawed (unlike the perfect logic of the computer), there will be mistakes. It cannot be avoided.

And in Catholic defense, many of them have a faith beyond Catholicism and the Pope and if you put four Catholics in a room, you will have four different views of what Catholicism is.

That's true. And Krellin with the way you were attacking the Catholic Church you came out as holier than thou. Shouldn't be so critical unless your faith is perfect too.

Judge not, lest ye be judged. For by what measure ye meet, it shall be met unto you.

Exactly.

I'm not holier than thou, and anyone that knows me knows that. But that doesn't mean that I can't critique the Cathloic church. By your own statement, how dare you attack me! lol

And I am "attacking" the Catholic church with specific examples, not just saying "Catholicism suck". And I don't see a lot of specific replies defending their bad behavior. AND the topic at large revolves around the Catholic church, not ME, not Protestantism, etc. So take a chill pill.

And what Draug points out -- 4 Cathloics in a room have a faith that has developed beyond the Church's teaching, and each will have a different faith --- and you agree -- sorry, that's a pretty damning indictment of the church.

Growing up in Baptist church, I can assure you it was a pretty homogenous faith, speaking anecdotally. From within any given church, or from church to church, most people tended to know why they believed what they believed, and it was consistent from Church to Church. Most Baptist Churchs have a "statement of faith" or ":what we believe" section on their web sites...you will find a very consistent message, backed by scripture.

I'm not saying Baptist Churches (or most protestant churches) are better than the Cathlics ...well, actually, yes I am, and I will state that with confidence...but I will not say individuals *humans* are better. I say the church's are better becuse of the manner in which they teach, and the stated reason for their beliefs tend to be driven specifically with the backing of the Bible.

Read this thread...you'll find an ardent defense of the Cathloic Church -- a body which is supposed to be based upon the Bible -- and in that defense we get a history lesson with no Biblical references. And there it is...there is your Catholic Church. the Bible tends to be a secondary item in the "faith"...based upon my experience with Cathoicism.

Imagine a Muslim who disregarded the Quoran. He wouldn't be much of a Muslim. In fact, he might be in danger of being killed by his people. We as a society accept this about Muslims, but not about Christianity? And that is why Christianity is failing...

As for judging...ugh, that is such a misused verse. We judge one another all the time. We correct our children when they are wrong. We *should* support each other when we see one another failing - which means we judge them. Hell, Draug, I personally have thanked you a few times for you calling me out in some of my more offensive raging drunk moments..and in part because of people like you I am sober today. THANK GOD you judged me, buddy!

"Judging" in that verse has nothing to do with identifying things that are wrong. AND, in "judging" the Catholic church, if you want to call it that (I reject the use of the word), I am judging an organization, not another human. So, misapplication of the verse and the word.

JUDGE as used in teh verse means:
1) to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, choose
2) to approve, esteem, to prefer
3) to be of opinion, deem, think, to be of opinion
4) to determine, resolve, decree
5) to judge
a) to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong
1) to be judged, i.e. summoned to trial that one's case may be examined and judgment passed upon it
b) to pronounce judgment, to subject to censure
1) of those who act the part of judges or arbiters in matters of common life, or pass judgment on the deeds and words of others
6) to rule, govern
a) to preside over with the power of giving judicial decisions, because it was the prerogative of kings and rulers to pass judgment
7) to contend together, of warriors and combatants
a) to dispute
b) in a forensic sense
1) to go to law, have suit at law

It is not the simple act of saying, "hey, you are wrong here and need to correct yourself..." It is a definitive statement. "Draugnar is evil and going to hell" would be me judging you. Saying, "Draugnar says some wrong things" is not judging you, it is a statement of fact. Judging is a stamp of overall "character" if you will allow the use of the word.

Hebrews says "Encourage one another daily so that they may not fall to teh deceitfulness of sin" (I think I misquoted, but it's a close paraphrase). MEANING...when you see someone struggling with sin, you support them so they don't fall victim to that sin. It's pretty hard to support someone to prevent their sinning unless you are first "judging" that their is a sin that needs to be guarded against. And again, personally speaking, it was those around me that "judged me daily" that helped remove a sin from my life...

Krellin - I quoted the whole verse. It says not to judge unless you can meet the same standards by which you are judging. I get that and that I was I wuoted the entire verse. I judged you because I could meet those same standards I was holding you to. I also live by the belief that we love the sinner but hate the sin. It's cliche, but true.

And the quote you are looking for and slightly mis paraphrased:

Hebrews 3:13
But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness.

What you misparaphrased is that the encouragment when one is caught doing worng is to be in that very day and then forgotten about (in so far as the sin) so the no rebuke will come from a failing later. In short, correct and encourage, but do it in the moment and let it go.

Yes -- but the "daily" sin, if it is caught, implies that whoever caught it "judged" that person to be sinning...get it?

I understand what you mean in your interpretation of the "judge not" verse. My problem is with those that use it to excuse moral reltivism. "Oh....who am I to tell ANYONE they are wrong...blah blah blah..." as if nobody is *ever* allowed to tell anyone that what they are doing is wrong. As if people caught in sin are just supposed to snap out of it on their own...as if children will just someone miraculously grow up righteous, instead of becoming that nasty, vile little creatures they will be if left on their own.

I believe we are on the same page.

I'm ashamed to have misquoted Hebrews 3:13 -- it's one of my favorite verses in the Bible...and one that Christendom largely ignores for fear of violating their misunderstanding of "judge not" verse...

There is a whole lot that has gone wrong in my life that might not have gone wrong if I had had someone in my life who, when seeing me heading down a dangerous path of destructive behavior, had been not willing to turn a blind eye to my sin, but instead love me like a brother and call me out...