[1718627440]

So the "employees" of X are untrustworthy, but the collection of circular letters for the "employees" of X is not. This doesn't make any sense.

> Even today with easy access, a majority of Christians have not read it.

Depending on the denomination, 50% to 100% of the service they do revolves around reading from that book.

> preachers of the Church

Also what do you understand by "the Church".

[anonymous908213]

It should be clear by "a ~1000 year period" that I was talking about history with that sentence, not the present day. For a very long time there was only one Church, the Catholic Church. Any "denominations" were local deviations considered heresy worthy of extermination, and it took the deadliest war in European history (prior to the world wars) for Christians to be able to openly practice beliefs that diverged from the Church.

> So the "employees" of X are untrustworthy, but the collection of circular letters for the "employees" of X is not. This doesn't make any sense.

I am not saying anything about whether the text of various ideologies is trustworthy or next. I am contending that contrary to the original comment I was replying to, it's not actually text that converts people to most ideologies. For Christianity, people generally adopt it for reasons like: being born into a Christian household/society; societal pressure; a desire for community; having received charitable aid when they needed it most; mid-life crises seeking a purpose in life; reckoning with mortality after a near-death experience or losing a loved one; witnessing something they perceive as miraculous. There are many, many reasons people become Christians, but I have never once heard of someone being converted merely by reading the Bible, and I suspect that such an occurence is exceedingly rare relative to all the other means of adoption.

[1718627440]

> For a very long time there was only one Church, the Catholic Church.

My question wasn't about denominations, I wanted to know what you think the church IS. Because the definition I am familiar with is the collective of all people (and creatures) believing in Christ. With that "people get to know about Christ only from the Church" is circular.

> I am contending that contrary to the original comment I was replying to, it's not actually text that converts people to most ideologies.

That I agree with. But that is not what you wrote.

[anonymous908213]

To be honest, as a non-Christian person, I had no idea Christians used "the Church" in the way you describe. I don't think I've ever personally seen that usage, and I apologise for the miscommunication. As someone interested in historical research, the usage of "the Church" that I am familiar with is shorthand to describe the historical central institute of Christianity as an organized religion - the Roman Catholic Church.

And the point I was trying to make was that "the collective believers of all Christianity" did not have direct access to the Bible for a long time - manuscripts were rare before printing, and they were even more rarely written in a language laypeople could read, if they could read at all. Therefore, anything they heard about the contents of the Bible and Christ's teachings would be subject entirely to the filtered interpretations of the Catholic clergy, and that would determine the shape of their beliefs rather than the writings themselves. Indeed it was specifically the advent of the printing press, when more people gained access to the Bible directly rather than the Papal interpretation of it, that led to the Reformation and spread of Protestantism and other denominations.

[1718627440]

As for your claim, "people are convinced mostly by actions not by pious texts", I think I agree. Although there are exceptions, often from people already mostly taking their world view from papers (professors and other academics), but even then they are convinced, but don't really see the point until they interact with others (i.e. get in touch with the church). At least according to their own later words.

> And the point I was trying to make was that "the collective believers of all Christianity" did not have direct access to the Bible for a long time - manuscripts were rare before printing, and they were even more rarely written in a language laypeople could read, if they could read at all.

I also think that copying manuscripts was a huge thing, BECAUSE reading the original was so highly valued, and the literacy rate was higher under christians as opposed to the fellow heathens for which there was just no point in learning to read. The letters were addressed to the whole parishes rather than at single individuals, so I think the expectation was that the whole parish read it. This might have changed in the middle ages, when "being a Christian" was much less an individual decision, but more an effect of the ruler saying them to be.

> Therefore, anything they heard about the contents of the Bible and Christ's teachings would be subject entirely to the filtered interpretations of the Catholic clergy, and that would determine the shape of their beliefs rather than the writings themselves. Indeed it was specifically the advent of the printing press, when more people gained access to the Bible directly rather than the Papal interpretation of it, that led to the Reformation

I think what led to the Reformation was much less the clergy hiding "the true meaning" with the Papal interpretation, but rather the clergy preaching their crude personal insight against the Papal interpretation. This was a huge issue and problem at that time. Most of the issues raised by the reformators were indeed a problem with which the church at large agreed. The Reformation was (initially) exactly that, a reformation in the church. That reformation was continued even after some parts decided to split off.

Also the bible is a written form of the teachings of the church, so I don't think that there is a real disagreement to be found that is substantially true and not just language lawyering and not just yet another (mis)interpretation.

> spread of Protestantism and other denominations

The dogma of Protestantism are also largely based on the translation and omissions of their founding fathers and often not really based in the text itself.

> the usage of "the Church" that I am familiar with is shorthand to describe the historical central institute of Christianity as an organized religion - the Roman Catholic Church.

Note, that I perceive the "Church" in "the Roman Catholic Church", to be what I described. I don't really know what exactly you thing of when you write that (hence my initial question), but I guess something more like a company? The Roman Catholic Church isn't really a single uniform entity, and hasn't been through history, there isn't really a real hierarchy above a bishop. This is actually much less true for protestant denominations, which tied themself to the nations they live in and thus had a real hierarchy often entangled with the state.