History Main / ArtisticLicenseTraditionalChristianity

* 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'' (official doctrinal letters issued by Pope Paul IV and Pope John Paul II respectively), 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 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.

* "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.

* 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[[note]]And any rational biologist's[[/note]] view, this is equal to abortion, and another reason for the prohibition of in vitro fertilization.

** The infamous death of [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allen_Chau#Contact_with_Sentinelese_and_death John Allen Chau]] in an attempt to evangelize to the violently xenophobic tribe of North Sentinel Island serves as an excellent example of both the most purely evangelical mission, and of the reality behind the stereotype. While commonly portrayed as a foolhardy venture that endangered the locals as much as himself, in reality Chau was an experienced missionary who felt a moral obligation to enter a dangerous situation, and prepared accordingly. In addition to familiarizing himself with nearby cultures and languages likely to be related to those of the Sentinalese over the course of two previous missions to other contacted islands in the chain, his preparations included extended quarantine and vaccinations to prevent introduction of disease to the isolated population, and gifts of the sort that had been accepted in previous peaceful contact attempts in the 1990s by anthropologists. While one can debate the philosophical motive for his venture, he nonetheless entered into it well-prepared and fully cognizant that he would be killed if the tribe was not in a welcoming mood.

* 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''. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science 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 ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître and the guy who originally proposed Big Bang theory]]''. One of the most important theories in modern physics. There's also the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences Pontifical Academy of Sciences]] or the [[http://vaticanobservatory.org/ 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 [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_J._Ayala Francisco Ayala]] issue. What with him being a former priest and famous evolutionary biologist, or [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel Gregor Mendel]]. You know, that guy with peas who pretty much figured out genetics and was also a monk.

* 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 [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras_in_comparison_with_other_belief_systems#Mithraism_and_Christian_Theology 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. The ancient Egyptians also didn't have a single, dedicated word in their language that easily translates to "virgin", as it wasn't considered a terribly important thing. 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.

* Similarly, many non-Catholics are vaguely familiar with the concept of "papal infallibility", the 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, existing Church dogma, 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. 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. He's also not the only infallible authority in the Church. Ecumenical Councils -- general councils of all of the bishops in the Church -- are also considered infallible in their solemn pronouncements. Both of these are for the same reason: God would not allow the supreme teaching authority of His church to lead His followers astray.

* The idea that Galileo was persecuted by the Church for his teachings is also false. The details are touched on in [[UsefulNotes.HeresiesAndHeretics the Useful Notes for Heresies and Heretics]], but the basic rundown is that the whole thing was a personal dispute that got out of hand. Galileo was neither the first nor the most prominent individual to advocate a heliocentric universe. That was Nicolaus Copernicus, a Catholic priest, in a work dedicated to Pope Paul III which also insisted that the theory did not contradict Christian doctrine. Fast forward 80 years and "Copernicanism" is considered a plausible (if not well supported) cosmological position, but not widely accepted for scientific rather than theological reasons.[[note]]The major hangup was that, if the theory was true, the stars should be observed to move against the night sky. Copernicus' explanation was that the stars were both much larger and much farther away than commonly thought, [[ScienceMarchesOn which is correct]], but unprovable without modern astronomical technology, and sounded ridiculous to educated minds. Moreover, while heliocentrism proved true at the end, the celestial mechanics exposed by Copernicus' theory at the beginning proved full of calculation errors that were quick to be pointed out, raising many question at the time over its truthfulness. Many of questions raised by heliocentrism were solved in the next century by theories like that of Johannes Kepler.[[/note]]. Enter Galileo, a particularly insistent proponent of the theory. The Church had taken a position on the matter -- the Holy Office concluding that geocentrism had Biblical support -- but was in the process of reconciling its theology with a heliocentric universe and asked Galileo and others not to publicly advocate theory as anything more than opinion until they could find solid proof for it. Galileo, being a rather difficult person, refused, started squaring off against the Church, alienated his friends in the scientific community, and publicly insulted the Pope, causing the Church to come down hard on his head to protect its reputation. In other words, Galileo was prosecuted for being a dick to people powerful enough to make him regret it. He also was treated rather fairly by the Inquistion: he was only charged with being "suspect of heresy" (the Church wouldn't call it heresy until they were solidly convinced one way or the other), and sentenced to house arrest in a sumptuous mansion to be waited on hand-and-foot by a Vatican-dispatched servant. He was also permitted to continue writing scientific works, as long as he stayed away from heliocentrism. The infamous recantation is also not as bad as it seems: what Galileo was made to recant was that heliocentrism was absolutely true and that the Church was wrong to oppose him, which is true in retrospect but for which he had no justification in claiming at the time. Another thing worth noting is that the Church's defense of a geocentric universe was not based in a literal interpretation of the Bible, but rather the sum total of all Classical astronomy up to that point, particularly the Ptolemaic model. In context, Galileo's position would have been the equivalent of someone today opposing the theory of evolution based on a book they read to the contrary. The Church also acknowledged its wrongdoing in the matter -- namely, weighing in on the issue at all and using the Inquisition to essentially prosecute a personal insult to the Pope -- and both apologized and officially pardoned Galileo.
** On the above, Catholics were not even the most vocal critics of Copernicus and his ideas, much less the leadership of the Catholic Church. In fact, it was fundamentalist Protestants who were the most vocal critics, as well as the ones who pressured the Church to disassociate from Copernicus in the first place. Martin Luther himself even referred to the ideas as "absurd," which, while not much, is still much harsher than the average Catholic was.

