Return to main page: [[ArtisticLicenseReligion Artistic License - Religion]]

This article is a list of common misconceptions held by people about Traditional Christianity. For examples of this in action and for misconceptions about other religions, see ArtisticLicenseReligion. For more information, see the Useful Notes page on UsefulNotes/{{Christianity}}.

For specific misquotations of the Bible, see BeamMeUpScotty.ReligiousScripture.
!!Common Misconceptions About Traditional Christianity:


[[folder:Logical Fallacies]]
* Although Christians may sometimes fall into the NoTrueScotsman fallacy as a defense, what looks like the fallacy may not always be: when Christians specifically break commands they have accepted as part of Christianity (for instance the commandment against murder), they are in fact No True Christian. People who fail to follow the tenets of Christianity are not Christians, no matter ''what'' they say. Just like how someone who lives in and who's entire ancestry comes from Russia is not a Scotsman, no matter what they say.
* Christians do in fact "pick and choose" which parts of Literature/TheBible are more authoritative than others, but not randomly. There are theological systems for it. In Scripture it would be called "rightly dividing the Word of truth". ''Individual'' Christians may implement this ''poorly'', but it's not necessarily a systemic problem any more inherent to Christianity than any other belief system.

[[folder:General Beliefs and Theology]]

* "UsefulNotes/{{Jesus}} Christ of the Nazareth Christs": The word "Christ" means "[[TheChosenOne the anointed one]]" (a translation of the Hebrew term "messiah"), a title that Jesus' followers applied to him based on what they believed him to be. All too often it is clear that people think that this is his last name. Outside of his circle of believers, Jesus would have been known as Jesus of Nazareth, or as Yeshua[[note]]"Joshua", of which "Jesus" is a Greek/Latin version[[/note]] bar[[note]]Aramaic for "son of"[[/note]] Yosef[[note]] "Joseph", the Virgin Mary's husband, and if you don't believe in the Virgin Birth, Jesus' father. Even if you do believe in the Virgin Birth, Jesus' father-figure of sorts.[[/note]]. His enemies, despite how they are depicted in ''Theatre/JesusChristSuperstar'', would largely have thought it heresy to refer to him as Jesus Christ.
* Catholicism is often claimed to be quasi-polytheistic by non-Catholics (veneration of saints and the Mother Mary). Catholics don't actually worship the saints, including Mary, any more than they worship icons such as the crucifix. They usually get annoyed when people accuse them of this. In actual fact, when Catholics pray to the saints they ask them to 'intercede' with God on their behalf, the same way as one would ask a friend to pray for them.
* Another misconception is that Christianity (or occasionally just Catholicism) is polytheistic by virtue of the Holy Trinity (itself occasionally mistaken for God, Jesus, and ''Mary'' as opposed to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit). The Trinity are three aspects of the same godhead, not separate beings.
** Actually, that itself is a misconception (or, more technically, a long-ago-rejected heterodox belief) known as "modalism". The vast majority of Christians (or at least the vast majority of those denominations which ''have'' well-developed theology of the nature of God) hold what even though it is a contradiction in human terms, the three Persons of the Trinity are fully One and fully Three. One common way of depicting this is a three-spoked mandala with the word "God" at the center, and the word "Is" on all three spokes, with the words "Father," Son," and "Holy Spirit" where the spokes join the circle and the words "Is Not" repeated on each of the connecting arcs. So, "The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father, but the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God" (where "God" here is used as the name or title of a single divine being, not merely as a designation of the property of divinity).
** If you need more info on this, please look up the Athanasian Creed. It is the clearest confession about the Holy Trinity in the church.
* The New Testament canon was not decided at the Council of Nicaea, and it certainly wasn't decided by placing all the books on a pedestal and keeping those that didn't fall off; that was a myth made up by [[Creator/{{Voltaire}} Voltaire]]. The books themselves had been in common use throughout the Church since the first century and were chosen because they were written by either the Apostles, Paul, or scribes close to them (Mark and Luke-Acts). "Gnostic" gospels, such as those bearing the names of Thomas, Mary, or Judas, were known even at the time to be late forgeries; on the other hand, epistles such as 2 and 3 John, whose true authorship is often disputed, tend not to affect doctrine much. The exception is the book of Hebrews, which is anonymous, but whose candidates include Paul, Luke, Apollos, and Priscilla.
* A common misconception is that the Roman Catholic practice of Canonization makes someone a saint. A saint, in Catholic teaching, is any human who has made it to Heaven. God makes them saints. Canonization is just when the Church has sufficient evidence that the individual is in Heaven to declare that we ''know'' for a fact that they are sainted. This proof usually comes from miracles performed for someone who specifically prayed for that person's intercession. There is always a lengthy investigation of each "miracle" to rule out scientific explanation and falsehoods[[note]]The amount of investigation has been reduced in recent years, for example the role of 'Devil's Advocate' has been abolished[[/note]].
* A large number of people misunderstand the Catholic teaching of the Immaculate Conception. The Immaculate Conception was NOT Mary's virgin conception of Jesus—that's called the Incarnation. The Immaculate Conception is the belief that Mary was herself conceived without original sin—which has nothing to do with a virgin conception. Specifically, the miracle of the Immaculate Conception was God preventing the transmission of Original Sin (which was Adam's curse after the expulsion from Paradise, to pass the sin of his transgression on to all his descendants, which she would have normally received from her father and mother at the moment of her conception) so she would be spiritually fit to give birth to Jesus.
* Similarly, many non-Catholics are familiar with the concept of "papal infallibility," the [[SelfDemonstratingArticle dogma]] that UsefulNotes/ThePope is 100% correct when he talks about faith and morals. What most ''don't'' realize is that the Pope's words are only considered infallible when he is speaking ''ex cathedra'' (literally, "from the throne")[[note]]The Pope, being a bishop, has a throne called a ''cathedra'' which is used as a symbol of his authority.[[/note]] meaning it only applies when he is explicitly invoking the infallibility or is otherwise considered to have the intention of doing so; in addition, he must not contradict Scripture nor another Pope who spoke ''Ex Cathedra'', and it ''only'' applies to matters of theology, all of which adds up to some pretty strict and explicit criteria. To date, this has happened at least twice, while some put the definite count at seven times. Probably. It boils down to this: if the occasion meets these standards, ''God will not let the Pope speak wrongly.'' While the doctrine is understood today as giving the Pope a lot of power, at the time it was perceived as a way of LIMITING the Pope's power; if a past Pope makes an infallible statement, a later Pope cannot "change" this teaching if he doesn't like it.

[[folder: Symbology and Iconography]]
* The {{Number of the Beast}} is not three sixes in a row. 6,6,6 from an eschatological standpoint is utterly meaningless. The number of the beast is six hundred and sixty six. Or Six hundred and '''sixteen''' in some translations. Or possibly 216 (six cubed, or "six by six by six"). It's a subject of some debate, but of little real interest to anyone but the nerdiest of scholars and the crankiest of cranks.
* The upside-down cross is not a Satanic symbol. It's a common symbol ''used by the pope'' in tribute to St Peter, who died by being crucified upside down because he did not believe himself worthy to die the same way as Jesus. In fact, many really by-the-book old-school Catholics consider wearing an upside down cross is a more humble and respectable Christian thing to do than wearing a normal cross. Sorry, Satanists. An inverted ''crucifix'' (that is, a cross with a figure of Jesus on it) ''is'' offensive, however.
* The pentacle, which (among other things) was used by Christians for centuries to represent the five wounds Jesus suffered on the cross, and to provide ''protection'' from evil spirits. It was a common Christian symbol as recently as the advent of the Mormon church. In Wicca, {{Onmyodo}} and most other non-Left Hand Path forms of Pagan belief, the symbol uses a meaning developed within alchemy: the five points are the five elements, and again as a "protection from evil" seal. The Satanist or other Left Hand Path version, the pentagram, is, for this very reason, an inverse (upside down) pentacle, which often gets confused with the upside down cross above.

[[folder:Biblical Laws]]

* The various atrocities committed by the Israelites under Moses in the book of Deuteronomy are often presented as actual Christian teachings to deal with non-believers, and contrasted with the teachings of Christ as the true meaning of Christianity. The thing is Deuteronomy is a collection of historical records (what's left of them anyway) and not actual teachings, additionally suffer from ValuesDissonance (the Israelite conquests described are not likely to be more cruel and barbaric than the acts of any other people in that era, plus the Israelites, as the 'chosen people' felt fully justified). Also, Deuteronomy came long before Jesus, and if his teachings are of any indication, he clearly disapproved of returning to those times. Seeing how 'Christian' literally means 'follower of Christ', it's not hard to guess why such arguments are ridiculous.
** And as for God's personally ordering the Canaanite's obliteration, please read this commentary from the Zondervan NRSV student study Bible:

-->"The Israelites' fighting style fit the harsh pattern of warfare in that day. Contemporary Egyptian and Assyrian reports boasted of mass executions, torture, and the systematic razing of cities. But God's involvement raises unique questions. He personally ordered the destruction of seven Canaanite nations, with no survivors. Why?The Old Testament makes clear that the Canaanites were not being uprooted on a sudden whim. God had promised the land to the Israelites over 400 years before Joshua. He had called one man, Abraham, to found a nation of chosen people. He repeated those promises often (genesis 12.1-3; 15.5-18; 17.2-8; 26.3,23-24; 28.13-14) and finnaly called the Israelites out of Egypt to take over the promised land. Almost from the beginning Canaan was a vital part of god's plan. Israel's inheritance, however, meant kicking out the Canaanites. How could innocent people simply be pushed aside, or killed? In answer to this question, the Bible makes clear that the Canaanites were not 'innocent.' Through their long history of sin, they had forfeited their right to the land. Four hundred years before Joshua, God had told Abraham that his descendants would not occupy the land until the sin of it's inhabitants 'is not yet complete' (Genesis 15.16). later, just days before the onset of Joshua's campaign, Moses stated, 'It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you are going in to occupy their land; but because of the wickedness of these nations the Lord your god is dispossessing them before you' (Deuteronomy 9.5). Historians have uncovered plenty of evidence of this wickedness. Canaanite temples featured prostitutes, orgies, and human sacrifice. Relics and plaques of exaggerated sex organs hint at the morality that characterized Canaan.Canaanite gods, such as Baal and his wife Anath, delighted in butchery and sadism. Archeologists have found great numbers of jars containing the tiny bones of children sacrificed to Baal. families seeking good luck in a new home practiced "foundation sacrifice." They would kill one of their children and seal the body in the mortar of the wall. In many ways, Canaan had become like Sodom and Gomorrah. The bible records that God has patience with decadent societies for a time, but judgment inevitably follows. For Sodom and Gomorrah it took the form of fire and brimstone. For Canaan it came through Joshua's conquering armies."
* The Book of Leviticus suffers from the same treatment, and many bring up its use as a justification for homophobia ("if a man lieth with a man as with a woman"), completely ignoring the fact that it's ancient legislation, and as such, ''it was already rendered entirely obsolete by later laws, by the time the Bible was first compiled''. While the Ten Commandments were given to Moses, Leviticus is, in fact, the laws administered by the priests of the time and many were purposely disregarded by Jesus.\\\
The objections are usually that God commanded or allowed this to begin with, viewed as contradicting omnibenevolence. Regarding the conquests, it's safe to say every conqueror has felt justified in their acts, otherwise they wouldn't have done them. One might also argue that God's chosen people should be held to higher standards by the same reasoning.
* Claiming that God declared the human body sinful during the Fall of Man (after Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden). Actually, after being tempted by Satan to eat the ForbiddenFruit, Adam and Eve's (spiritual) eyes had opened, and they began to see everything as shameful, including their own bodies (they were unaware of their nudity until now). So, they attempted to cover them up by making "aprons" out of fig leaves (some versions of the Bible imply that only their genitals were covered with a single leaf) and hiding from God in the trees, but He calls them out on this. God did give them better clothing than the "aprons" after kicking them out, mainly because He had cursed the Earth with things like thorns as punishment, so their bodies would occasionally need protection from the harsh world outside; never did He say that they must be covered up at all times. Plus, He still loved and cared for them even though they sinned. [[]]
** The origin (i.e., the Hebrew version of the Bible) states that "יִּתְפְּרוּ עֲלֵה תְאֵנָה וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם חֲגֹרֹת", i.e., they took fig leaves and made themselves belts (or aprons). God did give them leather shirts before He kicked them out, but it isn't clear why.
*** God is a JewishMother and it was ''cold'' outside the Garden. [[YiddishAsASecondLanguage You want that they should freeze their little punims off without a warm jacket]]?
*** A common Christian interpretation of the coverings is that they're early symbols of Christ's death. Let clothing be a symbol for righteousness; Adam & Eve try to cover themselves with righteousness, but their efforts are inadequate - just some big leaves they've sewn together pretty roughly. In steps God and graciously gives them fabulous fur outfits that cover them perfectly, but it's come at a price - blood had to be shed to provide them. The blood of a lamb, perhaps?
* Slavery as described in the Bible deserves a mention of its own, because slavery in the sense described in no way resembles modern ideas of slavery. What we in the modern world have learned to abhor is ''chattel slavery'': the stealing of people to become property to do with as we wish, often with the context of racial superiority. In ancient times, if you were poor to the point of starvation, you couldn't go down to the government's social welfare agency to get "food stamps" or the like. ''These things didn't exist.''
** Often, you either indentured yourself and your family to have a place to live, in the service of someone else for a period of time--or you starved or froze to death.
** {{Indentured servitude}} also happened in some places with soldiers on the losing side of a war.
* Literature/TheBible and historical documents noted rules that supported that ancient slavery was generally {{indentured servitude}}:
** A slave's contract can be no longer than six years unless they where a foreigner, then they could be kept forever (Leviticus 25:44-46).
*** If he was a male slave that was sold into slavery. A female slave, or anyone born into slavery, were slaves for life.
** A slave is not barred from owning property.
** A male slave who marries a female slave may, if his time in service is shorter than his wife's, take his wife and any children they have with him when he leaves service.
** A slave cannot be made to work while sick.
** If a slaveowner beats a slave so that he cannot work for two days, his contract is void, and his owner to be tried as a criminal.
** If a slaveowner beats a slave so that he loses an eye or a tooth, or kills a slave, his contract is void, and his owner to be tried as a criminal, ''and'' the owner must pay a fine to the slave's next of kin.
** Slaves were Jews first and slaves second. As such, slaves were actually required to rest on the Sabbath and High Sabbaths, and a slave's duty to his master was not permitted to interfere with his duties to God. For this reason, it was not lawful for a Jewish master to sell his slave to a foreigner, lest the foreigner refuse to respect these rights.
* On the subject of slavery, another thing people forget is that it was a very common practice ''throughout'' the ancient world; it was the way prisoners of war and peoples of defeated nations were treated. That's why it's not condemned in the Bible. [[SocietyMarchesOn Only later]] (when people were enslaved and mistreated on the basis of race) did the practice become seen as "Why doesn't the Bible condemn this?" In fact, as noted above, it does...[[FairForItsDay just not the kind that the ancients were familiar with]].
** A case ''could'' be made that slavery is largely incompatible with New Testament doctrine. Despite the fact that it was condoned, it would have conflicted with the "reversal of roles" theme that made Christianity popular among women and lower classes at the time.
** The problem is that these verses refer only to ''Israelite'' slaves, and even their share isn’t all that great, as socioeconomic conditions would generally leave them no option but to return to their owner and undergo a very humiliating ceremony on the way, becoming an ''‘eved nirtza‘'', or ‘pierced slave’. They, along with non-Israelite slaves, or ‘Canaanite slaves’ (''‘Eved Kna‘ani''), are much worse off, as the text allows their Israelite owners to treat them like scum, and they ''were'' chattel that could be sold or inherited freely.
*** "Pierced" slaves mentioned above were also bound for life. The rules that protected Jewish slaves also only applied to men. Fathers were allowed to sell their daughters as wives.
** Paul points out in Philippians that owning a 'brother' in Christ is rather against the spirit of following Jesus. And as shown across the New Testament, a brother (or sister) in Christ could be of ''any'' race. [[UsefulNotes/TheRomanEmpire At the time,]] this was a [[FairForItsDay massive leap]] in thinking about [[ValuesDissonance slavery.]]
** Still, it could be argued that even if slavery were a common thing at the time, it still doesn't justify God's lack of condemnation of it in The Bible. If we're looking at the book from a mythological perspective, it makes sense, but from a holy or "the right thing" view, it's not a very valid argument.
*** Of course that can also be argued. Just because God doesn't directly condemn something doesn't necessarily means he is in favor of it. He didn't seem be very keen on it when it's the Israelites that are the ones enslaved.
*** This suggests that the silence is telling, given the concern for the Jewish slaves.
* Matthew 7 "Judge not that ye be not judged...", is really misunderstood as a message of tolerance. The following verses point toward the scripture being a message against '''hypocrisy''' ''in'' judgement (rather than judgement itself). Romans 2:1-3 has a similar teaching about judging hypocritically.
** Unless of course you have also read that all men are sinners and fall short of the glory of god and that they should concentrate on the mote in their own eye first, making it clear that those who judge are the very hypocrites being warned.
* When it comes to homosexuality, Catholic Church does not consider it a sin. Homosexual orientation is treated as a disorder[[note]]but within Christianity as a whole even ''this'' is debated. There are plenty of Christians who don't consider gay marriage any more spiritually unhealthy than straight marriage, and can back it up with interpretation.[[/note]] and as such, is something beyond the control of an individual and thus cannot be the source of sinful actions. Even homosexual intercourse is frowned upon only because it happens not in a married couple and cannot not performed with fecundity in mind (see above). For the Protestants otherwise, homosexual intercourse is frowned upon and is considered as a sin due to their scripture-only principle, and the fact ''Literature/BookOfRomans'' mentioned that same-sex intercourse is against the nature of marriage and reproduction as proposed by God. So, for all purposes, homosexual contacts are treated as any other form of adultery.
** And even then, it's a different set of connotations with disorder. While modern usage, especially in English, has connotations of mental illness, the Latin connotations, which are also in many translations, are just of misdirection. If one purpose of sex is procreation, a desire for non-procreative sex is inherently misdirected.

