Why are there so many demoninations?
-
(Roman Catholic Church)
Worldwide Distribution
The total population of Catholics throughout the world is estimated to be about one billion. They may be found in nearly all countries of the globe, though are more concentrated in the Americas and Europe. They currently make up 63% of the population of North and South America, 40% of Europe and 3% of Asia [12] (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/ANNU2000.HTM). They form a majority in all countries which speak a Latin-based language except Romania. These include nearly all Latin American countries (among them being such heavyweights as Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina); while in Europe, they are France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Non-Latin speaking Roman Catholic countries in Europe are Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia; the only one outside of Europe is the Philippines, which was once a Spanish colony. Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, as well as British-ruled Northern Ireland, are about equally divided between Catholics and Protestants.
The United States of America has a large minority of Catholics; this is a legacy of massive immigration, mainly from countries like Italy, Ireland and Germany. For example, in the United States, the proportion of Catholics grew from virtually nothing in 1790 to about a quarter of the total by 1920. Catholicism in Britain, meanwhile, underwent a revival in the 1800's and early 1900's after three centuries of relentless persecution.
Catholicism has spread relatively recently to some parts of the world; there are now some 115 million in Africa. Other countries where significant populations have developed are South Korea and East Timor. But, aside from an older presence in Uganda, the Catholicism in those countries tends to be somewhat more eclectic than in more established regions of the world.
The number of Catholics in the world continues to increase, through population growth in developing countries and, to a lesser extent, spread to new areas. The increase between 1978 and 2000 was 288 million. Protestant evangelicals have succeeded in making inroads into parts of Latin America, but remain a small percentage of the population. In most industrialized countries, church attendance has decreased since the 19th Century, similarly to other faiths. -
Eastern Orthodoxy
Eastern Orthodoxy (also called Greek Orthodoxy and Russian Orthodoxy) is a Christian tradition which represents the majority of Eastern Christianity. During the first millennium of Christendom, differences developed between the Christian East and West. By the 11th century, this had culminated in a Great Schism, separating the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy.
Like the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox trace their lineage back to--and claim to be the exclusive continuance of--the original Christian church, referring to themselves as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Eastern Orthodox Christianity claims an unbroken Apostolic Succession back to the Apostles, with grace transferred through the laying on of hands. Though many nationalities are represented in Orthodoxy, which present a number of slight cultural differences, the jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church are identical in belief, and spiritually one in Christ Jesus.
Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism
The Roman Catholic Church shares many of the same characteristics as the Orthodox Church especially in reference to the early church because of their common origin. For nearly 1000 years, the two churches were united, with the Roman Pope being counted as one of the five major hierarchs, along with the patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Constantinople. The division of the Church into separate churches is regarded as having occurred in 1054 in what is known as the Great Schism, though their divergence began as much as two centuries earlier. Both churches claim to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and reject the other's claim to this title. The term "Orthodox" was adopted by the Eastern Church to signify its adherence to, and preservation of, the original apostolic traditions, teachings, and style of worship. Both churches, to signify the universality of the church, retain the term "Catholic". Both churches also continue to claim apostolic succession. The churches differ, however, in their ecclesiology: the Orthodox Church views all bishops as equal, and rejects the idea that one patriarch may have authority over another's jurisdiction. The Patriarch of Constantinople currently enjoys the honorary title of "First Among Equals"; which simply means that in council, he occupies the position of president in what is otherwise a democratic organization. This, in the view of the Orthodox, is the same position held by the Pope before the Great Schism. The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, views the Patriarch of Rome as the head of the Church and ascribe to him all-encompassing authority on Christian matters.
