h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I want to add my two cents here.

In the Roman days, you would most likely be killed for practicing the Christian faith. So, in order to have their sermons and churches and stuff, they went into the catacombs (combination sewer, gutter, and morgue). Because of this association with the dead bodies therein, Christianity was considered a *very* sick little cult, adding to the already shunned people's discomfort.

Now, what does this have to do with the fish?

-----Ok, this is a little aside, but it's necessary. What I'm about to say is unconfirmed by any well-known source. If you know anything about this, feel free to say so. I would love to hear it.-----

Well, to distinguish the practicing christians hiding in the sewers from the drabble of theives and murderers hiding in the sewers, the christian would, very nonchalantly, draw a half-circle in the dirt. Then, the other man, if he were not a christian, would merely think it odd. But if he were a christian, he would respond with another half-circle in the dirt, completing the simple two-line fish. Thus did the christian catacomb refugees recognize others without getting caught (and subsequently executed).

I'm pretty sure I've heard something like this before, and I think included was the idea that they wrote the symbol with their toe, which fits in with your term, nonchalantly. I'd add this bit to the entry, but I've had problems with unconfirmed sources before. You know any more about Christian history? It's one of those areas that interest me, but I've never had time to really study it.

Well, I'm not entirely sure, I mean there's a lot of history there...

If you have anything specific to ask me about or that you would like my help with, please feel free to ask. I'd be glad to do it.

This is more of a doctrinal question, really, but it's historical. I'd like to know when the Church started preached salvation through works, instead of faith. That's a tough one, don't know if you'd know anything about that.

Well, the Church has never *really* taught salvation through works, but always through faith. It's the people who do it that way, trying not to rely on God but on themselves for salvation. This is the greatest show of *un*faithfulness.

And hey, I don't want to be totally facetious, but if you really want to know about Judeo-Christian history, you should read the Bible. It's the best source.
Specifically, for this question, try reading about the Apostle Paul.

And if you have any other questions, send them my way.

Okay, I admit it, that was kind of a test. I'm assuming from you're reaction that you are a Christian?

Well, I'd say that at some point the Roman Catholic Church must have stopped teaching or emphasizing salvation through faith, else Martin Luther wouldn't have needed to include justification by faith alone in his 95 theses. Whether the *Church* ever *really* stopped teaching salvation through faith might be a different matter. Maybe a better phrased question would be, when did Catholicism go astray.

I'm pretty familiar with biblical history, but sometimes extra-biblical history comes in handy. And I love Paul's writings, I even tend to use his rhetoric on occasion. Should I, a bondservant of the same master as he, refrain from doing so? God forbid.

I think I'll take your advice though, found something today in Acts that I wanted to pursue.

Catholicism was always about salvation through works, and still is today. The concept of salvation through faith alone is the new one, and it first appeared during the early days of the Protestant Reformation in the 1500's. Despite the fact that Martin Luther started the whole movement, I believe it was John Calvin who first introduced the idea. I could check some references on it and get back to you.

I stand corrected. Matin Luther was the first to argue salvation by faith. Luther's first writing was The Sermon on Good Works, in which he argued that good works do not benefit the soul; only faith could do that.

Well, I guess he would be, if you ignore Jesus, James, Peter, Paul, John, etc.

Be that as it may, salvation by works has been a primary tenet of the Catholic faith since it was formulated at the Council of Nicea. After all, salvation by faith makes it hard to control and oppress people, and less likely to give up their money.

Whether it was from the Council of Nicea or not, it doesn't seem to be expounded upon in the actual Nicene Creed. There seem to be allusions in it that would hold more with salvation by faith, made possible by the death of Christ.

some lines
"For our salvation he came down from heaven"
"For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate"
"We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins"

then again matbe I'm overlooking something

The Nicene Creed was not the sum total of work at the Council. And anyway, the first revision added a line about judgement that could be interpreted as an endorsement of salvation by works.

Good deduction, Holmes.

And, now that I think about it, the Catholic Church DOES expound on it throuh tithes and stuff, but it is more (I belive) that...

No, you're right. I changed my mind.

I myself am a Protestant, though I am unsure what branch thereof. I am always in disagreement (on small stuff) with EVERYbody I talk to, which I guess is nothing special.

Yeah, I tend to disagree with most people at some point or other, as long as they have a reason that they can give me from scripture that doesn't explicitly contradict something else, I let it slide.

And I certainly can't speak for the entire Catholic Church, but some definitely have the attitude that at least a part of salvation or a part of keeping said salvation is through human action.

I think I've mentioned this before...

As a young lad, I was being raised as a proper Catholic, and part of that was attendance at Catechism (Catholic version of Sunday School, but on Saturdays) for a few years. There I was actually taught a concept that there was a sort of balance sheet on the soul. A diamond shaped thing was drawn on the chalkboard to represent the soul. Good works added a bit of brightness (here the teacher shades the drawing) and bad works darkened it (the eraser). The one good thing about the philosophy, though, was the belief that babies had clean slates and therefore pure souls, because they have no knowledge of good and evil. It was after Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they frst began to sin. So basically, no original sin. You are a sinner or a saint depending on how you act as a person. Personally, as long as you have to have religion, I don't see the problem with having one that says you should be nice to people, or you won't go to heaven.

(ddombrow, I'm speaking to you as if you are religious, because you appear to be. Don't be offended or anything if you're not.)

I know many people in the Catholic church who do all of the rituals and everything, and they all seem to have the notion that salvation is through works, though the bible teaches otherwise. It does, however, teach to love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, be generous, etc. and it is here where (I assume) people make the mis-interpretation.

Although, to assume makes an... well, you know.

Whoops! that other reply was for you.

An assumption? quite. I try to stay away from assumptions about other people because I tend to be wrong half the time, and there are always exceptions.

I think one problem I have in this whole works faith debate is that most people I have talked to on the subject seem to think that the two are mutually exclusive. If you believe in salvation through faith, then why should there be a need for works?

I like the reaction of James and Paul. James states that without works, faith becomes meaningless. Paul says that we have freedom in Christ, that all things are lawful, but not all things are good and profitable.

GB:
The Catholic Church was not the beginning of Christianity, and nor will it be the end. Christianity is a personal relationship with Christ first and foremost, the reason that Churches exist is to be a focal point where others who share that relationship meet, interact, and work together toward a common goal. I encourage you to read the epistles, even if you do believe that they are flawed. They contain the foundation of Christianity, and I think you'll find the Catholics are a far cry from the model of the early church that they describe. Also, I think you might find C.S. Lewis's book "Mere Christianity" interesting. If nothing else these may provide you with more ammunition.

I agree that Catholicism was not the beginning of Christianity... that was the Gnostics, Mandeans, Essenes, or whatever you want to call them. But Christianity as we know it today began in 325 in Nicea.

I've tried reading Paul's works, but I just can't do it. There are still good lessons in the rest of the Bible, no matter what your beliefs, plus there's enough silliness to keep me interested. Paul's Epistles are purely irrational dogma, and reading them gives me that same creepy feeling I used to get at church. Only later did I discover it was my mind's natural defense against nonsense.

With "faith" comes "works"......it's an automatic response. I'm not "studied" in the scriptures as you guys seem to be, so try not to bash me too hard!

It has always appeared to me that true Christians(or any other true believers in whatever deity they wish to accept) perform works as an outgrowth of their beliefs. The works do not save them, their faith gives them the drive to do the "works".

By the way....some very interesting reading here!

NM