[[folder:Biblical History]]
* Literature/TheBible does not say that exactly three wise men visited Jesus, nor does it say they were kings, nor does it say they rode on camels. Their names aren't known either, and neither is said that one of them was [[TokenMinority black]] (although it doesn't say they ''weren't'' black either). It also does not say that they visited Jesus as an infant at the stable, they were simply said to have come when Jesus was a "young child" and at "the house". On that note, "young child" probably means three to six years old, which would mean "the house" refers to his parent's house in Nazareth. The grouping of 3 stems from the fact that there were ''three gifts'', [[RuleOfSymbolism Gold, Frankincense, and Myrrh]]. Their depiction was later expanded into European, (black) African and Asian, to symbolize people all over the world worshiping Jesus (in the future).
** "The house" (yes, not stable) is explicitly in Bethlehem; the wise men followed the star there, and Herod ordered all the baby boys of two years old or younger in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem to be killed. Which also proves Jesus' maximum possible age at the time. Seems Mary and Joseph found a house to stay in at Bethlehem after Jesus was born, had him circumcised and dedicated at the Temple while living there, then at some point after that the wise men came to visit, then they went to Egypt/back to Nazareth. This presumes, of course, the Nativity accounts can be harmonised so neatly.
* Nobody knows specifically when Jesus was born,[[note]]And as it turns out, the modern calendar may in fact be a few years behind schedule because of this -- the original math that the current year scheme was based on had a few flaws.[[/note]] but there is a prevailing idea that the date accorded was an attempt to co-opt Aurelian's ''Feast of the (Birthday of the) Unconquered Sun'' or ''Dies Natalis Solis Invicti'', a festival that took place on what was, in the Julian Calendar, the Winter Solstice, December 25.[[note]]In the Gregorian Calendar, which was first proposed as an improvement to the Julian Calendar -- which was about two weeks off schedule at that point -- the Winter Solstice is now December 21.[[/note]] While the earliest hard evidence regarding Dec. 25 as the date of Christmas is from 336 A.D., and it wasn't made an official festival until 379, there is evidence that the date was already being put forth by the integration of several strands of thought. The formulation of the date of Christmas actually has to do with the attempt to set the date of Good Friday and Easter, for the purposes of smoothing out the liturgical calendar.[[note]]The seasonal progression of the Catholic Church's worship theme, primarily organized as Advent, Christmas, Ordinary Time, Lent, Easter, Ordinary Time. NB: The Catholic Church also employs a three year rotation.[[/note]] After [[JewsLoveToArgue years of argument]], two dates were generally held for the timing of Good Friday: the Eastern Church claimed the date of April 6, while the Western Church observed March 25.
** In order for this to make sense, we need to concern the idea of "Integral Age", the extra-Scriptural, though apparently widespread, Judaistic idea that the great prophets of history had all died on the same day as their conception or birth. This gives the dates extra significance of being candidates for Jesus' birth or conception, and eventually March 25 took prominence. To the day, March 25 is celebrated as the Feast of the Annunciation (or Incarnation), when the ArchangelGabriel visited Mary and related a certain request to her, and upon her acquiescence conceived the "Eternal Word of God" in her womb. Anyone remotely familiar with pregnancy can make the nine month jump to December 25. April 6's nine month jump led to January 6, which is celebrated as the Feast of the Epiphany (the visitation of the Magi). Combine that with the "Chronicle" of Hippolytus of Rome (which precedes ''Dies Natalis Solis Invicti'' by a good ''three decades'') stating that the birth of Jesus "took place eight days before the kalends of January", and suddenly it seems more like ''Dies Natalis Solis Invicti'' was a political statement and a ''paganization'' of a significant date to Christians.
** Also, a further point to reference the date was put forth by St. John Crysostom (died 407 A.D.), as regards the Bible's record of Mary visiting her pregnant sister, Elizabeth. This took place during the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, when her husband Zechariah was performing priestly duties in the temple. Zechariah was in the eighth of a 24-class priestly system, so, calculating backwards from the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. (Rabbinical Tradition fixed the class on duty during that time), Zechariah would have been serving Oct. 2-9 in 5 B.C. (again, the modern year system may be a bit off) when he was visited by the angel and told his elderly and infertile wife would conceive and bear his son. Mary's sudden conception visit six months later puts us in March, and the nine month pregnancy leap leads us to late December.
** The misunderstanding here regarding who ripped off whom has several roots. First, was that there was virtually no conflict during the institution of the festival; Christians examined Aurelian's ideas, took a shine to them, and functionally ''[[JustForPun baptized]]'' them, giving them new Christian significance without having to impose a whole new methodology on everyone around them. The Birth of the Unconquered Sun was re-appropriated to refer to the "Sun of Salvation" or the "Sun of Justice", as in, Jesus himself. This "baptism" is actually quite common in nascent and/or rural Christian communities, which is why there is a disconnect when festivals and celebrations that look decidedly un-Christian (or, at least, are missing the cultural images of a certain set of [[ChristianityIsCatholic "Smells and Bells"]]) and Pagan are witnessed by casual observers. [[note]]The Christmas tree, for example, came from Germanic pagans. It was unknown in the English-speaking world until Queen Victoria married a German in 1839.[[/note]] Also important in the idea of Christmas originally being Pagan are the theories proposed by Paul Ernst Jablonski, a German Protestant, who wanted to demonstrate that the festival of Christmas was one of the early "Paganizations" of Apostolic Christianity into Catholicism, and by Dom Jean Hardouin, a Benedictine monk, who wanted to demonstrate the Catholic Church adopted Pagan festivals for Christian purposes without paganizing the Gospel. Both theories agreed on the '''assumption''' that, since the Julian calendar, which dated from 45 B.C. listed December 25 as the Winter Solstice, the date had a pagan significance prior to its Christian one. Jablonski merely noted the correlation of the technical designation of Dec. 25 and thus concluded that the Roman Winter Solstice had a significance prior to Christmas. Hardouin failed to challenge the assumption.
** Further, the particular sun-centric date was foreign to either of the two Roman temples of the sun. The one to whom Aurelian's clan belonged celebrated its dedication festival on August 28, but by the second century, both temples had fallen into disuse and neglect by the second century, when the eastern sun cult Mithraism was gaining ground. And none of the above had ceremonies dealing with Equinoxes or Solstices.
** [[OverlyLongGag SO! To sum up]], the idea that Christmas has pagan roots is utterly bogus. It is the taking of dates featured in the new testament, combining them with an (admittedly extra-Scriptural) Jewish ('''not''' pagan) theory about the lifespan of Jewish ('''not''' pagan) prophets. That they adopted Aurelian's festival is more of a [[ChessMotifs checkmate]] in that he gave them more material to work with. Instead of allowing him to copyright the sun for Roman Paganism, [[OutGambitted they put it in the service of Jesus Christ]].
*** Actually, a lot of the former fails to acknowledge that the Good Friday was originally structured as based on Mediterranean Sun rebirth dates (see the numerous solar imagery in John, and you'll get the idea), so it does have a pagan origin, albeit a far more subtle one than Sol Invictia. Furthermore, Mithraic cults did have celebrations about the Sun's rebirth, though they were never public and probably did not affect the development of Christmas much. Finally, Christian proselytism did play up Christmas as based on the Winter solstice across Europe, as nearly all native religions did celebrate the mid-Winter as the Sun's rebirth.
*** That is a possibility. Of course it is also a possibility that they simply chose the date of Good Friday and Easter to coincide with what the scriptures said about Jesus being crucified on the Friday after Passover and rising again on the Sunday after Passover. But you be the judge.
* Mary Magdalene is not identified as a prostitute by the biblical canon, nor as the woman who washed Jesus' feet and/or poured perfume on him. All we specifically know of her by name in her life prior to becoming a follower of Christ is that He purged seven demons out of her. WordOfDante later identified her with an unnamed "woman who was a sinner" (probably a prostitute) who did do those things. Biblically, though, there is no explicit link between these two women, since Mary Magdalene is mentioned a few pages ''before'' the unnamed woman in the gospels.
** Film works have done this, likely for artistic or pragmatic reasons in terms of telling the story without turning the work into a tediously long analysis. The 1965 film ''Film/TheGreatestStoryEverTold'' condensed much of the Biblical stories--including shoving Mary Magdalene into the role of the unnamed woman that was to be stoned. MemeticMutation might have gone off from there.
** To add to the confusion, a woman named Mary ''did'' anoint Jesus with perfume in a separate incident, shortly before his death--but she is Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, whom the Bible does not specifically identify as being one and the same with Mary Magdalene.
* While there is naturally quite a bit of debate about the divinity of Jesus and certain specific details of his ministry (e.g. whether he had disciples, whether he ''personally'' claimed to be the Son of God), the consensus among the vast majority of scholars of antiquity, even the non-Christian ones, is that a Galilean Jew named Jesus (well, "Ye(ho)shua(h)") ''did'' actually exist, that he was baptized by John the Baptist when he was around 30, and that Pontius Pilate ordered him to be crucified. The idea that Jesus was a purely fictional character is generally considered to be refuted by professional historians, and in fact they look at people who make this claim the same way they do people who claim the Holocaust never happened.
* Although there have been Christians who believed that the Jews killed Jesus, this notion is not a part of mainstream Christian doctrine. The Catholic Vatican II document ''Nostra Aetate'', which denounced this idea, was not an innovation, but a restatement of longstanding Christian teaching. Recall that the New Testament writers were Jewish, and that their original aim, in addition to converting Gentiles, was to reform Judaism from within. Indeed, the Gospel writers portray the architects of Jesus' crucifixion as a cabal within the Jewish leadership that not only violated Jesus' rights under Jewish law, but sold out the Jewish cause. First, Jesus is arrested by night and tried before a KangarooCourt composed mostly of Sanhedrin members who have already made up their minds to condemn him. (One of the dissenters indicates that there is not a proper quorum present, and that the time of Jesus' trial is irregular.) Once condemned, when Jesus is brought before Pilate, there is a mob present, but it is not representative the Jewish people, but a handpicked gathering that has been given prior orders to call for Jesus' crucifixion. Tellingly, during the exchange with Pilate, Caiaphas and his followers state, "We have no king, but Caesar". In so doing, they have betrayed the Jewish cause. To first-century Jews, Caesar was not the legitimate government, but a conqueror, an oppressive occupier, and many dreamed of a time when they would again live under a King. [[note]] In portraying Caiaphas this way, the Gospel writers were actually following on a time-honored Jewish tradition, dating back to Nathan and King David, in which prophets called out the king and people of Israel on their wrongdoings.[[/note]] (The Gospel of John portrays Caiaphas somewhat more sympathetically, as a KnightTemplar who believes that Jesus will bring the wrath of Rome down on the Jewish people, and concludes that his death is necessary to prevent a wholesale slaughter of the Jewish people.) What about the statement of the mob that Jesus' blood was on their hands and those of their children? According to Biblical scholars, this was a ritual statement traditionally made at executions. It was basically a formal way of saying "If our accusations are false, then may our bloodlines be cursed for all time!" or in modern words, "If the things I say are not true, then may god strike me dead!" While the mob may have said this, it has no real meaning or effect, as Deut. 24:16 and Ezek 19:20 clearly hold that the sins of the father shall not be visited unto the son, but that each shall bear his own sin. In fact, established Christian doctrine states that Jesus died for the sins of all humanity and that humanity as a whole bears the guilt for his death. (Rom 8:3 and Heb. 2:14). Note also that, in the Passion narratives of the Gospels, Jesus stated that, if he wanted to, he could have called down legions of angels to deliver him from his fate.
* Question: Why were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? If you answered ''only'' rampant homosexuality, you answered wrongly. [[ See Ezekiel 16:49 for more details.]] The short answer is that they were destroyed for a number of crimes, most importantly [[RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil rape]] and failure to observe SacredHospitality (which in that hostile world was critical for a newcomer's very survival). And as for any innocent women and children in those cities, considering that the cities had ''that many'' gang rapists, don't you think death was an act of mercy? Oh, and Lot wasn't actually offering his daughters for sex. It was actually a calculated insult to the mob. As everyone knows, rapists do what they do to prove that they are the more powerful person "I'm the boss, and you're my b*tch.", and lot's daughters were unmarried girls, and remember, in that culture people were married off at the age of ''thirteen'', so these girls couldn't have been older than twelve. All in all, this would've been equivalent to the mob demanding to fight Chuck Norris, only for Lot to tell them "Nah, you don't wanna do that, here, fight these two prepubescent girls instead, they're more your speed."

[[folder:Recent History & Events]]

* There were attempts to smear Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI by claiming he was a Nazi because he was drafted by them at age sixteen (membership was mandatory at that point). Not only was the Pope never a Nazi, his family had to keep moving house because of their strong anti-Nazi beliefs. The 'Hitler Youth' part of the equation never even happened - they told him to join, and he got a note saying he was excused. Not exactly a leader of the SS here.
** Oh yes, and his fourteen-year-old cousin was taken away and killed by the Nazis because he had Down Syndrome.
** And he deserted from the army during the war, hardly the action of a rabid National Socialist.
* Similarly, Pius XII neither supported the Nazis nor deliberately turned a blind eye towards their atrocities. Though it could be debated whether the Vatican's relative silence during the war was justified in attempting to prevent the Nazis' persecutions against Jews (and Catholic clergy) from worsening, [[ it is clear from the actions he DID take]] that the silence was not out of support nor apathy.
* ''The Catholic Herald'' has been under attack for several years now for publishing an article claiming that the books of Philip Pullman should be piled up and burnt. Pullman has even put (what we are told is) the offending Herald quote in his book and the controversy is such that it has actually become a long-standing part of Pullman's introduction and featured on the BBC's Big Read. The truth? ''The Catholic Herald never said anything of the sort!''. While book burning is ''mentioned'' in the text, it is done so in the context of ridiculing the furor of MoralGuardians over the alleged anti-Christian nature of ''Literature/HarryPotter'' at a time when there are children's fantasy books such as ''Literature/HisDarkMaterials'' which ARE rather explicitly anti-Christian; the woman who wrote this wasn't saying that Pullman's works ''should'' actually be burnt. [[ Here's the actual article]] (apologies for a few minor typos, the CH recently digitized their entire archive and the speed-typing shows somewhat). In short, what the Herald actually said was:

-->"THE CONTROVERSY over ''Literature/HarryPotter'' is still brewing in the USA. Parents in South Carolina are pressing their Board of Education to ban the best-selling children's stories. "The books have a serious tone of death, hate, lack of respect and sheer evil", said one mother, in her deposition to the board. "No doubt the books are attracting attention precisely on account of their success: they have sold 30 million worldwide. But '''if''' one was going to '''start banning''' books, there are numerous candidates that seem to me to be far '''more worthy of the bonfire''' than Harry. The children's market is glutted with tomes a million times more sinister. This is particularly true in the area of fantasy fiction, which appeals to children as they approach their teens. One such is the trilogy by Philip Pullman, entitled His Dark Materials."