To date, however, there has not been a final statement on behalf of the whole Orthodox Church, with regard to the status of Rome. This is not surprising, since such general, authoritarian statements are simply unheard-of within Eastern Orthodoxy, even upon issues with little to no internal disagreement. Therefore, a lack of a definitive, authoritarian, "Church-wide" statement cannot be taken to mean that the Eastern Orthodox Church necessarily espouses or rejects a specific belief. This sort of centralized communication is neither typical of nor appropriate to Eastern Orthodoxy. Because of its democratic nature, in order to make such a pronouncement, the Orthodox Church would be required to convene another ecumenical council, the last of which was held in 787 AD. There has been talk in recent years of doing exactly that in order to clarify the churches position on certain modern issues though nothing definite has been set. -
Well that's the question for you. You don't appear to be discussing, just bashing and not sticking to the topic.
actually your replies just show how one sided u r and it is these sort of people tat make catholic less appealing
We are talking about Christian Denominations here. Why talk about inquisition? Cuz you have nothing to contribute on the topic? You don't understand the word denominations or you simply dunno anything about it?
You have proven me right that you don't bother to read. When information is given to you so clearly, you just reply with IMO, IMO, IMO and IMO. You're not interested in the information at all. so are you here for discussion? That's the question for you to reflect on.
on one hand praise anybody who support catholic and boo the others who says otherwise. if u wanna talk about christian denomination, then carry on lor... it has nothing to do with me and choosing either denomination is an equally big mistake to me. However about the point of whether does catholic being true to history is a big NO. -
Good work, Honey. Three cheers for you.
A side note, why do some people refer to a certain denomination as having a more "liberal" doctrine? Are they meaning that this denomination allows for abortion or embryonic esperiments? Also, the role of women in religious life is another touchy matter. -
Whatever...Originally posted by stupidissmart:actually your replies just show how one sided u r and it is these sort of people tat make catholic less appealing on one hand praise anybody who support catholic and boo the others who says otherwise. if u wanna talk about christian denomination, then carry on lor... it has nothing to do with me and choosing either denomination is an equally big mistake to me. However about the point of whether does catholic being true to history is a big NO.
Yes, I'm going to carry on with the denomination talk.
-
Some ppl are born in certain denomination, eg. Born Anglican (parents are both Anglicans). Some are comfortable with certain denominations. Eg. I spoke with a German Lutheran before. She said she could not be a Catholic because she's been cohabitating with her husband before they got married.Originally posted by iveco:Good work, Honey. Three cheers for you.
A side note, why do some people refer to a certain denomination as having a more "liberal" doctrine? Are they meaning that this denomination allows for abortion or embryonic esperiments? Also, the role of women in religious life is another touchy matter.
But sometimes, Protestants are stricter than the Catholics, surprisingly. Many will require their partner to be converted baptised before they get married, while the Catholic these days are more relax in this area.
As for abortion, generally, all denominations oppose to it, cuz all agree that when a foetus is formed, it has a life. So abortion = murder. The only difference is some denominations may be stricter in this area than the others, by placing more emphasis on educating ppl not to do it.
As for embryonic experiment, I have not come across any church that is agreeable to that.
I will continue on the role of women later...
-
Now listen here, nobody is denying that the Church was at fault. Ok, if you want, you can say that the Church has the most fault. But you cannot say it's totally the Church's fault.Originally posted by stupidissmart:actually your replies just show how one sided u r and it is these sort of people tat make catholic less appealing on one hand praise anybody who support catholic and boo the others who says otherwise. if u wanna talk about christian denomination, then carry on lor... it has nothing to do with me and choosing either denomination is an equally big mistake to me. However about the point of whether does catholic being true to history is a big NO.
Certainly, the Church supported the ideal of the Crusade, but rarely controlled events and was often at direct odds with the Crusaders themselves. The horrors of warfare as fought at the time – and the ruthlessness of the slaughter that often followed victory – was neither caused by the Church, or was the Church capable of limiting it in any great fashion. The means used by the Franks in particular in warfare were hardly surprising for the time, or subject to control by the Church. There was no Church presence to mitigate the sack of Jerusalem in the First Crusade.
How dare you mock us! Since science to you is all mighty, build us a time machine then, and we will go back and see who is right.
Or are you going to say that it is impossible?
