(September 29, 2015 at 9:03 am)Drich Wrote: That's the thing, they didn't. They used the authority of Jesus supposedly passed on to peter and every other 'pope' from Him to the one who decided to wage war against the muslims or jews or whom ever. The problem with that? The word in which Jesus used to identify 'peter' is not one of authority. Jesus was actually being a little insulting to peter/petros (translated: loose gravel/unsure footing/small stone) when He told Him of the 'rock'/petra in which He would build His church.
Besides all of that, Peter did not start the R/C Church, Peter did not have a big gentile ministry, and nothing ever written places him in Rome. it was Paul who started the church at rome, and nothing else ever written by Peter or Paul hinted at Apostolic powers/Authority being passed down.
So again the authority given to persecute jews or anyone else was not biblical in orgin, it was a mandate from a religious leader. Such mandates do not bind God into accepting or identifying such men or their followers as 'Christians' just because they claim to be. Again that would be no different than me calling myself an Atheist and then proclaiming that God is alive and well.
Just because I give myself a title does not mean I belong to that group. Again with Christianity their are established guidelines, and when you break those guide line you are no longer worshiping the god of the bible. That however does not mean you are not a devoutly religious person. It just means your religion does not follow the God of the bible.
The problem with your argument is that there were no other kinds of Christians between the ascension of Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation. Yet (see chart I posted) we see persecution of the Jews going back to practically the beginning of Christianity.
You can't ignore ~1500 years of Christian history and say that the Christians acting throughout that time were not following the God of the Bible, that they weren't TrueChristians™. There is a clear pattern of systematic abuse of Jews until fairly recently in time, based on people's perception of what the Bible demanded of them (through their leaders, as happens today with the anti-gay rhetoric, despite being only a few obscure verses, some of which are of questionable value and none of which have anything to do with the teachings of Jesus, who mentions divorce but not gays). You're willing to swallow a weird prejudice based on a few verses and a lot of church culture, but then want to turn around and say "but those verses they used to justify hatred of the Jews for the past 1900 years aren't really proper doctrine, it was just a twisting of false leadership". It's more than a bit strange to me to read such an argument, given that factor.
(As an aside, I'm curious: if Peter was not really the first Pope, then how did the second one become Pope? I happen to agree with you--though I have no evidence and freely admit that it's just conjecture on my part--that, at some point, somebody in power in the early orthodox church made it up and assigned Peter the role after-the-fact, so they'd have an authoritative lineage traceable to Jesus, but I'm curious to hear your explanation.)
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