** In response to the continued controversy and the quip at the BBC's Big Read, the Catholic Herald completely re-printed the original article and added a response by its author, Leonie Caldecott, who said that "the tactics of the author and his supporters have not been exactly honourable" (which is a bit of an understatement) and goes on to add that "Since no clergymen have [publicly denounced Pullman and his book] the millionaire author has had to make do with an Oxfordshire housewife".
* UsefulNotes/AdolfHitler was a Catholic…or not. The entire issue is very unclear, but that doesn't stop people on both sides invoking [[GodwinsLaw the Hitler Card]] in intense flame wars. Though Hitler claimed to be Christian and to be doing the Lord's work, some research doesn't show Hitler to be entirely Catholic. The Other Wiki has [[ a page on his religious beliefs.]] Basically Hitler certainly wasn't atheist but his actual religious beliefs remain unclear. He didn't like some elements of Christianity, and supported ideas of other religions.
** But in any regard, Hitler enforced a version of the Bible on Germany that had the entire Old Testament torn out of it (since it was Jewish), so his ''claim'' to be a Christian is no more valid than if he had clipped the Bill of rights out of the US constitution and then ''claimed'' to be a "true American patriot". And even if he ''had'' been a Christian, Hitler also wore pants. Does that make wearing pants evil?
** [[InItForLife Semel Catholicus, Semper Catholicus]] - unless excommunicated, of course.
*** And on that note, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, still in effect throughout the remainder of Hitler's life, imposed the penalty of latae sententiae (i.e. automatic) excommunication on any Catholic who joins a secret society (e.g. the Thule Society, which Hitler was claimed to be a member of).
*** Also, there is a claim that Hitler and Goebbels incurred latae sententiae excommunication (under the current canon law) by taking part in a Protestant wedding. They then sued to get out of paying their church tax (collected by the state), and were refused on the principal that a man is not allowed to profit from his own wrongdoing.
** Also there was a significant amount of Catholic opposition to the Nazis. Though there were Catholics who supported Hitler, there were many Catholics who openly condemned Nazism on various issues. Many Catholics opposed the killing of disabled people, (called Aktion T4) by the Nazis and the Bishop of Munster even preached against it. Hitler finally cancelled Aktion T4 due to this opposition. Though the killing of the disabled continued in a less systematic manner, it hardly seems that the Catholic Church was fully behind Hitler. Also the Nazis engaged in a lot of persecution of German Catholics and there are many Catholics who were killed by Nazis and are considered martyrs.
** It should be noted that Hitler privately espoused anti-Christian sentiments, reportedly telling Ludendorf that, once he finished killing all the Jews, he would do the same to the Christians.
*** It should also be noted that those quotes should be taken with a grain of salt. It must be remembered that, at least when referring to Hitler's Table Talks, there is reason to believe that many of the anti-christian quotes were either added in by translators or taken out of context. It is agreed upon that Hitler made anti-clerical statements in private, but anti-CHRISTIAN... that's a bit more up for debate.

[[folder:Christianity and War]]
* UsefulNotes/TheCrusades were not, originally, as much of a religious conflict as their reputation implies. They actually originated when the Byzantine emperor called for support in repelling a land-grab by the Seljuk Turks. The then Pope, Urban II, a respected world leader seeking to unite a squabbling Europe, consolidate and reunite the fractured Church and take Jerusalem from the Seljuks (note that the Christians didn't have any particular problem with Jerusalem in the hands of ''Muslims''--it had been under Muslim rule for nearly five hundred years by that point--but rather with it being controlled by the rather prickly/devout Seljuks as opposed to the more easygoing Fatimids who had held it before then), called for a crusade against the invading forces. In this war over land, the Seljuks (the "Muslim" side of the war) had some Christian allies, and the "Christian" side likewise had some Muslim allies. It only later devolved into a purely Muslim-vs-Christian conflict after [[UsefulNotes/LEtatCestMoi Louis VII of France]], in the Second Crusade, took a detour to sack Damascus, betraying his Islamic allies out of {{Greed}}.
** The Byzantine Emperor had indeed called for Latin aid in his wars against the Seljuks. Pope Urban scented an opportunity to reunite the Churches. He also scented an opportunity to establish the Papacy as a secular power by calling the nobles of Europe to Holy War and make the warlords of Europe someone else's problem. He did this by playing up the pretty much non-existent abuses or limited of Christian pilgrims to call for war. However, the Seljuks were not particularly devout - though certainly prickly - and after the Fatimids retook Jerusalem, they did not expect the Crusaders to attack the city. Which they did, capturing it and putting almost all the inhabitants to the sword. Furthermore, Louis did not sack Damascus (he tried, mind you, he just didn't succeed), nor did he betray his Islamic allies, as they weren't his allies. They were the allies of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, ruled by Queen Regent Melisende, who, along with the other rulers of the Crusader states, was much more easy going about alliances with Muslims than other Latin Christians. It was the Crusaders who primarily attacked Damascus,
* [[UsefulNotes/TheTroubles The conflict in Northern Ireland]] between "Protestants" and "Catholics" has much less to do with religion than the labels imply. The religious labels are used (mostly by the media) as easy identifiers for two ethnic and cultural communities whose grudges against each other spring not from religious differences but from historical wrongs (England invaded and subjugated Ireland). Many of the people most deeply involved in the conflict today do not believe in God at all, yet will still use the religious label as a way to identify with their community. The main sides in the conflict are actually known and self identified as the Republicans (who want Ireland to be a unified Republic) and the Unionists (who want Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom).
** The historical wrongs referred to themselves involved religion heavily though. While there had already been Anglo-Irish conflict since the Norman conquest of Ireland, it was exacerbated by King Henry VIII's split from the Catholic Church, in which all of his subjects were legally obliged to swear an oath acknowledging him as head of the new Church of England. Most of the Irish Catholic populace refused, sparking violent rebellions. Protestant settlers from England and Scotland were settled in Ireland, predominantly in the northern province of Ulster, to insure a loyal population there that would help the English maintain control of the country. This led to centuries of sectarian violence that was aligned with the politics laid out above. Of course there were many aversions, with prominent Irish nationalists that were Protestants (Wolfe Tone, Roger Emmet, etc.) and many Catholic loyalists, but it was definitely a conflict exacerbated by religion, though other facts were definitely involved as well. While not all Irish Republicans were or are Catholic, nor all Irish Unionists Protestant, the majority of each ideology do align with these faiths, due to the historical reasons elaborated above. That's not even to mention conflicts such as in the Balkans, explicitly involving three-way clashes between different Christians (Catholic vs. Orthodox) and Muslims, that were similarly aligned with ethnicity at the same time.

[[folder:Christianity and Other Belief Systems]]
* People who claim that Christianity is based on earlier religions are, unless they mean Judaism, very ''sorely'' mistaken. There is no actual historic proof that this is the case. Indeed, there is nothing in what we know of the original Pagan beliefs that we can even draw a respectable parallel with. This, however, has not prevented bunkum, such as Christianity supposedly being based on the [[ Mithraic Mystery Cult]], appearing from the mouths of respected and intelligent people, such as the ones who run the ''[[Series/{{QI}} QI panel game]]''. Quite apart from the fact that we know almost nothing about the Mithraic Mystery Cult, ''everything we do know'' contradicts all of the claims made. This is merely the very tip, ''[[UpToEleven of the very tip]]'', of the colossal iceberg of earlier beliefs that people regularly claim Christianity is based on. One of the more amusing being the supposed 'virgin birth' of Horus. Long story short: Isis gathered the various parts of Osiris and rebuilt him, she then brought him back from the dead for a single day so that she could, er, ''conceive'' with him. Yes, creepy undead whatnots are still whatnots.
** This is a classic double bind. Any feature of a given religion either will or will not resemble things in other religions. Now the Christian-baiters argue that if it does, that "proves" it was "stolen", but if it does not, that "proves" how "unnatural" Christianity is. As Creator/CSLewis remarks, the only way one could NOT expect to find resemblances between Christianity and other religions would be by assuming that all other religions are COMPLETELY false.
** Isis couldn't find Osiris' whatnot. Instead, she carved him a new whatnot out of wood. [[spoiler:[[WesternAnimation/BeavisAndButthead Uhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh, "wood".]]]]
** Osiris himself is still a pre-Christian use of the dead-and-resurrected god-figure. As are Baal and Dionysus. The latter in particular has a backstory so similar to Christ's that some fundamentalists think he was inspired by Jesus... in spite of having been worshipped long before he was born. Though admittedly, his actual personality was [[TheHedonist the polar opposite.]]
*** It is true that stories of Osiris, Baal and Dionysus, are all pre-Christian and deals with the dead-and-resurrected god-figure like many mythologies. However the way these characters die, how they originated, and how they we're "resurrected" are drastically different from each other and from the story of Jesus. In fact those stories don't have too much in common at all. For example some "experts" claim that the story of Jesus is based on the stories of Dionysus. Now there are several versions of the story of Dionysus, some of which even deny him ever having a human mother. But anyway to make a long story short: Zeus came down from mount Olympus, has "whatnots" with a human woman named Semele, she becomes pregnant, Hera gets jealous and tricks Zeus into killing Semele. Zeus out of remorse takes the fetus that was in her womb and sews it on his thigh[[note]]Or maybe scrotum; "thigh" was a common euphemism for "scrotum" in ancient Mediterranean cultures. It's definitely used in the Bible and some Roman sources, so it's likely the Greeks used it too. And let's be honest: the scrotum makes a lot more sense for that kind of thing than the thigh.[[/note]] until that baby aka Dionysus was born. So similar to the backstory to Jesus? Not really. Based off each other? A bit of a stretch. It would be like saying that ''Anime/DragonBallZ'' is based on the story of Jesus simply because they used the BackFromTheDead trope on their protagonist as well.
*** Dionysus' religion is often framed as being reminiscent of early Christianity, however, Dionysus was worshiped as a death and rebirth deity, dying annually and resurrecting annually in accordance with the seasons. The cults of Dionysus may have valued wine and bread very highly... but they valued it because they were hedonists. The bread and wine in Christianity is a re-enactment of the last supper and are symbolic of Christ's body (bread) and blood (wine). While some of the various Dionysus cults do have some very vague reassembles to Christianity, in that they are both religions, this doesn't mean they based off each other. The Dionysus dying annually and rebirth annually dates as well as his birth are not on the same dates as Jesus - of course the whole Dionysus dying and coming back (once again) thing entirely depends on which version of the story you read. And who worshiped him - some Greeks didn't see him as the god of death and rebirth. Seems like those guys couldn't really keep their story straight at all. Many versions claim he dies in the WINTER and was reborn (technically not resurrected ) in the SPRING. No matter how you look at it, their deaths are not even close to the same dates, seeing as Christ supposedly died in SPRING and was resurrected in the SPRING. If you are wondering why Christ dies AND is resurrected in the Spring specifically, you need look no further than the Jewish Passover, which takes place in Spring and was celebrated by Jesus and the apostles at the Last Supper, just before he died. Also Dionysus death and rebirth by Zeus all happen ''before he was ever actually born''. This version where he was alive and reborn was a completely different version. This version claims that Demeter( the goddess of harvest) was the mother of Dionysus, though others say Persephone (goddess of the underworld wife of Hades). Only thing they could really agree on was that he was the son of Zeus.
*** It should also be pointed out that the symbolism of the deaths and resurrection of Dionysus and Christ are in fact different. According to most theologians Dionysus' death was meant to symbolize the dying and regrowth of the Greeks harvest, which died off in winter seasons and grew back in spring, differing greatly from that of Christ. To understand symbolism in Christ’s death one would have to look at the story of the first Passover (many historians believe the fact that Christ’s death and resurrection centers around Passover isn’t a coincidence). During the first Passover the Israelites had to sacrifice a lamb (a sacrificial lamb) and used it blood cover the tops of their doors to protect their first born from the angel of death that god down on Egypt. How does it this have any connect with Christ? Well Christ has been called “the lamb of god” in several of the canonical Gospels, implying his death was sacrificial. So many assume that Christ's death was in some ways meant to symbolize the lambs that were sacrificed during Passover, who’s blood was then used to protect the Israelites from God's final plague, and whose bodies were used in the Passover feast. So their symbolism when it came to their deaths and resurrection isn't so similar at all.
*** As for their birth dates, the scriptures never actually mentions when exactly Jesus was born so its really impossible to say that Dionysus and Jesus was born on the exact same day, and believe it or not early Christians actually celebrated Christmas in early January for years before changing the date to December 25th. So it would “supposedly” coincide with their biblical dates.
*** Also through close examination one can see that many of the stories of Dionysus and Jesus are nearly the exact opposite from each other. For example Dionysus came to King Pentheus by his own choice to prove his divinity ( because no one believed him) and to punish the ''king'' for not worshiping him. Jesus on the other hand was captured and brought to Pilate because of the rumors of his divinity. Jesus didn't try to prove he was divine, he just didn't deny it. Also, Dionysus murdered King Pentheus when he didn't believe him, while Jesus was executed by Pilate. So really what was the similarity there? Was it just because they both appeared in front of an authority figure? Pilate was the Governor of Judea and not a king, he worked under Caesar. The king mentioned in the story of Jesus was Tiberius, so Jesus never actually appeared before a king.
*** Some people have claimed that Jesus' date of Resurrection is also historically unknown. Some even suggest a death in January, for instance, which is pretty funny considering 1.) the famous last supper feast Jesus had with his follower was a '''Passover''' feast. A holiday celebrated in '''Spring'''. 2.) All versions of the Christ story talk about Pilate trying to let Jesus go - which was customary during '''Passover''' (which was also in '''Spring''') to let one prisoner free. The scriptures were pretty specific in describing the event. It mentioned he was executed that following Friday. Where he was killed was Golgotha, Calvary, and how long the execution took was 6 hours. Which really puts in question exactly which texts claimed he died in January, seeing how it pretty much contradicts half the story as well as making it implausible. Also it destroys the symbolic connect between Christ and Passover.
*** Some also claim that the iconography of the early church is nigh identical to that of Dionysus, for example. Which is an impressive claim considering that NO physical description of Jesus is contained in ANY of the canonical Gospels and that the official imagery of Jesus did not really appear until about the 6th century AD - seeing as how the Christian church banned imagery from their church for centuries because their beliefs were based on the view in Judaism that having imagery of their deities were wrong.