-
Since the Church led by Urban II sanctioned the Crusades, it is inevitable the pontiff would be implicated in the subsequent atrocities that followed. The Crusaders were predominantly knights who had grown up under the feudal system and did not stand to inherit land as they were younger sons. There was a need for them to seek their fortune abroad as their eldest brothers would inherit their fathers' property. One aim the pope had in mind was to rid Europe of barbarism and unrest, but he took the wrong approach. I've seen a video where Urban II was quoted as saying the Crusaders would be guaranteed instant entry to heaven for every infidel {Muslim} killed.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:Certainly, the Church supported the ideal of the Crusade, but rarely controlled events and was often at direct odds with the Crusaders themselves. The horrors of warfare as fought at the time – and the ruthlessness of the slaughter that often followed victory – was neither caused by the Church, or was the Church capable of limiting it in any great fashion. The means used by the Franks in particular in warfare were hardly surprising for the time, or subject to control by the Church. There was no Church presence to mitigate the sack of Jerusalem in the First Crusade. -
SIS, are you trying to start another war like you almost did with 6white_pawn9? Please don't.
-
Now listen here, nobody is denying that the Church was at fault. Ok, if you want, you can say that the Church has the most fault. But you cannot say it's totally the Church's fault.
however it was clear tat after the slaughter from the first crusade, some pope actually suggested the subsequent ones as stated by iveco, one pope even say tat it is a way of going to heaven, not much different than Osama and his jihab ! If u accept tat the church is mostly at fault, then it is good. But it is still giving half truths and finding excuses for its behavior in ther past, and yet people mistakening say they r being honest. I am just pointing out tat certain factual events stated in tat website is wrong, such as claiming it started of because of some massacre in italy or something. It is trying to find excuses and trying to cover out his full sh!t.
Certainly, the Church supported the ideal of the Crusade, but rarely controlled events and was often at direct odds with the Crusaders themselves. The horrors of warfare as fought at the time – and the ruthlessness of the slaughter that often followed victory – was neither caused by the Church, or was the Church capable of limiting it in any great fashion. The means used by the Franks in particular in warfare were hardly surprising for the time, or subject to control by the Church. There was no Church presence to mitigate the sack of Jerusalem in the First Crusade.How dare you mock us! Since science to you is all mighty, build us a time machine then, and we will go back and see who is right.
Tis is talk cock. If religion is so good then heal all the sick now. If such a miracle happen then it has to be done by god.Or are you going to say that it is impossible?
no one had ever said tat science can make everything possible it is just it is the most correct and tested means of establishing certain facts.SIS, are you trying to start another war like you almost did with 6white_pawn9? Please don't.
ope, i am not trying to start a war... I am just doing wat i am usually doing, trying to clear up some propaganda and "evangelising" -
The question is the result of the difference in denomination, a typical example will be one denomination treating other denominations as cults.
-
I recommend you guys to read the book Small Gods by Terry Pratchett (yes, it's a DiscWorld novel ). It's a satirical book on how religions are transformed from believing in a supreme being to believing in the system.
I think it's quite relevant to the topic. Some people are devoted to the church of their choice instead of the god, and they chose to believe what they want to believe instead of believing. -
I've just come back form camp and I see that much has happened.
Now I'll answer a few questions. First of all though my source may be from a christian website, there is neutral party material. Remember the documentary by BBC(unless you will now cliam that BBC is pro-catholic).
Secondly, the goverments though catholic in name does not mean they follow what is taught by the catholic faith. Similar like our gov they preach about meritocracy and incrrouptabilty....
Regarless of the political reasons for the crusades, right from the first crusade was a response to agression fromt the other party.
And lastly, you can say that cruelties by the catholic side was worse. Well it depneds on whose perception.
I won't be here for a few more days so sorry for any late replies. -
Now I'll answer a few questions. First of all though my source may be from a christian website, there is neutral party material. Remember the documentary by BBC(unless you will now cliam that BBC is pro-catholic).
your site is from a christian source and therefore I believe it is pretty one sided. They r goingto ignore the evidences tat disgrace the cathoic and focus on a few reports tat make them look better which makes it pretty one sided. i am asking u to show me a neutral third party account of the event. I don't remember the documentary from BBC. wat is it about ?Secondly, the goverments though catholic in name does not mean they follow what is taught by the catholic faith. Similar like our gov they preach about meritocracy and incrrouptabilty....
the pope represent catholic and I shown a lot of acts tat were supported by the pope. The monk were the leader for the inquisition and he was found to initiate the may forms of torture. If Catholic countries don't represent catholic, pope don't represent catholic and the monks don't represent catholic, then wat represent catholic ? Anything bad won't represent the catholic ?Regarless of the political reasons for the crusades, right from the first crusade was a response to agression fromt the other party.