* One of the most prevailing myths about Catholic Missionaries is that they are there to force their faith on people. There may be other [[ChurchMilitant Christian groups]] that do do this, but the Roman Catholic Church 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 praised by them, and the fact that the mission brings things like sustainable water, food, [[http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/catholic-church-and-healthcare-in.html 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 because they have to come to him. During the mission the priest (and often volunteers) will go and build pumps, [[http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/2011/07/catholic-church-and-healthcare-in.html 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. 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 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.

* 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,[[note]]Technically, "Archangel" simply means 'chief of angels', so by definition, there should only be one, but traditionally, multiple "archangels" are recognized. By extension, many people believe that Archangel Michael is Jesus before his coming to Earth.[[/note]] 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? -- but then "when" did they fall, and wasn't that fall a change?). Note that all of the above is WordOfDante. In the Bible, the only thing said about Angelic hierarchy is that Michael is higher than the others.

* 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''. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science 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 ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre and the guy who originally proposed Big Bang theory]]''. One of the most important theories in modern physics. There's also the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences Pontifical Academy of Sciences]] or the [[http://vaticanobservatory.org/ 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 [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_J._Ayala Francisco Ayala]] issue. What with him being a former priest and famous evolutionary biologist, or [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel Gregor Mendel]]. You know, that guy with peas who pretty much figured out genetics and was also a monk.

* 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. He acknowledged that it didn't necessarily prove God, as a materialist interpretation was also possible.

