People who have not heard of Christ

last SG · 2004-08-30T22:20:31+00:00

I think there is no need to feel offended. If you do not believe in the christian worldview, there is no reason to feel offended. To you, the God who will ju...

Icemoon SG

So Honeybunz suggests Christ is a mean to an end? What are Christ's teachings that are noticeably absent in other faiths?

SingaporeMacross SG

SIS:

To add on to what sillyme has said, if Hitler was a believer in God, why did he persecute Christians as well?

Icemoon SG

That sounds like an idiotic reply.

I'm sorry, but Catholics, very devout believers in God, also persecute Christians. They exhumed/hung/burned people like Wycliff and Tyndale for something as harmless as bringing the bible to the plain folks.

Nothing to say liao right? Twisted Evil

PS: Just to add, those so called 'believers in God' won't even let go the dead John Wycliff, they exhumed his corpse and burned it, scattering his ashes into the river. You can see the deep hatred in their heart.

Honeybunz SG

I would say Hitler did believe in God, but not as much as he believed in himself. But he chose to follow his own ways rather than God's.

Honeybunz SG

What do you mean by that?

SingaporeMacross SG

My posts are idiotic? So your posts are full of wisdom eh? What are you trying to prove by saying that we Catholics persecute Christians? Ar you trying to say Catholics are not Christians? I don't see you talking about Protestants persecuting Catholics. But that's not the point. I will set the record straight about these two men you are talking about.

I beg your pardon if I sound uncharitable. I hope that I have not assasinated your character. I hope that we won't have a flame war.

As for Wycliff and Tyndale, I have plenty to say. So please, do not sound too smug and vindicated.

SingaporeMacross SG

Now read what I have to say. Wycliff died in 1384 of stroke. John Wycliffs bones were burnt and ashes thrown into the Swift River in 1428. He was punished not for translating the bible, but for preaching heresy! John Wycliff 's version of the Bible was not a correct version, and he was using it as a means of corrupting the people's faith and of teaching them false doctrine! Catholic Church did condemn Wycliff's version, but at the same time allowed other versions of the Bible in English! He is not the first guy to translate the bible to English you know? Read the quote below.

"We shall . . . refute once more the common fallacy that John Wycliff was the first to place an English translation of the Scriptures in the hands of the English people in 1382. To anyone that has investigated the real facts of the case, this fondly-cherished notion must seem truly ridiculous; it is not only absolutely false, but stupidly so, inasmuch as it admits of such easy disproof . . .

To begin far back, we have a copy of the work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, in the end of the 7th century, consisting of great portions of the Bible in the common tongue. In the next century we have the well-known translations of the Venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow . . . In the same (8th) century we have the copies of Eadhelm . . . of Guthlac, . . . and of Egbert . . . these were all in Saxon, the language understood and spoken by the Christians of that time. Coming down a little later, we have the free translations of King Alfred the Great . . . and of Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury . . . After the Norman conquest of 1066, Anglo-Norman or Middle-English became the language of England, and consequently the next translations of the Bible we meet with are in that tongue . . . such as the paraphrase of Orm (about 1150) and the Salus Animae (1250), the translations of William Shoreham and Richard Rolle . . . (d.1349) . . .
The translators of the Authorised Version, in their 'Preface,' refer to previous translations . . . :
Much about that time [1360], even our King Richard the Second's days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated, as it is very probable, in that age . . . So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up . . . but hath been . . . put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation."

{Graham, ibid., pp. 98-101}

Oh, all this took place in England. John Wycliffe was a Catholic priest.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ508.HTM
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/graham12.html

SingaporeMacross SG

What about our friend Tyndale? William Tyndale was born in 1484. He studied at Oxford and became a priest, and was seized with the ambition of getting the Bible printed in England. But the church did not allow this. Why?

(I) Tyndale was not the man for the job. He says himself he was 'evil favoured in this world, and without grace in the sight of men, speechless and rude, dull and slow witted.' He had no special qualifications for the task of translation. Indeed, non-Catholic authors have admitted that the cause of Scripture reading in the vernacular was distinctly prejudiced by having been taken in hand by incapable men like Tyndale.

