Originally posted by Rajk999
The following contains the answer:
- Master what do I need to be saved ..
- Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this ...
- The greatest of these [faith hope and charity] is ...
- Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world For I was ....

Christ will call his righteous followers into his kingdom. The rest goes into eternal destruction.

I'm not clear what you are saying here.

Originally posted by vivify
It's well known that mankind created religion in order to explain the world; think Zeus and his lightning bolt, Apollo pulling the sun around the world on a chariot, etc. Christianity is no different.

Genesis was not written by Christians. Your claim that Genesis should rightly be read as an historical account is simply not supported by making general claims about why religions are created.
Many people would say Genesis is not intended to be an historical account about how the world was made but rather a theological account about why evil exists.

There's the story of of Joshua who commanded the sun to stop moving for a day, obviously indicating that the writers of the bible believed the sun moved around the earth.
I rather doubt that is the only valid interpretation. But that is not what was being discussed. The issue was not whether or not the Biblical writers believed the universe was centred on the earth, but rather the question of why Church leaders thousands of years later believed it was so.
You claim that it was because the Bible says so. I claim it was for other reasons. Quoting Bible verses does not support your claim.

Why else would people who already believe in a divine being whose son was born through a pregnant virgin, died and rose from the dead, then ascended into the sky to some some eternal paradise, not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis?
Seriously? That's the best you've got?

It has to be because of the prevalence of science.
Or common sense.

I don't think every sect was motivated by power, like the Romans were.
Yes, but then you probably don't have a clue, so your opinion isn't worth much.

The time of the Spanish Inquisition is arguably the most brutal time of oppression from Christians. Those behind the Inquisition were Catholic.
Evidence please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

The Spanish Inquisition is often cited in popular literature and history as an example of Catholic intolerance and repression. Modern historians have tended to question earlier and wildly exaggerated accounts concerning the severity of the Inquisition. Henry Kamen asserts that the 'myth' of the all-powerful, torture-mad inquisition is largely an invention of nineteenth century Protestant authors with an agenda to discredit the Papacy. According to actual records the Spanish Inquisition was widely hailed as the best run, most humane court in Europe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Genesis was not written by Christians. Your claim that Genesis should rightly be read as an historical account is simply not supported by making general claims about why religions are created.

Many religions have certain patterns, such as similar ideas of heaven and hell, along with their own creation story. If those creation stories were meant to be believed by the followers of those religions, why would it be different with Genesis?

The issue was not whether or not the Biblical writers believed the universe was centred on the earth, but rather the question of why Church leaders thousands of years later believed it was so.
You claim that it was because the Bible says so. I claim it was for other reasons. Quoting Bible verses does not support your claim.
I was establishing that even the biblical writers believe in geocentrism, and their writings reflected it. This answers the questions of why the Church also believed in this.

Seriously? That's the best you've got?
You mean a logical question that you can't argue against?

I don't think every sect was motivated by power, like the Romans were.
Yes, but then you probably don't have a clue, so your opinion isn't worth much.
To the contrary, I have a good idea of the motivation behind sects like Lutherans (who were dissatisfied with the Church due to perceived error in their doctrines), and what their motivations were, based on historical accounts. The fact that you seem unaware of this makes my opinion more valuable than yours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
I said the Inquisition was arguably the most brutal period of oppression from Christians. That their level or atrocity may have been exaggerated doesn't change that.

Originally posted by vivify
Many religions have certain patterns, such as similar ideas of heaven and hell, along with their own creation story. If those creation stories were meant to be believed by the followers of those religions, why would it be different with Genesis?

Who says they were meant to be believed in other religions?
Just accept it, you are clutching at straws.
You are also ignoring the history of the Bible and treating it like it was written by the Pope.
It wasn't.

I was establishing that even the biblical writers believe in geocentrism, and their writings reflected it.
Not surprising for the time it was written.

This answers the questions of why the Church also believed in this.
No, it doesn't.

You mean a logical question that you can't argue against?
Ha ha ha.

To the contrary, I have a good idea of the motivation behind sects like Lutherans (who were dissatisfied with the Church due to perceived error in their doctrines), and what their motivations were, based on historical accounts. The fact that you seem unaware of this makes my opinion more valuable than yours.
What exactly lead you to the idea that I was unaware of it? And even if you were more knowledgeable than me of Christian history (which I doubt) it still wouldn't be saying much. Basically you need to do better than just opinion. Provide some sort of evidence or reasoning. So far it looks like wild speculation by someone with little or no knowledge of the relevant facts.