U mean attacking another country to spread its religion and gained power is not meaningful in the discussion ? Is catholic butchering all the people in a country because it had attacked some country tat has no connection to catholic is ? Aren't u one sided and censor off information ?And lastly, you can say that cruelties by the catholic side was worse. Well it depneds on whose perception.
u mean killing off every living human will not be cruel on some people perception ? WHen the "aggression" forces first occupied a region, they just banish the non-believers. tat is more cruel to catholic than killing them ? -
The war, the inquisitions and killings were condemned because they were done by Catholics.
From the argument, I suppose someone is trying to tell us that it is very much acceptable if the crime is committed by an atheist onto a Catholic.
"It's ok that the Catholics die"
"It's ok that the atheist guy killed a catholic!!"
That's the hidden message. -
The war, the inquisitions and killings were condemned because they were done by Catholics.
has anybody gave tat message out ? I thought the message is to tell people not to take one-sided info. No one had said tat if the crime is performed by atheist to catholic, it well be acceptable. Which para gave tat subtle message ?
From the argument, I suppose someone is trying to tell us that it is very much acceptable if the crime is committed by an atheist onto a Catholic.
"It's ok that the Catholics die"
"It's ok that the atheist guy killed a catholic!!"
That's the hidden message. -
as I last checked.... this IS Eternal Hope..... how can there be propaganda and "evangelising" when Christians talk among themselves....
ope, i am not trying to start a war... I am just doing wat i am usually doing, trying to clear up some propaganda and "evangelising"
so far it seems that most of us are honest enough to admit that
1. the church is at fault at times,
2. we may not have the wisdom and knowledge to substantiate some of our beliefs,
3. it is incorrect and insensitive to lambast other religions and faith.
Unfortunately some people are either still in denial about their extremist anti-Christian stance, or dare not admit that they are anti-Christian in their argument. -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:as I last checked.... this IS Eternal Hope..... how can there be propaganda and "evangelising" when Christians talk among themselves....
so far it seems that most of us are honest enough to admit that
1. the church is at fault at times,
2. we may not have the wisdom and knowledge to substantiate some of our beliefs,
3. it is incorrect and insensitive to lambast other religions and faith.
Unfortunately some people are either still in denial about their extremist anti-Christian stance, or dare not admit that they are anti-Christian in their argument. 
-
Ok, I'm finally back . Lets see now where were we....
Though it may be a christian website(by the way I took that into account). It has neutral third-party material like the:
your site is from a christian source and therefore I believe it is pretty one sided. They r goingto ignore the evidences tat disgrace the cathoic and focus on a few reports tat make them look better which makes it pretty one sided. i am asking u to show me a neutral third party account of the event. I don't remember the documentary from BBC. wat is it about ?
ABSTRACT: The 1994 BBC/A&E production, "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition"
Let me give you an analogy to illustrate: even in a gracious secular society teaches that it is wrong to lie, but people still do it. Now, question is does a liarÂ’s behaviour reflect what the society stands for?
the pope represent catholic and I shown a lot of acts tat were supported by the pope. The monk were the leader for the inquisition and he was found to initiate the may forms of torture. If Catholic countries don't represent catholic, pope don't represent catholic and the monks don't represent catholic, then wat represent catholic ? Anything bad won't represent the catholic ?
In a similar way, the Catholics do wrong things. But does that represent what the Church teaches?
American historian William T. Walsh on Brother Fray Tomas de Torquemada,:
For example, Fray Tomas de Torquemada, the Inquisitor General of Spain whose very name is now a symbol of ruthless cruelty, actually checked the excessive zeal of the earlier inquisitors in many ways, including the limiting and mitigating of torture. After the appointment of Fray 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.