(2) He was acting entirely on his own account, and without authorisation from ecclesiastical superiors, either in England or in Rome; he was simply a private obscure priest, and was acting without commission and without sanction from higher quarters.

This guy was also teaching heresy and attacking the Catholic Church with his translation of the bible. About 1522 he had been suspected and tried for heresy; he had declared: 'I defy the Pope and all his laws'; and now he actually embodied in his English version Luther's notes and explanations of texts. It was full of mistranslations of sacred text and full of anti-Catholic notes.

Canon Dixon, the cultured Anglican historian, referring to the fact that copies of Tyndale's Bible were burnt, makes these striking remarks: 'If the clergy had acted thus simply because they would have the people kept ignorant of the word of God, they would have been without excuse. But it was not so. Every one of the little volumes, containing portions of the sacred text that was issued by Tyndale, contained also a prologue and notes written with such hot fury of vituperation against the prelates and clergy, the monks and friars, the rites and ceremonies of the Church, as was hardly likely to commend it to the favour of those who were attacked.'

Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England, found it necessary to write a treatise against it, and asserted that to 'find errors in Tyndale's book were like studying to find water in the sea'.

But the most interesting point about the whole affair is that time has abundantly justified the action of the Catholic Church and proved that she did the proper thing in attempting to stamp out Tyndale's Bible. For the reading of this pernicious book produced most disastrous effects upon the morals of the people, who became rebellious, profane, and irreligious, and disaffected to the civil as well as to the spiritual authorities!

http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/graham13.html

Honeybunz SG

wow! SingaporeMacross, you're fast. Shocked

Icemoon SG

I was trying to show the sheer ridiculousy of your argument, when you asked the question "if Hitler was a believer in God, why did he persecute Christians as well"? Let's be honest about history. Did not the Crusades and Inquisition take place? Did Catholics not slaughter millions(?) of God's people? Did not the persecution of other christian groups take place?

I wouldn't defend Protestants like they're holy men without blemish either. Just read what the Puritans (whom we thought are good Protestants) did to the Native Americans ..

Other atrocities which the church never teach, I believe SIS can elaborate.

JWorld SG

I don't see how you show the ridiculousy of the argument in your previous message. In the first place, SingaporeMacross did not say that Catholics don't sin nor kill. But your argument brought up how some bad Catholics have killed good & holy Protestants.

Icemoon SG

Oh, so what is a "correct" version?

My question to you, what's so incorrect and heretical about his translation?

At the end of the day, you still go back to the same old argument used by many totalitarian government - "if you don't follow party line , you DIE".

Icemoon SG

I never said they are holy Protestants. Ok, I admit I was thinking of them in a good light, the innocent party. Whether they're good or bad, correct or wrong, we have to further investigate, so let's not go into that for the moment.

Read his contentious statement - if Hitler was a believer in God, why did he persecute Christians as well?

My challenge to you is, believers in God cannot persecute Christians issit? Haven't we seen enough such persecutions in history?

Icemoon SG

Macham like the cardinals during Galileo's time. They believe in God definitely, but not as much as they believe in themselves.

They believe they're right about scripture - the rest is history.

ah_ken SG

Dun believe in anything lah. Juz believe ourselves.
C'mon. We know christ, christ dunno us.
Imagine someone u dunno believe in u, u sure kena find ridiculous, rite?
learn wat christ teaches, no need believe him one lah.

Icemoon SG

The real teachings .. hmm .. John 3:16 and John 14:6 should be the real teachings? Very Happy

They won't be treated the same. It is mentioned there are rewards in Heaven. Since presybterian stress less on charity, I think they get less rewards lor. So you see the priests and cardinals wearing designer clothes staying in bungalows .. the presbyterian people stay in shophouses wear singlet? But they won't cry, since God will wipe away their tears.

Icemoon SG

You said "You have to believe in him in order to know his teachings and follow them."