*** Similarities between Christian or Jewish events and those of other religions:

** These people may be referring to certain stories in the Bible. There are some very similar tales across holy texts, perhaps the most common being an angered deity flooding the earth. Hinduism features a man being swallowed by a fish, which can be linked to the story of Jonah. Interestingly enough, the large number of flood myths is taken by fundamentalist Christians as evidence for their belief in a global flood. After all, if the world was flooded you would expect people to remember it!
** There is also the logical fallacy that, since certain modern Christian ''festivals'' have some imagery that was subsumed from pagan/local customs, that must mean that the holiday itself that they are used to celebrate is based off the same pagan roots. Suffice to say, the idea of a Christmas tree, Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, Saint Patrick, etc. do not appear anywhere in any Catholic (or, indeed, Christian) Bible. It's the equivalent of saying that, since we now celebrate July 4th by setting off fireworks, [[InsaneTrollLogic the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration on that day in order to appease local firework manufacturers]].[[note]]Although to be frank, the Americans got to celebrating the Fourth with fireworks with positively ''hilarious'' speed that makes that theory almost plausible: the Continental Congress actually did celebrate the first anniversary of the Declaration on July 4, 1777, in Philadelphia with fireworks.[[/note]]
*** While it is kind of true that Easter has some ''symbolic'' things in common with pagan beliefs, it's more complex than that. and Easter does in fact have much more than "a vague "baptism" of being Jesus' Resurrection" you see early Christians use to called the celebration of Christ’s resurrection “Pesach,” the Hebrew word for Passover; today, most languages use a variation of that name: “Pesach” in French, “Pascua” in Spanish, “Pasqua” in Italian, “Pashkë” in Albanian and “Pask” in Swedish. This Christian holiday and festival is known as Pascha in non-English speaking countries. So most cultures don't even call the holiday Easter, it's just us English speakers who call it that. Our English word, Easter, comes from a stranger source: a pagan fertility goddess named Eostre (also known as Astarte or Oster). The festival of Eostre always took place around the spring equinox; so early Christian missionaries in Europe (only in Europe mind you) gradually melded the festival’s name, timing, and some of its symbols, into the Christian celebration.“The missionaries adapted a tremendous amount of the cultures from where they were doing their work into the faith, in large part to make people feel comfortable,” says Ace Collins, author of Stories Behind the Traditions and Songs of Easter. “Eventually, the Christian celebration took the place of the pagan festival.” So Easter doesn't really have pagan roots seeing as how many cultures don't even call the holiday Easter or celebrate the pagan aspect of it, and even then Easter or Pesach was celebrated by early Christians long before they added in any pagan traditions in to it, this a similar case with Christmas as well.


[[folder:Charity Work and Philanthropy]]

* The Catholic Church gets a bad and rather undeserved rap for being ''uncharitable''. The argument usually goes that since the Church has a lot of really nice buildings they must be sucking up money that could be used to feed Romanian Orphans. Of course this is very politically naïve; countries aren't poor for no reason, mostly it is because governments have been sacking places in Africa, Asia, and South America for ''centuries''. Western powers will actually step in to replace democratically-elected leaders with puppets who are subservient to them in order to make the sacking easier. Want an example? How about Brazil, Guyana, Guatemala, Iran, India, and half of Africa? And here's the thing: throwing aid money at a region can actually destabilize it because, as it turns out, dictators tend to take that free money and turn it into guns or supplies - and that's if the food doesn't get left to rot on the docks. What has this got to do with the Catholic Church? Well, it turns out they ARE helping people, and they are doing a damn sight more than the people who accuse it of being greedy. [[ Have a look at this]].
--> "The Catholic Church is very visible in healthcare services in Africa. She, of all religious groups and private agencies working in the healthcare industry in Africa, has the largest number of private hospitals and clinics providing Medicare and, in some cases, free medical treatment for HIV/AIDS, pregnant women, and people suffering from malaria. This happens even in those African countries where the Catholic Church is not a majority. In Ghana for instance, Catholics make up about 30 percent of the population but control more hospitals than any other private agency in the country. In Africa, the Church works in 16,178 health centers, including 1,074 hospitals, 5,373 out-patient clinics, 186 leper colonies, 753 homes for the elderly and physically and mentally less able brothers and sisters, 979 orphanages, 1,997 kindergartens, 1,590 marriage counselings centers, 2,947 social re-education centers and 1,279 other various centers. There are 12,496 nursery schools with 1,266,444 registered children; 33,263 primary schools with 14,061,000 pupils, and 9,838 high schools with 3,738,238 students. Some 54,362 students are enrolled in higher institutes, of which 11,011 are pursuing ecclesiastical studies. There are in Africa, fifty-three national chapters of Caritas, thirty-four national commissions of justice and peace and twelve institutes and centers promoting the Social Doctrine of the Church." -- ''Aid and Development in Africa'', Stan Chu Ilo, (Pickwick).
** Note: These naive/idiotic arguments should be distinguished from the principled debate over the Church's stance on condoms in HIV-ridden sub-Saharan Africa. On the one hand, you have genuinely concerned Catholics who think the Church is doing everyone--including itself--a disservice by remaining staunchly opposed to condom use, which might be affecting HIV infection rates for the worse, the effect of non-use on family size (which is negatively correlated with prosperity) aside. On the other hand, you have concerned Catholics who think the other concerned Catholics are abandoning deeply-held Church doctrine without any justification in Scripture or Tradition and essentially advocating an acquiescence to modern (im)morality. Both sides here have points that must be taken seriously if one is a serious Catholic, but there is a tendency among outsiders and less-serious Catholics to conflate this debate with the more foolish points. Additional note here: we take pains to point out that the countries in which AIDS is most widespread are not typically Catholic-majority (not for any fundamental reason, simply that the hardest-hit countries are in Southern Africa, which was historically under British rule),[[note]]These countries were among the ''more'' developed in sub-Saharan Africa, with well-connected trade links between them, built by the British and improved upon by the later post-colonial governments. That's why the disease could spread: where there's a halfway decent road network, there will be truckers, and where there are truckers, there will be lot lizards, and where there are truckers and lot lizards, [=STDs=] will spread. It also didn't help that despite the embargo/boycott, South Africa was quite well tied into the world economy, and lots of trade came in by air and by sea, as well--and the air and sea networks linked with road and rail to provide a perfect route for the disease into the interior; it ''especially'' didn't help that Zambia, the northernmost part of the region, shares a border with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where HIV first began to spread. Between the modern (ish) trade networks that allowed the epidemic to spread and the lack of public health facilities (either because of corrupt government or war or--in the case of South Africa--indifferent government), you can see how Southern Africa got it so bad.[[/note]] and of course, people who actively ignore the Church's doctrines against fornication/adultery are unlikely to heed its doctrine ''vis-a-vis'' condoms, either. That said, the Church is a powerful moral voice that influences both public opinion (affecting how willing merchants are to sell condoms and how willing people are to try to buy them)[[note]]Even in a place where they're completely mainstream, it's hard--''you'' try buying a pack of condoms ''and only a pack of condoms'' at the nearest store. You can't, can you? Bought a tube of toothpaste and some shampoo didn't you? Now imagine that every single moral authority in your society, ''especially'' the Church which ran your school, is telling you it's bad to use condoms. See what we mean?[[/note]] and public policy (affecting whether governments look favorably or unfavorably on programs to get condoms to people more cheaply and efficiently).

