Forked from Fail of your Day thread:
Posted By: Axel-of-the-KeyPosted By: RymPosted By: Axel-of-the-KeyWe're MORE reasonable than Catholicism, because we don't blindly say "We've decided this." Our viewpoints have been defined for many centuries, (more, if you believe in the religion) and have not changed.
Posted By: Axel-of-the-KeyThey are based solely on the Bible.
There's some dissonance there. The Bible was not a defined text, and it was translated and altered constantly for a long time. Much of it was written long after the era when Jesus supposedly lived by a number of different writers, and the consolidation of the body of work left out countless pages of equally plausible text. If you say you believe in the "Bible," then you'd better define exactly which specific version of it you ascribe to.
Posted By: Axel-of-the-KeyCatholicism has the Pope, who can come up with new stuff whenever he wants.
This statement alone belies your understanding of Christian history. Most of the tenants of modern Christianity arose from the Orthodox church, which had a patriarch and similar power structures. Anything that came from these debates and councils is equally accountable to the "We've decided this" argument. So, do you hold to those tenants, or do you go back even earlier? At what point is it no longer arbitrarily defined by the people who wrote it?
I utilize the New International Version, primarily, which to my understanding, has gone back to much of the older Greek Orthodox translations for the New Testament, and straight back to the Hebrew text for the Old Testament. Granted, I understand this is similar to the Pope. However, it is not new. It cannot be redefined now. Their may be arguments over translation, but this edition does a good job of pointing out discrepancies.
The Pope is still around. The Pope can still change things. The Church has been around since within a few centuries of Jesus' death, and texts from back then are often studied in order to improve our modern understanding of the Bible. The Pope is not an ancient source, he is a constant source of change.
In some ways, Catholicism is almost like a cult, more about following the person who tells you about the beliefs than actually having your own individual interpretation of those beliefs. That's another reason why it's more acceptable-Because I choose to interpret the words differently than some others. It is open to interpretation, but not super loose interpretation.I can't interpret something out of the Bible. If it was said, it was important, and must mean something similar to its original function. However, this still allows for things like granting Homosexuals equal political rights. If you want to hear my argument on that, it is very long, but I do believe they should be granted equal marriage rights, just not in the way most people suggest. No, I do not advocate Civil Unions.
Remember, paragraphs are your friend. Walls of text are not.