So isn't Christ a mean to an end? The end being his teachings.

stupidissmart SG

Ethnic cleansing is definitely not in line with the Bible

God certainly do ethnic clensing... he almost made the human population extinct during Noah's time. How about country of Sodom, Amalekites ( at war with them for generation onwards), Midianites (every men was killed), Hazor, Mador, Shimron, Acshaph and lot of other kingdoms (no survivors + whole kingdom burnt) They r all ruined because the Lord commanded and hardened the isrealis heart untill no survivors were left. They spared no one and burn out everything. Tat is worse than ethnic cleansing my friend... U can find out the keywords of the name of these kingdoms and find out yourself whether r there ethnic clensing or not. Read the bible to find out more. It is all very cruel.. read this passages yourself

Number 31

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."
3 So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them. 4 Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel." 5 So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. 6 Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.
7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba-the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. [1]
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army-the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-who returned from the battle.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Why emphasize on Believing in Christ? You have to believe in him in order to know his teachings and follow them

Taoist and buddhist etc place emphasis on doing good deeds too. They do not have to know his teachings nor know christ in order to do acts of good. However even though they really do a lot of good deeds, according to the bible they will all burn in hell.

To add on to what sillyme has said, if Hitler was a believer in God, why did he persecute Christians as well?

It is widely known he is a christ believer. Even the pope has sent letters to him and publicly announce his "faith" before hitler launch his attacks on other countries.

No, singaporemacross just say tat people who believes in christ do not kill christians. Catholics believe in christ, and they do attack christians. So his earlier statement is wrong and not valid. It cannot refute the fact hitler is a christ believer

SingaporeMacross SG

If Hitler were a Christian, why did he remove the bible from all the churches and instead put his Mein Kampf on the altars?

About the Crusades. The first Crusade started when Pope Urban II convoked the Council of Clermont, November 1095, which called the First Crusade. The Byzantine Emperor, Alexius Commenus, had sent a desperate appeal to Urban for armed knights to defend Christianity against the Muslim enemy. When the Pope laid the Emperor's pleas before the knights in Clermont, the main concern of the noblemen there was not so much the defense of Byzantium as the rescue of the Holy land from Muslim domination. Palestine had been under Muslim control since the days of the Caliph Omar, but at least the Arab Moslems had allowed Christian pilgrims to visit the places made sacred by the life of Christ. The SeIjuk Turks, now the dominant Muslim power, had, on the other hand, closed off the Holy Land.

It is important to understand that the Crusades were a just war. The Church is frequently attacked on the question of the Crusades, sometimes on the grounds that the Christian nations of Europe were the aggressors and encouraged to be so by the Popes, sometimes on the grounds that this kind of war was inappropriate for Christians to fight, and sometimes on the grounds that immoral things happened on the Crusades. Each of these objections can be countered, showing that the Crusades were a just war.

First, the Christian nations of Europe were definitely not the aggressors. As we have seen in earlier chapters, the Muslims had been aggressors against the Christians since the seventh century. Their attacks on Christian countries were still going on in the eleventh century. In 1071 the Turks had attacked and virtually annihilated the Byzantine army at Manzikert. It was this defeat that led the Byzantine Emperor to appeal to the Pope for aid against the Muslims. The Christian countries of Europe were clearly justified in defending themselves against Muslim attacks and also in going on the offensive in order to prevent future attacks. At no point did the Crusaders attack the Muslim homeland, Arabia, but only those originally Christian territories that the Muslims had conquered.

Second, it certainly was and is appropriate for Christians to defend themselves and the innocent and helpless against attacks, which is exactly what the Crusaders were doing. It is also appropriate for Christians to try to regain lands which their enemy had conquered, as was the case with the Holy Land. The religious significance of the Holy land makes it even better that Christians try to regain it rather than worse, since Christians had every right to govern the lands where Christ had walked and to protect them from desecration.