[[folder:Heaven & Hell]]

* {{Hell}}. Any time Hell is depicted as "the Devil's domain", typically with {{Satan}} sitting on a throne of skulls, idly twiddling his pitchfork while the damned are marched by in chains. The Bible clearly teaches that Hell (well, the Lake of Fire at least) was always intended as a punishment for Satan, not as a kingdom. The closest analogue to a realm of the dead is Sheol or the grave -- a place where the dead go, but not for punishment or reward. It seems to be a place where absolutely nothing happens.
** This misconception comes from the line in ''Literature/ParadiseLost'': "Better to rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven." However, it is obviously just metaphorical. The text states the non-literal aspect explicitly: "You'll find no realms there."
*** Satan ''does'' have some autonomy in ''Literature/ParadiseLost''; he breaks his chains and founds a city (Pandaemonium). However, it's clear that he's still being tormented (both by the fires and by the absence of God), and that he has no actual power over the damned.
** The traditional view of FireAndBrimstoneHell is due to distinctions LostInTranslation. The word "Hell" is used as a translation for FOUR words used in the initial writing of Literature/TheBible in its original languages: ''Sheol'', ''Hades'', a single mention of ''Tartarus'' (2 Peter 2:4), and ''Gehenna''. ''Sheol'' is a Hebrew word and ''Hades'' is Greek; both mean the same thing, the abode of the dead for all humans, whether good or bad, at least until Armageddon, and used in conjunction with Ecclesiastes 9:5 would refer to CessationOfExistence. ''Gehenna'' is a Greek word that when translated means "Valley of Hinnom", which was a trash dump where garbage filth, corpses of criminals, and the like were burned. Jesus re-purposed this word to refer to the future eventual end and KarmicDeath of the wicked, whether human or demon, and also has the same symbolic meaning as the Lake of Fire in Revelation. Not everyone agrees whether it is a place of eternal torment or [[KilledOffForReal eternal]] [[DeaderThanDead destruction]]. Unfortunately, Bible translators usually translate all four words as "Hell", despite that ''Gehenna'' has a different meaning from the first two, thus causing a lot of confusion. More recent translations such as the New Living tend to put Sheol and Hades as "The Grave" and Tartarus and Gehenna as "Hell" (or leave them untranslated).
* On that note, the traditional phrase "He descended into Hell", may not refer to actual Hell, but may instead be another case of English translators using Hell for four different words. Probably the most popular interpretation of this phrase is that "Hell" refers to Sheol, the place of the dead and that Jesus descended there to take the souls waiting there into Heaven, which was then opened, rather than saving souls which were previously damned by God the Father. Further consider the possibility that Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, and Sheol exist outside of time, and that the passage of time as we experience it may not apply the same way outside of this world. The important thing to note though is that Heaven, Hell, and the like function on a completely different system of space and time than the physical universe does, and that when the Theologians/the Bible say things like "enter Heaven" and "descend into Hell," it's merely putting physical aspects into supernatural things we can't understand.
** Sheol can also be interpreted as 'asleep in death', referenced by Jesus saying Lazarus had merely fallen asleep when he'd died. So Jesus either entered an extra-physical realm or was 'asleep' for three days. Either way, he did not enter Hell.
** Or more simply, as Sheol is the realm where all the dead go, saying Jesus descended into hell (read "Sheol") is a way of affirming that Jesus truly died (as opposed to seeming to be dead) so that the Resurrection is truly a reversal. Modern translations of this creedal element often render it as "He descended to the dead." There is not necessarily any mission that Jesus is up to during this time. While later tradition (described above) says that he was preaching to the souls in hell to bring them to heaven, First Century Jews did not believe that the Righteous Dead ever went to Heaven, which was merely the abode of God. The Righteous awaited a Resurrection of the Dead into new bodily life on Earth at the judgment day and coming of the Kingdom of God. This is why the ancient creeds speak only of the Resurrection of the Dead (which happens to everyone at the same time) as opposed to dying and going to Heaven (which happens on an individual basis after death).
* On that note, any time Satan is depicted as an "opposite but equal" force to God the Father or Jesus. The passage cited as his {{backstory}} (whether it is or not), in Isaiah, depicts him as a fallen angel. God is ''infinite''. Satan is not. The reason Satan even thinks he can oppose God is the same reason rebellious edgy teens tend to think they're going to live forever (since that's basically ''exactly'' what he is).
** [[BlackAndWhiteMorality Dualism]] influenced some sects of early Christian Gnosticism, & some were quite open to the possibility of two equal deities. Then the [[HijackedByJesus Council of Nicaea]] decided to take issue with some [[NoSuchThingAsWizardJesus creative differences]] found in [[TheHeretic Gnostic beliefs]], wrote up a [[GodIsGood Creed]], & [[ChurchMilitant set up shop]].
** Beyond the issue of relative power or lack thereof, Satan is believed to have already been defeated via Jesus' Crucifixion and Resurrection, and is at this point on borrowed time waiting for the other foot to come down.
* The classic appearance of Satan as a red-skinned, goat-hooved, barb-tailed, goatee-wearing, and horned man does not come from Scripture. It emerged around the 19th century representing [[Myth/ClassicalMythology the faun Pan]] as a symbol of pagan decadence, becoming associated with sin and then with Satan. As for the Bible, the closest it gets to describing Satan's appearance is in 2 Corinthians 11:14, which warns that: "[[LightIsNotGood even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light]]." Satan was originally created as an angel just as sinless as the others [hence his actual name ("Satan" is simply a title, akin to "destroyer of worlds") "Lucifer" which translates to "bringer of light"], so that is what his true form would look like.[[note]]Except, of course, for the fact that they are spirits, and as such their true "form" is not even a physical entity.[[/note]] In fact, Satan would likely hardly ever even take on this stereotypical form. If he needed to pretend to be an unfallen angel, he'd be in his true form (or whatever you thought angels looked like). If he was trying to tempt you, he'd appear as something you'd readily accept the temptation from (such as your favorite pornographer). If for whatever reason he needed something ''actually'' "demonic," he'd probably take on a form somewhere between an EldritchAbomination[[note]]such as a [[OurDragonsAreDifferent seven headed red dragon with ten horns]] as mentioned in ''Literature/BookOfRevelation'', whether it is literal or not[[/note]] and a LivingShadow with GlowingEyesOfDoom.

* As a technical matter, Christianity does not teach that good people go to heaven when they die (though Popular Christianity embraces this idea). The most ancient understanding of the person, inherited from Judaism, is of an individual who is a psycho-somatic whole, a unity of body and soul/spirit/breath. Therefore, to live fully, one had to be embodied. The early Christians, as with the sect of the Pharisees, believed that life after death involved not living in some alternate spiritual plane of existence, but a Resurrection of the Dead in a new, glorified body. Jesus' Resurrection, according to the early church was, in the words of St. Paul, "the first fruits", that is, the first of many to come at judgment day with the arrival of the Kingdom of God. Heaven was, according to the most ancient cosmologies, the domain of God in the Creation (think of it as God's loft in the city), not a separate dimension (see, Genesis 1:1), and was never intended to be the final resting place of anyone. In fact, according to the Book of Revelation, the New Jerusalem and the Kingdom of God come to earth from Heaven, to dwell with God's people rather than the other way around. As with hell, heaven has been affected by the writings of Dante and medieval piety. The ancient creeds speak only of the Resurrection of the Body and the Life Everlasting (in resurrected, bodily form) here in the Creation.
* Anything that depicts or refers to dead souls as angels. Angels ''are not'' the souls of the departed. They are a separate Order of Creation and were on staff from the Beginning. Of course in Catholicism at least some souls ''do'' act as intercessors and provide guidance and miracles. They are called Saints.
* Regarding the hierarchy of angels (from Catholic theology, though common in general Christianity and often in works that need an angelic army or government system) there are nine orders of a celestial hierarchy -- from least to greatest: Angels, Archangels, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Dominions, Thrones, Cherubim, and Seraphim. [[ArchangelMichael Michael]], the angel who cast Satan from heaven, has proven difficult regarding which order, exactly, he belongs, to -- the most common interpretation of his position, as you may have guessed from the trope, is as an archangel, which is the position accorded to him by St. Basil and a good many Greek Fathers, in so far as he is the prince of all angels. St. Bonaventura, on the other hand, refers to him as the prince of the Seraphim, the highest order of the angels, whereas St. Thomas Aquinas places him as prince of the Angels (lowest choir). This latter interpretation makes sense when considering the role of the angelic hierarchy as regards the degrees of their servitude -- in a reverse from the human way of doing things, the higher orders of angels actually ''serve'' the lower orders.
** Following the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas and the writings of Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, the division is more on nature rather than status. Archangel is not a choir so much as it is a title. Under the hierarchy listed by those two theologians, the only angels whose nature was sufficiently close to temporal to fall were the Cherubim (meaning Satan must have been one as well, though he was "unique" and his references tend to depict him more like a suped-up Seraphim). Of course, this goes into the nature of the soul as well and the intellective and sensitive powers. Animals possess only sensitive powers[[note]]This is debated though, as the Bible is actually completely silent on the topic of animal spirits. It is worth noting, however, that many animals are capable of learning to understand a given language as fluently as any human (the sole reason most cannot ''actually speak'' is because that actually requires specific anatomical equipment), and elephants and everything above them are actually ''conscious of their own mortality''.[[/note]], angels only possess intellective powers (and thus the only sins an angelic being can commit are envy and pride, as the others require a body, and thus the sensitive powers), whereas humanity is horizon (possessing both). It also demonstrates why a demon (fallen angel) cannot be redeemed, since they are eternal (there is no concept of "when" so "when" would they be able to change?).
*** Note the above is all WordOfDante. In the Bible the only thing said about Angelic hierarchy is that Michael is higher than the others.
*** Actually, "Archangel" simply means 'chief of angels', so by definition, there can only be one. By extension, many people believe that Archangel Michel is Jesus before his coming to earth.

