Sketchy Argument

I should never go down the path of arguing about religion but I can't help myself sometimes.

The Da Vinci Code and a conversation that happened at Matt's dad's birthday party prompted some thoughts. For some background: Matt's family comes from a non-denominational background. They were fairly active in the Christian church at one time, including Matt who could be classified as a born-again. For various reasons, the family left the church.

Matt's brother, Tom, still goes to church occasionally and is married to a former-Catholic. We started talking about the differences between Catholicism and Christianity. Most of this due to the fact that Matt's mom is reading our copy of the Da Vinci code.

I got to thinking about the whole discussion about the book states that the bible isn't really what was originally. That there were more books and it has been rewritten so much that it barely resembles what it was in the beginning. We talked some more and I hit upon a thought.

A sort of time line would suggest that Paganism (or various other types of religion) came about ages ago.

Then came Judaism.

Catholicism followed that. If you subscribe to the idea that Jesus was a real person, which by most accounts it seems pretty likely that he was, then you must assume that most of the books of the bible have some truth to them.

Now, despite the fact that the bible and Catholicism have been twisted by whoever has been in power or wanted certain details to go away, this religion was the next step.

Lutheran/Protestantism is a response to Catholicism. They are religions based on the ideas of Catholicism and then changed to suit what their founders believed was "true."

Thought: if the bible and Catholicism were ghosts of what they had started out as before being politicized, therefore, not "true" to begin with, how is any Christian religion that forms out of Catholicism have any shot at being "true"?

Yes, the argument has holes, but you get my drift.