Finally, there were certainly abuses during the Crusades, most notably the Sack of Jerusalem and the Sack of Constantinople, both of which are discussed below. Now, I have never denied that the Catholics of history have persecuted others. They have committed many atrocities, that is undeniable. But an immoral action during a war does not detract from the justice of the cause of the war. The immoral action should be condemned, as Godfrey de Bouillon condemned the Sack of Jerusalem and Simon de Montfort condemned the Sack of Constantinople, but the war itself remains just.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0018.html

SingaporeMacross SG

Now what about the inquisition? This topic is a favorite for attacking the Church. Now see this: Number ONE, Actions are not the same as teachings. The fact that the Church had some abuses is clear. But as on slavery, the Church very early condemned it, repeated it twice more. Yet even churchmen had slaves. So did George Washington. This does not mean the teaching of the Church changed: only laxity on all sides. We think of the putting off of baptism in first centuries. St. Jerome was adult when baptized. St. Basil the Great, coming from a family with several saints in it, was not baptized until about age 26. John Kerry is Catholic, and he supports abortion. Does this mean the church supports abortion? No!

Number TWO, The abuses were much less than most people think. For a good account see Warren Carroll, The Glory of Christendom (part of a seven volume series the data below is from his work) on the Inquisition, and on sad abuses by the Popes in the Middle Ages. Furthermore, all governments of Europe around this period severely punished heresy. In England, the offender, often a Catholic priest who had merely said Mass, was hanged, drawn and quartered while still alive.
In France and Spain especially, the Cathar heretics were a danger not just to the Church, but to the state, and to all. In 1229 a council at Toulouse required that everyone in Languedoc, where most of the Cathars were, to take an oath and renew it every other year, to remain a good Catholic, and to denounce heretics. But Cardinal Frangipani heard testimony from a former Cathar, William of Solier, who said that to make such names public would endanger the lives of the informants. Out of this grew the Inquisition, established by Pope Gregory IX in 1233 to be staffed by Dominicans. The Cathars then were as dangerous as terrorists today, and brought fear, cruelty, bloodshed and war wherever they had sufficient numbers. In southern France it took the full armed power of the King of France to overcome them.

But then they went underground. Persons accused by the Inquisition were not allowed to know the accusers, to protect the accusers this sort of thing happens in protection of witnesses in U. S. courts today. But the person arrested was to make a list of his personal enemies and none of their testimony would be used against him. What modern court allows such a thing? Torture was used, but quite infrequent, and not lasting in its effects. In the 50 years of the operation there were no more than 5000 executions, which was small in comparison to the total executed for other crimes in the same period. Some Inquisitors did abuse their power, but they were promptly and strongly curbed by Pope Gregory IX. In 1242 the Cathars murdered ten of the Inquisitors.

As to the Spanish episode, the Turks in 1480 attacked the south Italian city of Otranto. 12, 000 people were killed, the rest made slaves. The sacred book of Islam does call for killing all infidels (The Koran says: When ye encounter unbelievers, strike off their heads until ye have made a great slaughter among them, and bind them in bonds. . . . cited from B. Palmer, Understanding the Islamic Explosion, Horizon Books, 1980, p. 36). The Turks killed every cleric in the city and sawed the archbishop in two. So Queen Isabel sent a fleet to Italy. In September of 1480, when it was clear the Turks might do the same to any coastal city, Isabel established the Inquisition. It dealt with the special problem of those who pretended to become Christian, but were not really converted, and might open the gates of the city to the Turks.

Torture was used only occasionally and it was the government that inflicted that and death, after the Inquisition turned them over. The Inquisition had no authority over practicing Jews and Muslims, only over professed Christians suspected of being fakes. After the appointment of Tomas de Torquemada as Inquisitor General in 1483 its tribunals were so fair that many preferred to have it hear their cases rather than the regular courts. Again, those questioned could not see their accusers, but could make a list of their enemies, and all testimony from them was discarded.
We must remember again that every government in Europe punished treason and heresy by painful death. Yes, the Inqusition is to be blamed for some things, but not as badly as the legend says.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0025.html

« Previous Page Next Page »