* The idea that Galileo was persecuted by the Church for his teachings is also false. The details are touched on in [[UsefulNotes.HeresiesAndHeretics the Useful Notes for Heresies and Heretics]], but the basic rundown is that the whole thing was a personal dispute that got out of hand. Galileo was neither the first nor the most prominent individual to advocate a heliocentric universe. That was Nicolaus Copernicus, a Catholic priest, in a work dedicated to Pope Paul III which also insisted that the theory did not contradict Christian doctrine. Fast forward 80 years and "Copernicanism" is considered a plausible (if not well supported) cosmological position, but not widely accepted for scientific rather than theological reasons.[[note]]The major hangup was that, if the theory was true, the stars should be observed to move against the night sky. Copernicus' explanation was that the stars were both much larger and much farther away than commonly thought, [[ScienceMarchesOn which is correct]], but unprovable without modern astronomical technology, and sounded ridiculous to educated minds.[[/note]]. Enter Galileo, a particularly insistent proponent of the theory. The Church had taken a position on the matter -- the Holy Office concluding that geocentrism had Biblical support -- but was in the process of reconciling its theology with a heliocentric universe and asked Galileo and others not to publicly advocate theory as anything more than opinion until they could find solid proof for it. Galileo, being a rather difficult person, refused, started squaring off against the Church, alienated his friends in the scientific community, and publicly insulted the Pope, causing the Church to come down hard on his head to protect its reputation. In other words, Galileo was prosecuted for being a dick to people powerful enough to make him regret it. He also was treated rather fairly by the Inquistion: he was only charged with being "suspect of heresy" (the Church wouldn't call it heresy until they were solidly convinced one way or the other), and sentenced to house arrest in a sumptuous mansion to be waited on hand-and-foot by a Vatican-dispatched servant. He was also permitted to continue writing scientific works, as long as he stayed away from heliocentrism. The infamous recantation is also not as bad as it seems: what Galileo was made to recant was that heliocentrism was absolutely true and that the Church was wrong to oppose him, which is true in retrospect but for which he had no justification in claiming at the time. Another thing worth noting is that the Church's defense of a geocentric universe was not based in a literal interpretation of the Bible, but rather the sum total of all Classical astronomy up to that point, particularly the Ptolemaic model. In context, Galileo's position would have been the equivalent of someone today opposing the theory of evolution based on a book they read to the contrary. The Church also acknowledged its wrongdoing in the matter -- namely, weighing in on the issue at all and using the Inquisition to essentially prosecute a personal insult to the Pope -- and both apologized and officially pardoned Galileo.

* 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 believed to have been written by either the Apostles, Paul, or scribes close to them (Mark and Luke-Acts)[[note]]These days, it's generally accepted by most scholars that the only books written by their attributed author are the majority of the Pauline epistles, the rest being either forgeries in Paul's name or misattributed by early Church authorities[[/note]]. The canon had been in more or less continuous use for a long time before Nicaea, and it wasn't officially adopted until the Council of Trent in 1563. The reason it took so long is that most people from the second century onward generally agreed on which New Testament books were canonical[[note]]The Old Testament was the one that was controversial, largely between those who wanted to use the Hebrew canon over the Greek one, which had 7 extra books[[/note]], and it wasn't until the Protestant Reformation that an officially declared canon was deemed necessary. The earliest reference to our present New Testament canon is from Athanasius in 367, but it was probably around for some time prior to that. Debates on which books were canonical, however, extended at least into the second century.

* 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 believed to have been written by either the Apostles, Paul, or scribes close to them (Mark and Luke-Acts). The canon had been in more or less continuous use for a long time before Nicaea, and it wasn't officially adopted until the Council of Trent in 1563. The reason it took so long is that most people from the second century onward generally agreed on which New Testament books were canonical[[note]]The Old Testament was the one that was controversial, largely between those who wanted to use the Hebrew canon over the Greek one, which had 7 extra books[[/note]] , and it wasn't until the Protestant Reformation that an officially declared canon was deemed necessary. The earliest reference to our present New Testament canon is from Athanasius in 367, but it was probably around for some time prior to that. Debates on which books were canonical, however, extended at least into the second century.

* 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). The canon had been in more or less continuous use for a long time before Nicaea, and it wasn't officially adopted until the Council of Trent in 1563. The reason it took so long is that most people from the second century onward generally agreed on which New Testament books were canonical[[note]]The Old Testament was the one that was controversial, largely between those who wanted to use the Hebrew canon over the Greek one, which had 7 extra books[[/note]] , and it wasn't until the Protestant Reformation that an officially declared canon was deemed necessary. No one is actually sure when we got a canonized New Testament, though estimates range from as early as 70 AD but no later than 140 AD.

** This is far from accurate, the Catholic missions in California punished Native Americans with beatings, forced them to change their way of life, and kept them from leaving the missions without permission. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_mission_clash_of_cultures 1]][[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jun%C3%ADpero_Serra#Treatment_of_Native_Californians 2]]. And that's only in California.

* 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 [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_nullity church annulment]] was also obtained. An annulment also isn't just divorce by another name, it's a declaration that the marriage did not meet the canonical requirements and so, as far as the Church is concerned, never actually happened in the first place.[[note]]This was one of the reasons Henry VIII's desire to annul his first marriage was such a thorny issue: he wasn't just asking to to separate from her, he was asking for a declaration that they were never truly married, she was essentially his mistress, and her daughter was a bastard. That was even more disparaging than it sounds to modern ears. A divorced Catholic who wishes to remarry ''without'' this step may do so, but they must do so ''outside'' of the Church, and is not permitted to receive communion until this is resolved.

