If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Forum Rules. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Welcome to RPGamer's new forums running under Vanilla Forums! If you're run into any odd or strange issues after our software migration please see this thread for details

Religious Questions.

SinSin MemberFull Members
edited February 2003 in Miscellaneous
This is for people curious about certain aspects of certain religions, not to debate the validity of them, or the existance of higher beings.

I have a few questions about some aspects of some religions.

1) Just what does the commandment 'thou shalt not lust over thy neighbor's wife" mean? Exactly.
As I interpret it, it would be a sin to be sexually attracted to somebody. Or am I horribly mistaken?

2) What is the base difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Protestantism? And any others similar to them.

3) Shouldn't it be a sin to smoke?
Smoking=death=suicide=separation from God.
At least my mother told me that suicide is separation from God. Am I right here?
Walken1.jpg

Comments

  • Captain VittlesCaptain Vittles Member Full Members
    edited February 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"1) Just what does the commandment 'thou shalt not lust over thy neighbor's wife" mean? Exactly.
    As I interpret it, it would be a sin to be sexually attracted to somebody. Or am I horribly mistaken?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    The exact commandment is 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife' or something like that. Covet and lust are two very different things. Lust is merely sexual, but to covet something means you wish to have it in its entirety, to take it as your own. The commandment is meant to further discourage adultery - 'do not interfere in an established marriage for mere personal satisfaction, for you are interfering in the work of the Lord.' It doesn't prohibit sexual attraction, it prohibits acting on a sexual attraction to someone who is already committed to someone.

    Or at least that's how I always saw it. I'm not a biblical scholar, so I'm hardly an authority.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"2) What is the base difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Protestantism? And any others similar to them.
    [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    The basic difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Jewish people don't see Jesus as the Son of God while Christians do. Least that's my understanding.

    As for distinguishing the different sects of Christianity (i.e. Catholicism, Protestantism, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, etc), it's usually tied in with history. For example, the Anglican church is an offshoot of the Protestant church (I think), and was started by Henry VIII merely because he wanted to get a divorce. I really would have to be a religious scholar to know the differences, and I unfortunately am not one.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"3) Shouldn't it be a sin to smoke?
    Smoking=death=suicide=separation from God.
    At least my mother told me that suicide is separation from God. Am I right here?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Smoking = death is a rather broad assumption. And suicide is considered killing (it is a violation of one of God's creations, after all), hence it violates a commandment hence the 'separation from God' idea.

    As for being a sin to smoke, suicide isn't the best way to see that. It's more like 'violating the temple of your body' or 'wasting God's gift,' etc. Depending on your interpretation, it could be a sin to consume anything classified as a drug - from nicotine to alcohol to ecstasy to acetaminophen. That statement alone should add a bit of clarity to why there are numerous sects of Christianity (and probably most other major religions) - because it's all open to interpretation.
  • SinSin Member Full Members
    edited February 2003
    1) Found it.
    "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."
    and
    "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
    Farily similar.