* ''Purgatory'', as Catholic teaching goes, is not a third place where souls go after they die. [[{{Series/Supernatural}} Don't confuse it with other portrayals on television, either.]] It's a place/state where the souls of folks ''who are headed to heaven'' are cleaned up of the ''effects'' of their sins before they enter the Pearly Gates.
** In other words, a Christian should die with all serious (or ''mortal'') sins confessed to God. If you're ''very'' contrite, you don't go to purgatory before heaven since your soul is that squeaky-clean. Often, such folks are recognized in the Catholic Church as Saints. Fail to confess your sins at all, and Hell is your only destination.
*** Not exactly. The mortal sin can be forgiven if you truly repent it- truly meaning because you see how it destroyes your relationship with God who loves you (see the perfect repentance)not because you're afraid of punishment. So you still can go to the Purgatory if you repent even in the very last moment of your life if you're not able to confess to a priest (because pefect repentance means you will or would confess a s soon as it's possible). That's exactly why the Catholic Church never stated that a precise person, say John X, went to hell for sure.Because even if he comitted mortal sin and never managed to confess it, he still could have repented moments before dying. Same goes for those who committed suicide (that plus them usually suffering from serious mental disease which questions that they sinned really of their won will).
** Catholics believe that the damage we cause from ''forgiven sins'' leaves tarnishing on the soul. As St. Paul notes, purgatory removes such impurities "with fire" before the soul can enter heaven, for "Nothing unclean can enter heaven."
** A good analogy of purgatory is what happens if a young child is given a drink, purposefully spills it, and regrets it. The child can say "I'm sorry," and the mommy says, "That's OK." But there's still a mess to be cleaned up from the effect of the spill. You can also think of purgatory as the "front porch" of heaven, where God gives you a thorough scrub-down of any remaining impurities. Your mom loves you and wants you to come in for supper, sure. But you're going nowhere if you're tracking mud inside.
** Not even Catholics can tell you how or what goes on in purgatory, or how long the process lasts.[[note]]Dante for his part favored--with some justification--a timeframe on the order of ''centuries''. In the ''Purgatorio'', he caught up with the Roman poet Statius, whom he claims--without historical evidence--converted to Christianity in his old age. Statius lived in the first century CE; when Dante visits in the early fourteenth he is only just being completely purged.[[/note]] To help in cleaning yourself up from the effects of sin before you die, the Catholic practice of ''plenary indulgence'' began. It has very specific rules to complete. It is NOT the same as "buying your way into heaven" or "working your way to heaven." Historically, a few rich people and misunderstandings in almsgiving made indulgences seem like heavenly bribes. Today, nothing is required to be given except a person's devotion to the practices (defined by the Pope) that allow the indulgence to help clean you up, reducing your "time" in or eliminating the need for stopping in purgatory.
** For those playing at home, the word "purgatory" isn't found in Literature/TheBible; hence, the concept does not exist in the Protestant tradition. But then, neither is the word "Trinity." Yet, the concepts are there for both. See 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 to start. The book of 2 Maccabees, which isn't in many Protestant versions of The Bible's Old Testament, also shows support in praying for the dead to help them find purity so as to complete their journey to God.
*** Or better, start at 1 Corinthians 3:10 and the few verses before it, and see how Paul introduces the reference to "fire". It shouldn't be difficult to see why Protestants think that Catholics have to stretch & change the passage in order to find the concept of Purgatory.
*** The relevant details: The topic was the work of various ''ministers'' of the gospel--one person building on a foundation laid by another. ("like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it.") That warning leads straight into Paul's teaching that the fire ''reveals'' the sort of work each person has done. In other words, the fire isn't applied simply to people who've been judged to need cleaning up--it's applied to ''everyone's'' work, in order to reveal its quality in the first place. (And arguably, it's specifically the work of every ''minister'' who labors to build up the Church, not a general concept of revealing the quality of every Christian's works.)
*** This really isn't the place to be making definite claims that the concept of Purgatory actually is found in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15--or that it isn't found there.[[/folder]]

[[folder:Missionary Work]]

* One of the most prevailing myths about Catholic Missionaries is that they are there to force something on people. There may be other [[ChurchMilitant Christian groups]] that do do this, but the RCC is not one of them. The main point of a mission is humanitarian aid, missionaries become missionaries for the same reason people volunteer for other charities - they want to help people! The first buildings established by a mission tend to be rudimentary medical facilities, then moving on to schools. It is generally the people themselves who ask for them to build a church. Missionary work is some of the hardest and most dangerous on the planet, the fact that missionaries protect the communities they join and are often ''celebrated'' by them, and the fact that the mission brings things like sustainable water, food, [[ health care (including medicines for people with AIDS)]], education, good moral teachings, and hope to ''billions'' is entirely lost on most people. When a missionary priest approaches a tribe ''they can ask him to leave'', and he has to go! The priest is there only as long as the people want him, he is NOT allowed to force Christianity on them - THEY have to come to him! That's right! During the mission the priest (and often volunteers) will go and build pumps, [[ a hospital]], a school, and ''start teaching people to read''. The actual teaching of Christianity happens when the priest asks people if they would like to learn about the faith, the people then come to the priest to find out about Christianity and it is often ''them'' who ask for the priest to build a church. Oh yes, and the priest is not there to force another culture on the people or tell them that their current beliefs are wrong - often a missionary will be the only person making sure the local children know their own damn history and culture. The Vatican has numerous letters on file ''thanking'' them for the word of God, including one from a tribe of native Americans, which is written on tree bark.
** Unfortunately, for most of Christian history, spreading the cross was not such a rosy act. At that point, the religious authority was inseparable from political authority, having large populations of non-Christians in your domain is seen as a failure in asserting dominance. Missionaries of the old ilk generally ''do not'' leave when asked, and can usually call on the local colonial power to help. Witness the Bloody Verdict of Verden, where Charlemagne executed 4500 Saxons for refusing to convert. The inquisition of Goa, India (like their Spanish counterpart), while they did not directly punish pagans, still allowed the enactment of extremely anti-Muslim/Jewish/Hindu laws as "encouragement", and punishment for recidivism is generally not pleasant. Furthermore, successful missionary work could entail the replacement of the former local culture and religions, which can be considered a crime in of itself. And things really heat up when Christians try to convert ''each other'' (e.g. the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars or the UsefulNotes/ThirtyYearsWar against the Protestants). It's really only in the modern world and with the recognition that correcting someone's religious affiliation is not the most important goal that a much more in-depth and humanitarian missionary work can flourish.
*** The Thirty Years War wasn't really about Christians trying to convert each other; it was about a war of succession and political-religious loyalties that quickly devolved into a prolonged mercenary war where everyone realized that they would be worse off financially if the war ever stopped, and kept finding excuses to keep it going. Individual armies had a mixture of Catholics, Calvinists, Lutherans, etc. regardless of the denomination of their commanders or princes. A great number of soldiers were forcibly conscripted and soldiers would sometimes provoke wars with other armies to avoid returning home, or conduct raids and pillages to make up their (lack of) pay. Back then many soldiers were paid mainly by the loot they could gain too.


[[folder:Morality in Practice]]

* Where do the vast majority of Christians stand on alcohol, gambling and legal drugs such as tobacco? They are fine, so long as you do it in moderation and do not let them harm yourself or others (which in the case of gambling means don't take more than someone can afford to lose). Most of the rest, typically the newer less traditional end, take the view that humans have proven that they cannot do such things in moderation and so you should not do it. Alcohol, gambling, etc. are not evil; letting those things rule you is.
* Much debate is possible about the attitudes of various Christians toward sex, and there have been very many problematic statements made and repressive attitudes held by Christians. ''However'', a work ''does'' fail Religious Studies forever if it claims or implies that Literature/TheBible or any mainstream Christian denomination (including Catholics and mainstream fundamentalists such as evangelicals) ''actually teach'' that you shouldn't have sex because [[SexIsEvil Sex is Bad]]. As opposed to "you shouldn't have sex unless you [[MarriageTropes promise to stay with the person forever]]."
** You are also wrong if you believe that the Catholic Church teaches that sex is solely for procreation, and that all forms of birth control are wrong. As of ''Humanae Vitae'' and ''Evangelium Vitae'', the Church teaches that sex has two purposes: procreative and unitive (bringing the couple closer together and helping preserve the marriage). The Church is opposed to ''artificial'' contraception, maintaining that artificial methods disrupt both the unitive and procreative aspects of sex; however, natural methods, such as Natural Family Planning (which, by the way, is ''NOT'' the Rhythm Method) do not disrupt these aspects and are permissible if the couple has important reasons (physical, psychologiacl, material or others) to limit the number of children or to postpone conception of a child .
*** Specifically, Catholicism requires 4 facets for the sex to be considered a "good" act. It has to be Relational, Unifying, Humanistic, and Fecund. It can satisfy that through the law of double effect though, meaning intent, course, and principle can lead to it even if the result is not the production of life. Doing less is considered a privation, or lessening of the act (sort of like cutting down a redwood forest for the sake of obtaining a single toothpick). That said, natural family planning is a sufficient method.
* When the Catholic Church refers to the sin of lust, it does not mean that sexual desire or attraction is wrong; lust refers to the treatment of another person as nothing more than a sex object, thereby dehumanizing that person.
* Also, the Catholic Church does not teach that infertile couples are simply not meant to have children. While the Church is opposed to prevalent artificial reproductive technologies, such as in vitro fertilization, the Church does support ongoing research designed to treat the underlying causes and conditions of infertility, allowing couples to have babies naturally. This means that infertile couples can still have sex, and they are permitted to use fertility drugs or other treatments to assist conception or assist in consummating the act, so long as these methods do not attempt to substitute for sex and do not harm any conceived children. So, Viagra and fertility drugs are allowed, but in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination are prohibited since they involve a substitute for the sexual act. Also, the process of in vitro fertilization can create fertilized eggs (embryos) that are not transferred back into the womb - some fail to develop and die before they can be returned to the woman's body, others are frozen, sometimes indefinitely, and others may be destroyed. As life begins at conception in the Catholic view, this is equal to abortion, and another reason for the prohibition of in vitro fertilization.
** Also, the more exact stance is that using condoms is still better than unprotected sex. The Catholic Church does not look kindly on sex before marriage (or slightly more liberally, without intent to marry or without being in love, which brings in different cultural matters), but they are against that more than they are against using condoms ''at all'', and the general advice is that you should not be having sexual intercourse before marriage (CCC 2353). Period.
*** That said, the Church's stance on condom use--as noted above--has not always been particularly clear: hence the debate. (Whoever said that [[JewsLoveToArgue Jews had a monopoly on religious argument]]?)

[[folder:Science and Christianity]]