* Similarly, many non-Catholics are vaguely familiar with the concept of "papal infallibility", the 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, existing Church dogma, 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. He's also not the only infallible authority in the Church. Ecumenical Councils -- general councils of all of the bishops in the Church -- are also considered infallible in their solemn pronouncements. Both of these are for the same reason: God would not allow the supreme teaching authority of His church to lead His followers astray.
* In general, suggesting that all Protestants are united in certain beliefs, specifically concerning hot-button social issues like homosexuality and abortion is simply incorrect. Unlike the Catholic church, there is no central authority equivalent to the Vatican that decrees official doctrine for all Protestant groups. This is the entire reason Protestantism exists, after all. Protestantism refers to a wide variety of denominations including Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, the Restoration movement, and many, many others, all who trace their origins (eventually) back to the Reformation. Other than a few key commonalities (the primacy of faith, the priesthood of all believers, and the authority of Scripture alone), different denominations endorse a wide variety of social, political, and theological beliefs, up to and including issues as important as ''whether or not Jesus was physically resurrected''. Even further, individual congregations within a specific Protestant denomination can differ in their beliefs. This largely depends on the denomination's history and how it is organized. Whether a particular denomination has a doctrine-making authority of any kind, what that authority is, how wide the latitude to disagree over points of doctrine is, which doctrines can vary, and how much influence that authority has over the workings of individual congregations varies greatly. Some don't recognize any higher (human) authority than the individual congregation and/or don't have anything resembling rules about what you must believe. Some have central authorities that determine doctrine, either in an episcopal structure (i.e., with bishops/metropolitans) or a confessional one (i.e. a council like the Southern Baptist Council). And, like any religious group, a person's fidelity to the professed beliefs of their group can vary greatly as well. Simply put, saying that any two people are Protestants can tell you virtually nothing about what, if any, beliefs they have in common without the proper context. For example, despite superficial similarities in belief and preaching style, Billy Graham and Jimmy Swaggart would differ ''significantly'' on key points of doctrine. Another point to make is that "fundamentalist" is synonymous with neither Protestantism or Evangelicalism, and the latter two are no longer considered exactly synonymous with each other. They actually deal with two different doctrines; fundamentalism is about how you read the Bible and Evangelicalism is about how you approach salvation.

* Slavery as described in the Bible deserves a mention of its own. 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.''
**Which only applied to fellow Hebrews. Foreigners could be enslaved for life, and their children were also considered property which could be bought and sold i.e. chattel slavery.
** 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 involving Hebrew slaves was generally {{indentured servitude}}:

* 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'' (official doctrinal letters issued by Pope Paul IV and Pope John Paul II respectively), 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, the Rhythm Method is merely one form of NFP, see The Other Wiki for details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_family_planning#Methods) 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.

* 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 [[http://asv.vatican.va/?lang=en Papal Archives]]. 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'. 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. To quote the official site:

* The idea that Galileo was persecuted by the Church for his teachings is also false. The details are touched on in [[UsefulNotes.HeresiesAndHeretics the Useful Notes for Heresies and Heretics]], but the basic rundown is that the whole thing was a personal dispute that got out of hand. Galileo was neither the first nor the most prominent individual to advocate a heliocentric universe. That was Nicolaus Copernicus, a Catholic priest, in a work dedicated to Pope Paul III which also insisted that the theory did not contradict Christian doctrine. Fast forward 80 years and "Copernicanism" is considered a plausible (if not well supported) cosmological position, but not widely accepted for scientific rather than theological reasons.[[note]]The major hangup was that, if the theory was true, the stars should be observed to move against the night sky. Copernicus' explanation was that the stars were both much larger and much farther away than commonly thought, [[ScienceMarchesOn which is correct]], but not only unprovable without modern astronmical technology, but sounded ridiculous to educated minds.[[/note]]. Enter Galileo, a particularly insistent proponent of the theory. The Church had taken a position on the matter -- the Holy Office concluding that geocentrism had Biblical support -- but was in the process of reconciling its theology with a heliocentric universe and asked Galileo and others not to publicly advocate theory as anything more than opinion until they could find solid proof for it. Galileo, being a rather difficult person, refused, started squaring off against the Church, alienated his friends in the scientific community, and publicly insulted the Pope, causing the Church to come down hard on his head to protect its reputation. In other words, Galileo was prosecuted for being a dick to people powerful enough to make him regret it. He also was treated rather fairly by the Inquistion: he was only charged with being "suspect of heresy" (the Church wouldn't call it heresy until they were solidly convinced one way or the other), and sentenced to house arrest in a sumptuous mansion to be waited on hand-and-foot by a Vatican-dispatched servant. He was also permitted to continue writing scientific works, as long as he stayed away from heliocentrism. The infamous recantation is also not as bad as it seems: what Galileo was made to recant was that heliocentrism was absolutely true and that the Church was wrong to oppose him, which is true in retrospect but for which he had no justification in claiming at the time. Another thing worth noting is that the Church's defense of a geocentric universe was not based in a literal interpretation of the Bible, but rather the sum total of all Classical astronomy up to that point, particularly the Ptolemaic model. It would have been the equivalent of someone today opposing the theory of evolution based on a book they read to the contrary. The Church also acknowledged its wrongdoing in the matter -- namely, weighing in on the issue at all and using the Inquisition to essentially prosecute a personal insult to the Pope -- and both apologized and officially pardoned Galileo.

* 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 [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_nullity church annulment]] was also obtained. An annulment also isn't just divorce by another name, it's a declaration that the marriage did not meet the canonical requirements and so, as far as the Church is concerned, never actually happened in the first place.[[note]]This was one of the reasons Henry VIII's desire to annul his first marriage was such a thorny issue: he wasn't just asking to to separate from her, he was asking for a declaration that they were never truly married, she was essentially his mistress, and her daughter was a bastard. That was even more disparaging than it sounds to modern ears.[[/note]] A divorced Catholic who wishes to remarry ''without'' this step may do so, but they must do so ''outside'' of the Church, and until a controversial papal decision in 2016 they were no longer permitted to receive Holy Communion.

* 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.''
**Which only appllied to fellow Hebrews. Foreigners could be enslaved for life, and their children were also considered property which could be bought and sold i.e. chattel slavery.

* Literature/TheBible and historical documents noted rules that supported that ancient slavery was generally {{indentured servitude}}:

** 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.

* 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 [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_nullity church annulment]] was also obtained. An annulment also isn't just divorce by another name, it's a declaration that the marriage did not meet the canonical requirements and so, as far as the Church is concerned, never actually happened in the first place.[[note]]This was one of the reasons Henry VIII's desire to annul his first marriage was such a thorny issue: he wasn't just asking to to separate from her, he was asking for a declaration that they were never truly married, she was essentially his mistress, and her daughter was a bastard. That was even more disparaging than it sounds to modern ears.[[/note]] A divorced Catholic who wishes to remarry ''without'' this step may do so, but they must do so ''outside'' of the Church, and until a [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment controversial]] papal decision in 2016 they were no longer permitted to receive Holy Communion.

* 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 [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_nullity church annulment]] was also obtained. An annulment also isn't just divorce by another name, it's a declaration that the marriage did not meet the canonical requirements and so, as far as the Church is concerned, never actually happened in the first place.[[note]]This was one of the reasons Henry VIII's desire to annul his first marriage was such a thorny issue: he wasn't just asking to to separate from her, he was asking for a declaration that they were never truly married, she was essentially his mistress, and her daughter was a bastard. That was even more disparaging than it sounds to modern ears.[[/note]] 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.

* 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'' (official doctrinal letters issued by Pope Paul IV and Pope John Paul II respectively), 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.