    3) People who smoke know there is a good chance of dying because of it. More people per year than murder, suicide, accidents, and war combined.
    And since killing is a sin...
    Walken1.jpg
  • KamikazeKamikaze Member Full Members
    edited February 2003
    To me, it seems most of the fundamentalist Christians in this country are gung-ho for war on Iraq. If "Thou shalt not kill", then why the heck are we going to war at all? These people are effing hypocrites.
  • ArdeaArdea Member Full Members
    edited February 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kamikaze @ Feb. 18 2003,18:55)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"To me, it seems most of the fundamentalist Christians in this country are gung-ho for war on Iraq. If "Thou shalt not kill", then why the heck are we going to war at all? These people are effing hypocrites.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    As I understand it, 'Thou shalt not kill' only applies to your own people. It is perfectly acceptable to 'smite the unbeliever with righteous fire'. Just look at the Crusades for some wonderful examples of that principle in action.
    Heron Heron Heron
  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited February 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"1) Found it.
    "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."
    and
    "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
    Farily similar.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    I disagree, unless you're into having sex with more than just other humans and animals. There's a similarity between adultery and coveting your neighbor's wife, certainly, but the rest is about greed and envy, which I see as largely different from adultery. Just because I'm jealous of my roommate's computer doesn't mean I want to have sex with it -- the commandment just states that I should be happy with what I have, as a precaution against me becoming jealous of my roommate, and preventing hate from forming between us.
  • AlienaAliena Member Full Members
    edited February 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kamikaze @ Feb. 18 2003,10:55)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"To me, it seems most of the fundamentalist Christians in this country are gung-ho for war on Iraq. If "Thou shalt not kill", then why the heck are we going to war at all? These people are effing hypocrites.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    You really need to be careful not to make generalizations. I mean, every religion/group/society has it's share of hypocrites, but they don't represent the thoughts of everyone. I'm a fundamentalist Christian and I don't want war at all. I hate death in any form and I'd rather see peaceful solutions to the world's problems. I'm not meaning to sound buttish. Really, I'm not. Christians just really get a bad rap sometimes and there are many of us who really are trying to lead good, honest, truthful, understanding lives. Maybe I just shouldn't click on any topic that has to do with religion... sad.gif
  • LegatoLegato Member Full Members
    edited February 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"3) Shouldn't it be a sin to smoke?
    Smoking=death=suicide=separation from God.
    At least my mother told me that suicide is separation from God. Am I right here? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    No, because Smoking makes you 23% cooler! Belive me I was a nobody, but then this guy said, "Hey you want a cig?", I said yes. BAM!! I was cool. And if it's a sin to be cool, then I'm going to hell. Anyway God is just a story to scare kids to do good things and be nice. Man I can't belive you didn't know that. biggrin.gif
  • SinSin Member Full Members
    edited February 2003
    Not Debate!!!!!!!
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"And if it's a sin to be cool, then I'm going to hell. Anyway God is just a story to scare kids to do good things and be nice. Man I can't belive you didn't know that. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Not gonna start on that...
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"You really need to be careful not to make generalizations. I mean, every religion/group/society has it's share of hypocrites, but they don't represent the thoughts of everyone. I'm a fundamentalist Christian and I don't want war at all. I hate death in any form and I'd rather see peaceful solutions to the world's problems. I'm not meaning to sound buttish. Really, I'm not. Christians just really get a bad rap sometimes and there are many of us who really are trying to lead good, honest, truthful, understanding lives. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I agree, don't make generalizations.

    But again. Please no debating. This is for people who are confused as to some aspects of particular religions.
    Walken1.jpg
  • fergus the lesserfergus the lesser Member Full Members
    edited February 2003
    Dracula: It was not by my hand that I am once again given flesh. I was called here by humans, who wish to pay me tribute.
    Richter: Tribute?!?! You steal men's souls, and make them your slaves!
    Dracula: Perhaps the same could be said of all religions...
    - Richter Belmont and Dracula at the end of Castlevania:Bloodlines

    <religion = stealing men's soul and making them slaves>



  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited February 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"But again. Please no debating. This is for people who are confused as to some aspects of particular religions.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    I think you're gonna have a hard time actually keeping people from debating in this thread.
  • guifaguifa Member Full Members
    edited February 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sin @ Feb. 18 2003,10:04)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"1) Just what does the commandment 'thou shalt not lust over thy neighbor's wife" mean? Exactly.
    As I interpret it, it would be a sin to be sexually attracted to somebody. Or am I horribly mistaken?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I think this one's been relatively well explained here

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sin @ Feb. 18 2003,10:04)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"2) What is the base difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Protestantism? And any others similar to them.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Judaism was the religion from which Christianity emerged. The Jews believe that at some point in time, God will send a saviour to earth, the Messiah. Christians believe that God has already sent his Messiah, that is, Jesus.

    Originally Christianity was one big religion (well, small, then big, but only one style). Then the Patriarch of Constantinople had an argument with the Bishop of Rome. They both excommunicated the other from the Church, and thus began the schism between Catholicism ("Universal") and Orthodoxy ("True religion"). Besides who is the head of the Church, to my knowledge, in today's society there is nosignificant theological difference besides the aforementioned one, in fact, Orthodox Christians can receive the Holy Eucharist at a Catholic Church, and Catholic Christians at an Orthodox Church (more on this later).

