S
Well...I needed to edit the above post but cant because of timelimits, so I would also like to provide this example:
Increasingly we have seen a rise in atheistm, agnosticism, and other religions like Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism, Neo-paganism...etc in countries where Christianity was once the norm. Christians are abandoning their faith in Christ for non-faith in Christ. By your logic, kujo, "There are so many denomination because people are leaving the Catholic Church because it is wrong." By this same logic, Christians are becoming ex-Christians to join other religions/non-religions because Christianity is wrong."
So, is that true? Does a negative reaction to one thing disprove the validity of that thing? I believe the true reason we have ex-Catholic Christians is the same reason we have any form of ex-Christians at all: people have the ability to choose and to decide what the want and how they want it. We have real proof that no one can agree on the same thing in both of these examples. That's about it. We could argue ex-Christians were never taught Christianity correctly and that is why they are leaving it. I would say the exact same about ex-Catholic Christians: They were never properly catechised, despite the fact that they say they were. I suppose those ex-Christians who are now making pilgrimages to Mecca were never properly taught the Christian religion to begin with. Someone made a more convinving argument somewhere along the line, unfortunately. That doesn't mean that the person who made the most convincing argument was neccessarily in possesion of the truest of truths...they simply may have had more zeal or passion. Heck...OJ Simpson had a great lawyer, didn't he?
Increasingly we have seen a rise in atheistm, agnosticism, and other religions like Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism, Neo-paganism...etc in countries where Christianity was once the norm. Christians are abandoning their faith in Christ for non-faith in Christ. By your logic, kujo, "There are so many denomination because people are leaving the Catholic Church because it is wrong." By this same logic, Christians are becoming ex-Christians to join other religions/non-religions because Christianity is wrong."
So, is that true? Does a negative reaction to one thing disprove the validity of that thing? I believe the true reason we have ex-Catholic Christians is the same reason we have any form of ex-Christians at all: people have the ability to choose and to decide what the want and how they want it. We have real proof that no one can agree on the same thing in both of these examples. That's about it. We could argue ex-Christians were never taught Christianity correctly and that is why they are leaving it. I would say the exact same about ex-Catholic Christians: They were never properly catechised, despite the fact that they say they were. I suppose those ex-Christians who are now making pilgrimages to Mecca were never properly taught the Christian religion to begin with. Someone made a more convinving argument somewhere along the line, unfortunately. That doesn't mean that the person who made the most convincing argument was neccessarily in possesion of the truest of truths...they simply may have had more zeal or passion. Heck...OJ Simpson had a great lawyer, didn't he?