* 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 [[http://asv.vatican.va/?lang=en Papal Archives]]. 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'. 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. To quote the official site:

* 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,[[note]]Technically, "Archangel" simply means 'chief of angels', so by definition, there should only be one, but traditionally, multiple "archangels" are recognized. By extension, many people believe that Archangel Michel is Jesus before his coming to earth.[[/note]] 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? -- but then "when" did they fall, and wasn't that fall a change?). Note that all of the above is WordOfDante. In the Bible the only thing said about Angelic hierarchy is that Michael is higher than the others.
* In addition: the perception that salvation will exclusively be afforded to Christians by God himself is not endemic to all of traditional Christianity. In Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, for example, salvation is seen as the result of one's disposition towards God when He is near us come the resurrection (if they are able to receive Him, they experience this closeness as bliss, and if they are not ready, as torment). However, outwardly being the most pious Orthodox Christian does not necessarily afford one salvation to someone, and physically appearing to live outside the Church or commit sins does not necessarily mean "eternal damnation". Eastern Church Fathers such as St. Isaac of Nineveh even preached universalism, and Bishop Kallistos Ware has suggested that even the salvation of the Devil cannot be determined. Ultimately, who is saved (typically outside of saints and the Theotokos) is a mystery, and thus Christians are taught not to judge non-Christians. Some Western Christians, such as early Quakers, also were a bit less discriminatory in their perception of salvation than fire-and-brimstone narratives of the day.

* ''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. 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. 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. 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 (or for that matter, any of the Jewish 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. Needless to say, a lot of heated debate about the Biblical basis (or lack thereof) for the doctrine has taken place over the centuries, which need not be replicated here.
* The theory of Limbo is commonly misunderstood, and sometimes confused with purgatory. Limbo is supposedly a place for those who cannot enter heaven, but do not deserve Hell, and is actually a term for two realms: the Limbo of the Infants, where infants who die before being baptized end up, and the Limbo of the Fathers, where folks like Moses and Samuel ended up before Jesus allowed them to enter heaven. It is therefore distinct from purgatory as being a permanent residence (or semi-permanent in the case of the Fathers) rather than a temporary place of purification. Also, while purgatory is a place of punishment, if only temporary, Limbo is essentially heaven-lite: a place of "natural" (as opposed to divine) happiness. The most important difference between the two, however, is that, while Limbo has been postulated by several important church figures (like St. Augustine), it has ''never'' been adopted as an official church doctrine. The Church officially takes no position on the matter, except to essentially say "GodIsGood, so He will make sure everyone gets what they deserve". A plurality of opinions exist on the subject, which the Church maintains are all equally valid. For example, Pope Benedict XVI, when he was still a Cardinal, went on record to say that he believes unbaptized infants would enter heaven, to absolutely no controversy. Needless to say, having largely rejected baptism as the primary means of regeneration (i.e. salvation), Protestants generally reject the concept of Limbo as well; while having been born with a sinful nature, infants are not held accountable and thus would enter Heaven upon death.

* One of the most prevailing myths about Catholic Missionaries is that they are there to force their faith on people. There may be other [[ChurchMilitant Christian groups]] that do do this, but the Roman Catholic Church 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 praised by them, and the fact that the mission brings things like sustainable water, food, [[http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/catholic-church-and-healthcare-in.html 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 because they have to come to him. During the mission the priest (and often volunteers) will go and build pumps, [[http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/2011/07/catholic-church-and-healthcare-in.html 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. 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 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. 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.

* 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'' (official doctrinal letters issued by Pope Paul IV and Pope John Paul II respectively), 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.

* 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. The concept was never very popular, partially because St. Paul trashed it in his Letter to the Timothy, and partially because their extreme acesticism was somewhat off-putting to a lot of people. Manicheanism, which was similarly heavily dualistic, was also one of the chief competitors with Christianity during the early period, but quickly lost out due to many of its missionaries not being very good at their job (and several high-profile Christian bishops being former Manicheans who pilloried the philosophy). Beyond the issue of relative power or lack thereof, Satan is believed by most Christians 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 only exceptions are the grimmest of Evangelical sects, and the Jehovah's Witnesses, who believe that Satan currently rules the world. But even these groups believe that Satan is destined to inevitably lose out to God at some point in the future.
* 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.