    There came a time when several parts of the Church began, how shall we say, wordly? A lot of people I've heard say that this means that there is fault within the religion. But, what is the Church? The Church is the people. People are not perfect. Thus, it is necessary to distinguish the faults of the people from the religion as a whole. Anyways, Martin Luther didn't like certain practices that related to worldiness, and thus made a quite a racket when he translated the Bible into the vulgate, and then posted his views on the Church on a church door. Luther, contrary to popular belief, did not want to break away from the Church, rather, reform it. (However, conveniently, he "forgot" to translate several books of the Old Testatament, thus leading to differences in beliefs betwixt Protestants and Catholics/Orthodoxists). Luther died, and his followers decided to break away. This new religious group was called Protestantism ("Protesters")

    Anglicanism, while technically considered a sect of Protestantism, broke off directly from the Catholic Church. Henry VIII had married several times getting anullments or killing his wife after each wife failed to produce a male child. At last, the Bishop refused to allow Henry to marry again. Henry then broke away, forming the Church of England, which differed from Catholicism in two ways: divorce (which is different from an anullment in the Catholic Church's eyes) was allowed, and the Pope (Bishop of Rome) was not considered the head of the Church. Enter Elizabeth, who was not a fan of the Catholic Church. She, being Queen and head of the Church of England, got rid of several of the Holy Sacraments (Protestantism on mainland Europe had done the same). Thus, the Church of England had truly split from the Catholic Church.

    An interesting read is the Catholic Church's views on other religions which can be found straight from the Vatican here: http://www.vatican.va/archive....htm#839. Some may be surprised at what they read.

    The major differences in beliefs between the different branches of Christianity is the following:

    Catholicism: 7 Holy Sacraments, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, Pope head of Church, Faith and Good Works necessary for Salvation.
    Orthodoxy: All of the above, except for Pope being the head of Church, in which the patriarch of each country is head.
    Protestantism: 2 or 3 Holy Sacraments, no belief in Purgatory, only Faith needed for Salvation, either Consubstantiation (Lutheranism) or Symbolism for the Holy Eucharist (all others). No real organization of the Church.
    Anglicanism: Same as above, except Episcopalian, meaning there is an organization in leadership of the Church.

    There are more minute differences, but that's a good broad explanation for you.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sin @ Feb. 18 2003,10:04)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"3) Shouldn't it be a sin to smoke?
    Smoking=death=suicide=separation from God.
    At least my mother told me that suicide is separation from God. Am I right here?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I can only offer explanation from the teachings of my faith, Catholicism, which goes more along the lines of wine or really anything else, and that in moderation there isn't a problem. Of course, technically, if you're addicted to something, then you don't really have the control to keep from doing, and that technically then doesn't meet the qualification for a sin, but either way it's better to just not start.
  • Captain VittlesCaptain Vittles Member Full Members
    edited February 2003
    OK, here's a question. I'm sure it will get me some angry responses, but it's merely a question to help elucidate me (which I do believe was Sin's intent for this thread).

    What exactly is a fundamentalist?

    Note that I did not say fundamentalist *Christian*, as I do not believe they have a monopoly on fundamentalists.

    Literally, the term would indicate that a fundamentalist is one who adheres strictly to the fundamentals of a given faith. But the term seems to carry a connotation of something more vehement, zealous... dare I say, sinister? But are these Rabid <Insert Religion Here> Fanbois really a true representative of a true fundamentalist?

    I know that my explanation can be interpreted various ways, and I apologize, but I was taught to be very... elaborate... when approaching a problem. So disregarding anything unintentionally implied by my musings, what exactly is a fundamentalist? It would be nice to hear some responses from people on 'both sides' of things.
  • guifaguifa Member Full Members
    edited February 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Captain Vittles @ Feb. 18 2003,21:44)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"I know that my explanation can be interpreted various ways, and I apologize, but I was taught to be very... elaborate... when approaching a problem. ?So disregarding anything unintentionally implied by my musings, what exactly is a fundamentalist? ?It would be nice to hear some responses from people on 'both sides' of things.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I think it depends on the religion. ?There's a big difference within Jewish teaching and their Orthodoxists, and Christianity's Orthodoxist.

    In Christianity, at least, the term fundamentalist means one who believes every word of the Bible to be literally true. ?The opposite of this would be contextualism, which is to take what is in the Bible contextually. ?The Catholic Church is generally contextualist, the Baptist, fundamentalist.

    One reason that fundamentalists (at least in my area of the world) get a bad rep is that they make frequent comments similar to "If you're not Christian, you're going to hell!" (actually, they said I was going to hell, because I was Catholic and not Christian....don't ask me). ?Also, I've heard things such that the dinosaurs didn't really exist, that God just put their bones there to test our faith. ?I guess from my standpoint, at least, I see them as being somewhat contradictory (especially the first, since it can tend to be offensive, and the Bible instructs Christians not to be offensive), but that is also probably from my Catholic background. Eep, I made a lot of vague generalizations there...