I said the Inquisition was arguably the most brutal period of oppression from Christians. That their level or atrocity may have been exaggerated doesn't change that.
You still need to provide evidence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Who says they were meant to be believed in other religions?
Just accept it, you are clutching at straws.
You are also ignoring the history of the Bible and treating it like it was written by the Pope.
It wasn't.

What am I "ignoring" specifically?

This answers the questions of why the Church also believed in this.
No, it doesn't.
So the reason that the Church believed in something that's in the bible isn't because it's in the bible? Interesting.

You mean a logical question that you can't argue against?
Ha ha ha.
Yet, you couldn't argue against it. Tee hee.


What exactly lead you to the idea that I was unaware of it?
On the first page of this thread, I made the point that the Romans wanted to dominate the world and have their version of Christianity be the dominant. Your response?

"As did every other sect of the time."

The Lutheran diversion wasn't about power, it was what they saw as serious errors in Roman Catholic doctrine. Hence, why I responded, that I doubt other sects were driven by the desire for power like the Romans were.

So if you were aware of sects like the Lutherans, whose motivations weren't for power, then your response of "As did every other sect at the time" was dishonest. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you were merely ignorant rather than dishonest.


You still need to provide evidence.
When was Christian oppression more brutal than during the Inquisition?

Originally posted by divegeester
This is what I'm asking you. The statement in the OP is yours.

It is assumed a Christian would know. So when you, a professing Christian should ask about fundamental Christian beliefs, it leaves one wondering why you need to ask.

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm not clear what you are saying here.

I am saying that the fundamentals is as follows : Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself... : this do, and thou shalt live.

Originally posted by josephw
It is assumed a Christian would know. So when you, a professing Christian should ask about fundamental Christian beliefs, it leaves one wondering why you need to ask.

He needs to ask because every Christian appears to have a different doctrine... ranging from the most lax and frivolous [and wrong] like that of Sonship and yourself which state that if you just proclaim faith in Jesus with your mouth that is all that is necessary for eternal life, to that of ThinkofOne which is that it is necessary to avoid all sin and evil in order to attain eternal life.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There is nothing in scripture which claims that the Earth is the centre of the universe nor a single verse which would lead one to believe that it is so.

I don't even know where to start with this. You might start by not twisting his words that you reply to.

Originally posted by divegeester
Would you like to respond to the OP?

If you don't mind, I will respond to what I want to respond to.

Originally posted by Rajk999
I am saying that the fundamentals is as follows : Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself... : this do, and thou shalt live.

Well, there's knowing what we should do, and doing what we should do. They're not always the same thing.

Welcome to the human race.

Originally posted by vivify
What am I "ignoring" specifically?

You speak as if Genesis was written by the Pope as part of some grand scheme to create a world dominating religion. It wasn't.

So the reason that the Church believed in something that's in the bible isn't because it's in the bible? Interesting.
Interesting and also true.

Yet, you couldn't argue against it. Tee hee.
These are your supposedly 'logical questions' you claim I cannot argue against:

Why else would people who already believe in a divine being whose son was born through a pregnant virgin, died and rose from the dead, then ascended into the sky to some some eternal paradise, not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis?

Its such a ridiculous argument it doesn't need arguing against.

On the first page of this thread, I made the point that the Romans wanted to dominate the world and have their version of Christianity be the dominant. Your response?

"As did every other sect of the time."

The Lutheran diversion wasn't about power, it was what they saw as serious errors in Roman Catholic doctrine. Hence, why I responded, that I doubt other sects were driven by the desire for power like the Romans were.
I am sure that the Lutherans have been driven by power at various stages. I am equally sure that the Roman Catholics have been driven by other things as well as power throughout their existence.

So if you were aware of sects like the Lutherans, whose motivations weren't for power, then your response of "As did every other sect at the time" was dishonest.
It was perhaps overly generalizing, but it is true that all large sects do end up seeking power and the Lutherans are no exception.

When was Christian oppression more brutal than during the Inquisition?
When was it not? Its your claim, you provide the evidence. Your unsubstantiated opinion counts for naught.

Originally posted by josephw
It is assumed a Christian would know. So when you, a professing Christian should ask about fundamental Christian beliefs, it leaves one wondering why you need to ask.

This is just a sneaky dodge by you.

You made pretty strong statement which I quoted in my OP, and now you are hemming and hawing and unable to provide any theology to back it up.

Originally posted by Rajk999
I am saying that the fundamentals is as follows : Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself... : this do, and thou shalt live.

Thanks. Does this fundamentals carry with it the qualifier that josephw made in the statement I quoted in the OP?

Originally posted by Suzianne
If you don't mind, I will respond to what I want to respond to.

I don't mind at all, probably no less than you will mind me asking why you won't address the OP. 😉