* The notion that the Middle Ages, particularly the 'Dark Ages' (now referred to as the 'Early Middle-Ages') were a time of darkness where religious leaders suppressed scientific advancement has in fact been widely discredited and is now considered untrue by most historians. Many inventions were actually promoted by the Church, which also worked to preserve Pagan writings and built scientific experiments ''into the very fabric of the Vatican''. And don't forget that many priests were also scientists, or rather, ''most scientists were also priests''. [[ Here is a list that just shows the notable ones]], including Henri Lemaître, a Belgian priest, astrophysicist, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven ''[[ and the guy who originally proposed Big Bang theory]]''. One of the most important theories in modern physics. There's also the [[ Pontifical Academy of Sciences]] or the [[ Vatican Observatory]], ''one of the oldest scientific institutions in the world''. The irony here is that the people who regularly claim that Christianity stifles research and the acquisition of knowledge are failing to do any research themselves. There is also the [[ Francisco Ayala]] issue. What with him being a former priest and famous evolutionary biologist, or [[ Gregor Mendel]] You know that guy with peas who pretty much figured out genetics and was a Monk.
* Likewise evolution. The claim that the Catholic Church/the Pope opposes evolution is still used today. Especially egregious considering that [[ evolution is part of the Catholic catechism.]] Creationists are ''not'' representative of most Christians and some of the older, traditional branches embraced the work of Charles Darwin ''within a few decades of publication''. For the first decades after Darwin, the Church took no official position at all. However, in the debates over Modernism (1910s-1930s mostly) it tended to get bashed, so Pius XII put out an encyclical in 1950 clarifying (among many other things) ''that it didn't oppose any part of the massively well supported theory''. Before that there was no official position ''at all'', but some ''individual'' priests/theologians/etc opposed it; but it is indeed accurate to say that the ''Church'' never opposed evolution.
** In fact, the foundation of the molecular basis of evolution (genetics) was first laid by a Catholic priest, Gregor Mendel, experimenting with pea plants about the same time as Darwin.
*** For that part, the infamous case of Samuel Wilberforce, the Anglican Oxford Bishop who opposed Darwin's ideas, is grossly misrepresented in popular history. He is usually mocked for supposedly making bad arguments and resorting to simply mocking Darwin's theories with bad jokes about monkeys; in reality, he was a highly intelligent man and most of his arguments were based on orthodox scientific theories of the time- and were so good and insightful, Darwin himself took them on board and worked to modify his theories in response and went on to regard Wilberforce as an outright ''genius''. With regards to the infamous 1860 debate between himself and Darwin's supporter Thomas Huxley, Wilberforce (even if he technically lost) gave as good as he got, the two became friendly afterwards, and the debate itself- which is often presented as the TropeCodifier for Science vs Religion-, was actually a pretty jovial affair, a lively intellectual debate that was initially famous mainly because both sides thoroughly enjoyed themselves.
** It should also be noted that Christian opposition to evolution is only in part because it goes against a literal interpretation of Genesis.[[note]]Several Christian commentators, including St. Augustine, held to non-literal views of the creation account long before the true age of Earth and the universe were known.[[/note]] More importantly, they object to a naturalistic explanation because they think it would undermine the role of God in creation in general (i.e. life arising by chance) and the relationship between man and God in particular (i.e. consciousness arising by chance), and apparently think that something can't possibly come from God unless it popped out of nowhere fully-formed, and that God is somehow incapable of setting a gradual process in motion and occasionally poking it in the right direction. It's not like ''the beauty of nature and the the mechanisms by which it ticks is one of the reasons God created in the first place'' or anything.
* Not only does Catholicism accept the notion of the Big Bang, but it was actually Msgr. Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest, who originally theorized it.
** In point of fact, the term "Big Bang" was [[AppropriatedAppellation originally supposed to be disparaging]], and the person who coined it, Fred Hoyle, backed a "Steady State" theory that held that the Universe has always been more or less the same. Why? Because he was an agnostic, and thought that the Universe having a definable origin in time was ''too much like Biblical creation''.
*** However, when the Pope wanted to refer to the Big Bang as the moment of creation, Fr. Lemaitre explicitly advised him against it. Lemaitre was enough of both a scientist and a theologian to realize that mixing science and religion was not a good idea.
** Basically, the Catholic church officially is completely fine with scientific theories detailing the history and development of the universe... up to a point. One of the major points of Catholic doctrine is the concept of ''Creatio Ex Nihilo'', or "Creation out of Nothing" and the "Prime Mover". This is the idea that there was nothing before the point the universe started and that God set the act of creation into motion. The "Big Bang" theory actually made the reconciliation of science with theology ''easier'', as it gives us a date of Creation (previous theories seemed to indicate that the Universe had existed literally forever), and indeed some scientists rejected it at first because it was ''too'' Biblical (!). Everything that happens ''after'' that point is fair game for scientists.
*** Actually, the Big Bang and any possible preceding states are fair game. When we talk about Creation Ex Nihilo, we mean the Nihilo. Creation from absolutely nothing, substantial physical laws are not nothing, nor are space and time. The concept of Mu might be a good analogy, it's something that cannot even be described, because to do so would be to give a form of being to it.
** Don't forget the very real (and completely different from the way [[DanBrowned Dan Brown]] depicts it) 'Vatican Secret Archives' (in this context, the word "Secret" is closer to what we would call "private"), better known as the [[ Papal Archives]]. To quote the official site:
--> "More than 1000 years of history on 85km of shelving. The Archivio Segreto Vaticano has served the Holy See for 400 years and is one of the most important and renowned research centres in the world. It is a treasure trove of peerless precious documents; '''millions of papers and parchments that can be assessed by scholars of all nationalities and faiths'''."
** Unfortunately, the fact they ARE open to scholars of all faiths (and none), and that this is thoroughly decent of them, is entirely lost on a lot of rather militant and ignorant people who continually demand access to what ''they'' think is 'a sealed vault full of all their dirtiest secrets'. Thanks a lot, [[DanBrowned Dan Brown]]. The actual vault contains every letter ever sent to the Vatican, including the famous divorce correspondences of a certain [[UsefulNotes/HenryVIII Henry Tudor]] (a strange fellow who ruled most of a [[UsefulNotes/{{Britain}} pious if somewhat backwards little island off the coast of France]]), and a letter written on a roll of tree bark from a Native American tribe thanking the Church for the word of God.
* The idea that Galileo was persecuted by the Church for his teachings is also false. Quite apart from the fact that he was overturning several thousand years of research, the theory he proposed was eighty years old by the time of the trial. Both Galileo and Copernicus, the guy who proposed the theory, were Catholics, and Copernicus was a priest. So why was Galileo actually put on trial? The story is hard to pin down exactly but the major reason is that he got on the backs of the ''scientific'' community and was an asshole to the pope, a former supporter of his. Galileo was basically told that his theory didn't have enough proof for him to go round saying it was fact and told him to stop teaching it. Galileo would later publish another scientific book without incident.
** Galileo was very difficult as a personality. He has been suspected to have suffered from a mild form of Autism. It is safe to say that he was in serious, often very personal dispute, with the contemporary scientific figures. This being the Renaissance and most institutions of learning in Europe (and many leading scientific figures involved in disputes with Galileo) associated with the Catholic Church, the Church became involved in these disputes.
** The Galileo Affair is also touched on in [[UsefulNotes.HeresiesAndHeretics the Useful Notes for Heresies and Heretics]].
** Also worthy of note, though it may seem obvious to many : the Galileo Affair has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether the Earth was flat or round. A surprisingly high number of people (including many Catholics) somehow believe that Galileo revolutionary claim was that "the Earth was round, in contrast to the dominant opinion at the time that the Earth was flat", a statement which is amazingly wrong. The fact that the Earth is round and not flat is known since Antiquity (being easily proven through basic geometry) and had never been forgotten (see for instance Dante's ''Literature/TheDivineComedy'': Hell is a cone going through the spherical Earth, down to the center of the spherical Earth (which, once crossed, means that gravity is reversed), Dante and Virgil emerging on the Southern Hemisphere).
* The "God of the gaps" fallacy, despite its use and its common perception as a means of disproving the existence of God, was actually formulated in the first place by the Christian evangelist Henry Drummond and several other later theologians who felt that using God as the direct explanation for currently unexplained natural phenomena ended up limiting God to the unknown rather than acknowledging Him as the creator of the known. Here are what some prominent Christian thinkers had to say about the fallacy:
-->'''Dietrich Bonhoeffer:''' If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.
-->'''Charles Alfred Coulson:''' There is no 'God of the gaps' to take over at those strategic places where science fails; and the reason is that gaps of this sort have the unpreventable habit of shrinking.
* Whatever other hang-ups young-earth creationists have with evolution, they generally ''don't'' believe that Satan or God put fossils straight into the ground without living dinosaurs to produce them in the first place. They don't think Satan put them there because they don't think Satan has that much control over the physical world, and they don't think God put them there because they don't think an omnibenevolent God would deliberately deceive humans in such a way. YE creationists do actually believe that dinosaurs lived, died and were fossilized; they just think this all happened on a ''much'' quicker timescale than most scientists do.
* "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."--Werner Heisenberg. Yes, ''that'' Heisenberg.

[[folder:Other Common Misconceptions]]
* Most Christians, quite simply, do not believe in [[CaughtUpInTheRapture The Rapture]]/7 Year Tribulation/One World Conspiracy [[TropeCodifier popularized]] by the ''Literature/LeftBehind'' novels/films, and if they live outside America, ''they probably don't even know what it is''. It is a [[NewerThanTheyThink relatively recent theory]] and mostly held by Evangelical Protestants, and generally ignored in other Christian Traditions. Eschatology (Study of Last Things) has been discussed and debated since the very earliest days of the Church and the only things generally agreed upon near universally by Christians are Jesus is coming back, he will judge the world, and Heaven and Earth will be destroyed and remade. To make things even more complicated, there is even debate about what that last part even means, ranging anywhere from a ResetButton on current existence, to some sort of utopian new world, to a merging of Heaven and Earth, to any number of other theories. For instance.
* That faith and works are mutually exclusive, or that the doctrine of works is unbiblical. [[ There's whole sections both supporting and rejecting Luther's doctrine of Sola Fide]]. And at least one passage that says both are necessary. TakeThat [[ComicBook/ChickTracts Jack Chick]]!
** Really, the issue here is more one of cause and effect, as no one on either side of the argument really disagrees that anyone who has faith will demonstrate that faith through their works; the question is whether good works ''in and of themselves'' can provide "saving grace" to the believer independently of that believer's faith in God. The heart of the matter is the questions: "Can a 'good person' go to Heaven based on their good works even if he or she doesn't believe that Jesus Christ's sacrifice was necessary to save mankind from their sins?" and "Are works required ''as well as'' true faith, or are works simply ''the natural demonstrated result'' of true faith?"
* The Catholic attitude toward witchcraft. While Catholicism has always taught, and continues to teach, that witchcraft (or any occult practice) is a sin, the reasons for this teaching have been misunderstood, even by members of the Church hierarchy. First, Catholicism does not teach that witches have supernatural powers and endanger the community with their magic spells; in fact, since antiquity, the belief that witches have supernatural powers has been regarded as heresy. (As noted earlier, during parts of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, some Church officials either disregarded or were ignorant of this teaching.) Catholicism's main objection to witchcraft is that, in attempting to arrogate supernatural powers to themselves, practitioners are showing a lack of trust in God, attempting to place themselves outside -- even above -- His authority. Thus, according to Catholicism, the main danger posed by witches is not that they can cast spells that kill people and destroy crops, but that they could lead people away from God.
* If you genuinely think that mainstream Christianity thinks God is even ''confined to spacetime'' let alone a [[GrandpaGod bearded Homo-sapiens male]] in white robes who sits on a cloud within Earth's atmosphere, then you are ''inexcusably'' ignorant on the topic of Christianity (akin to a creationist who asks "if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?"), and therefore not qualified to discuss the matter at all. The closest actual depiction of God would be more closer to an EldritchAbomination which [[YouCannotGraspTheTrueForm seeing him would have you disintegrated]].
* Angels are no exception, whenever they take a [[AngelUnaware humanlike form]], they don't appear as WingedHumanoid depicted in various painting, but instead, they're wingless, which is why the mobs in Sodom surrounding Lot didn't know they're angels in the first place. While there are winged [[OurAngelsAreDifferent Cherubium and Seraphim]], they both are more close to EldritchAbomination rather than WingedHumanoid.
* Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic Church does ''not'', in modern times, forbid civil divorce. (Although it doesn't exactly like the concept, either, and encourages couples to work out their problems whenever possible.) What it ''does'' forbid is remarriage after a civil divorce, unless a [[ church annulment]] was also obtained. A divorced Catholic who wishes to remarry ''without'' this step may do so, but they must do so ''outside'' of the Church, and they are no longer permitted to receive Holy Communion.