Walsh thinks that torture under Torquemada was no worse than that used by American police in the 1930s. Also, under Torquemada's entire tenure as Inquisitor General (1483-1498, 100,000 prisoners passed before his various tribunals throughout Spain. Of this number, less than 2% were executed. In Barcelona, from 1488 to 1498, "one prisoner out of 20 was put to death" (23 executions). Torquemada is not the monster of the Black Legend; still, he was responsible for, as an estimation, between 1,000 and 1,500 deaths... those death sentences were not at stake, but always pronounced by the civil court where the heretics were turned... and mostly by burning, the common method for those times.
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ442.HTM
Is that not what the people opposing the crusaders did as well?
U mean attacking another country to spread its religion and gained power is not meaningful in the discussion ? Is catholic butchering all the people in a country because it had attacked some country tat has no connection to catholic is ? Aren't u one sided and censor off information ?
You have changed the meaning of what I stated. I was referring to the perception that if IÂ’m a Christian of course, IÂ’ll say the other side was crueler. If IÂ’m not a Christian I will say that the Christian were the cruel ones.
u mean killing off every living human will not be cruel on some people perception ? WHen the "aggression" forces first occupied a region, they just banish the non-believers. tat is more cruel to catholic than killing them ?
By the way the people opposing the crusaders were not saints either, they didnÂ’t just banish their defeated adversaries. Here are some of their past misdeeds.
The above historical reference of Islamic mayhem is taken from Ibn Warraq
In 639, Muslim armies invaded Jerusalem, burned churches, destroyed monasteries, profaned crosses, and, in the words of the Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem, “horribly blasphemed against Christ and the church.” Thousands died as a result of famine and plague consequent to the destruction and pillage.
In 640, Muslim campaigns in the area around Syria lead to the sacking of monasteries and the execution of monks. Four-thousand peasants in Gaza and Ceasarea were massacred. The entire population of Elam was put to the sword.
And one from a source I posted earlier:
Now if we want to compare who was crueler, we could go on forever. Tell me in war which side is ever fully justified? But as I said you attributing all the atrocities to the Christians is not fair, did I ever say that the crusaders never committed any atrocities?
12,000 people were killed, the rest made slaves. The Turks killed every cleric in the city and sawed the archbishop in two.
If you want, I can give you examples of Crusader atrocities.
So, now how did we distort history? -
If Catholic countries don't represent catholic, pope don't represent catholic and the monks don't represent catholic, then wat represent catholic ?
Somehow this came to my mind...
Singapore doesn't have a state religion. So does it represent atheists?? -
Singapore's state religion is AutocracyOriginally posted by Honeybunz:Somehow this came to my mind...
Singapore doesn't have a state religion. So does it represent atheists?? -
I read somewhere it was Leeism
-
Don't you know the meaning of hidden or implied message? Well, yours is pretty clear.Originally posted by stupidissmart:has anybody gave tat message out ? I thought the message is to tell people not to take one-sided info. No one had said tat if the crime is performed by atheist to catholic, it well be acceptable. Which para gave tat subtle message ?
I can only see that for the whole time, you are the only one taking one-sided info
the anti-Christian info. You condemn and find fault with anything or anybody that is Christian or pro-Christian. This is pretty obvious despite the many times you try to hide your shit by insisting that you're clear-minded, fair and reasonable. -
ouch....
-
actually it is not so bad if anyone is anti-Christian and admits to it... at least one is honest to oneself and to others.Originally posted by FrustMom:Don't you know the meaning of hidden or implied message? Well, yours is pretty clear.
I can only see that for the whole time, you are the only one taking one-sided info the anti-Christian info. You condemn and find fault with anything or anybody that is Christian or pro-Christian. This is pretty obvious despite the many times you try to hide your shit by insisting that you're clear-minded, fair and reasonable.
unlike some gutless individual who relentless condemns Christians for our beliefs yet continues to be an evangelist of his so-called science and truth.