    With regards to Islam, I believe that the term "Fundamentalist" is being amalgated with the term "Extremist," which causes problems. ?My friend is a Fundamentalist Muslim, but his theology is VASTLY different from an Extremist Muslim such as Osama Bin Laden. ?Muslims believe, much like the Bahai'i and the Catholic/Orthodox Christians, that you do NOT have to be of a single particular religion or branch of a religion to go to Heaven. ?Note that this is fundamentalist teaching of Islam. ?Quite a bit diffferent from Osama's theology, which the media has mislabeled as being fundamentalist.



  • StingrayStingray Member Full Members
    edited February 2003
    I am Lutheran, and I appreciate what guifa tried to explain. While he has the progression right, there are some details that are not quite correct.

    First, Luther did not translate the Bible into the Vulgate. I don't think that's what you meant to say, but that's what it looks like you said. The Vulgate was the work of the Church Father Jerome.

    Second, Luther did not conveniently forget to translate anything. If you are referring to the apocrypha, he actually DID translate it; he also said it's not equal to the other books of the Bible.

    Third, Lutherans are not Protestants. The term actually began with the Anglican church; Henry VIII's protest over not being able to get a divorce. Many American denominations fall into this category because of the relationship with the followers of some of the continental reformers (Calvin and Zwingli) with the Anglican theologians. While the rulership of England kept going back and forth between Roman and Anglican monarchs, some of the protestant Brits would take up refuge along the Rhine River, on which shores you would have found many Calvinists. As as Lutheran, I can tell you that we consider ourselves an orthodox church body. It all goes back to what Luther wanted: reform, not protest.

    Fourth, there really wasn't an abolishment of sacraments. The Lutheran Confessions (Book of Concord) never really name any sacraments. They list a couple of definitions of sacraments by which the number changes; there could be 2, 3, 7, or many more. The most widely accepted number among Lutherans is 2 -- Holy Baptism and Lord's Supper -- by use of the following definition: externals (water and bread & wine), Word of God applied, promise of God for forgiveness connected, institution of God (from Matthew 28 and 1 Corinthians 11 among other places).

    Finally, the teaching of consubstantiation is normally connected with Lutheranism but it is really not what we teach. It may look like it, since we believe that the body and blood of Christ are truly present in, with, and under the bread and win, but consubstantiation say that the substance of body and blood are combined with the body and blood (in other words, when partaking of the sacrament, you would even taste body and blood, when in truth, you don't). I could point out some stuff in the Formula of Concord on this if asked. We teach the real presence, but we don't say how God chooses to do so (it's a "open question").
  • MonCapitan2002MonCapitan2002 Avatar Captured Full Members
    edited February 2003
    I would like to say that I am quite fascinated with the discussion that has been going on in this thread. ?Some of the information that has been given out by Guifa in particular is quite interesting. ?I must admit that I know very little about the mechanics of the structure of how the various Christian denominations operate. ?I hope that more people contribute to this thread.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (fergus the lesser @ Feb. 18 2003,20:51)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Dracula: It was not by my hand that I am once again given flesh. I was called here by humans, who wish to pay me tribute.
    Richter: Tribute?!?! You steal men's souls, and make them your slaves!
    Dracula: Perhaps the same could be said of all religions...
    - Richter Belmont and Dracula at the end of Castlevania:Bloodlines

    <religion = stealing men's soul and making them slaves>
    [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    This comment is out of line. ?To say that religion is a soul sucking enterprise is wrong! ?Just because you may not adhere to a particular religion doesn't give you the right to attack religion as a whole.
    LordBilbanes.png
    Please help my city grow. Estharopolis - Population | Industry | Transportation | Security | Environment | Business
  • MetacodMetacod Member Full Members
    edited February 2003
    If Satan is supposed to be the ultimate evil, why does he punish evil people in Hell?
  • RicoRico Member Full Members
    edited February 2003
    The wording isn't, properly, "Thou shalt not kill." I don't remember the Greek, but the word used in Hebrew is ratsah, which translates into our concept of murder. Our definition of kill is equivalent to the Hebrew word harag.

    As far as smoking, God does clearly say in Genesis 1:29 that every plant is for use by mankind. It's my opinion that using any other Biblical passage with regards to smoking would be stretching the intent of the passage a bit thin. After all, if you're going to argue that smoking is suicide, did not Jesus himself commit suicide? He certainly knew there was a "good chance of dying" from his actions.
  • SinSin Member Full Members
    edited February 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"If Satan is supposed to be the ultimate evil, why does he punish evil people in Hell?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    If I remember correctly, Lucifer was on of the three arch-angels but was kinda kicked out of heaven for being vain. He thought he was more beautiful than all the other angels, and deserved more, and since vanity is a sin, was kicked out. And he became the first fallen angel.
    Or I think that is how it goes. That is what my mom told me, but she seems to have some things about it all mixed up. So she may have told me wrongly.
    Walken1.jpg
  • ArdeaArdea Member Full Members
    edited February 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (guifa @ Feb. 19 2003,03:37)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Anglicanism, while technically considered a sect of Protestantism, broke off directly from the Catholic Church. ?Henry VIII had married several times getting anullments or killing his wife after each wife failed to produce a male child. ?At last, the Bishop refused to allow Henry to marry again. ?Henry then broke away, forming the Church of England, which differed from Catholicism in two ways: ?divorce (which is different from an anullment in the Catholic Church's eyes) was allowed, and the Pope (Bishop of Rome) was not considered the head of the Church. ?Enter Elizabeth, who was not a fan of the Catholic Church. ?She, being Queen and head of the Church of England, got rid of several of the Holy Sacraments (Protestantism on mainland Europe had done the same). ?Thus, the Church of England had truly split from the Catholic Church.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Henry VIII had been married once before seeking a divorce from the Pope of the time, who refused to grant him it (He'd already given Henry special dispensation to marry Catherine of Aragon in the first place, considering that she was his dead brother's wife).

    You've neglected to mention the two other rulers who were in power between Henry VIII and Elizabeth I: the Anglican Edward VI and the Roam Catholic Mary I. It was during their reigns that the majority of the upheaval following Henry's death ocoured. Edward carried on the conversion of England, by means of burning Catholics; while his sister, Mary, who followed him, reversed everything, and set about burning Protestants. It was not until the reign of Elizabeth that any semblance of sanity returned to the Church (the odd burning just to make sure the populace rembered which religeon they were).

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"If I remember correctly, Lucifer was on of the three arch-angels but was kinda kicked out of heaven for being vain. He thought he was more beautiful than all the other angels, and deserved more, and since vanity is a sin, was kicked out. And he became the first fallen angel.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    As I recall the story of the Fall, Lucifer was created as the brightest and best of all the Angels of Heaven, but he was proud. He refused to serve Mankind when God created it, and rebelled against God in opposition to servitude under Man. He led a third of the heavenly host in oppsotion to God and His angels.

    Lucifer (the Dragon) was defeated by the armies of the Lord, led by Archangel Michael. The rebel angels were banished from Heaven to the firey torments of Hell.
    Heron Heron Heron
  • guifaguifa Member Full Members
    edited February 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ardea @ Feb. 19 2003,17:25)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"You've neglected to mention the two other rulers who were in power between Henry VIII and Elizabeth I: the Anglican Edward VI and the Roam Catholic Mary I. It was during their reigns that the majority of the upheaval following Henry's death ocoured. Edward carried on the conversion of England, by means of burning Catholics; while his sister, Mary, who followed him, reversed everything, and set about burning Protestants. It was not until the reign of Elizabeth that any semblance of sanity returned to the Church (the odd burning just to make sure the populace rembered which religeon they were).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I'm quite aware there were two others in between, but I made no statement to the contrary. The point I tried to make was that Elizabeth I was the the person who made the most theological changes to the Church.
  • happytownhappytown Member Full Members
    edited February 2003
    Since this is an area for Religious Questions, I'd like to pose this one:

    Someone once told me that in China there are temples for local deities who control public order and stuff like that. ?They told me that if a local deity wasn't doing a good job (there was lots of local crime, etc.) he could be replaced by another deity.

    Someone else told me that the temple simply wouldn't be worshipped at if the deity wasn't doing the job.

    Which one is right? ?I know a bit about popular religion, but this point has been really unclear for me. If anyone knows, I will be so happy that I will dance the dance that's never been danced before.
Sign In or Register to comment.