As I skim through various thread on CF, I keep getting stunned by some of the statements of "facts" that people make on here. As most posters in Traditional Theology are fairly well versed in history, theology, and reasoned discussion, I'm wondering what are the craziest notions you have seen on CF? Some of my favorites include:
- The pope wears a hat in the shape of a fish because he really worships Dagon. (thanks to Chick Tracts)
- Luther left the Catholic church because he wanted to get married. (Its been a while since I've seen this one)
- If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me (I have not seen this actually stated but some things I've read are close).
- The Roman Catholic Church wrote the Bible. (IMHO, I'd love to find a better term for the pre-schism church being used by Catholics, EO and OO)
- Constantine wrote the Bible and burned everything else.
Related to the Constantine one, that the bishops at Nicea threw a bunch of books on a table and the ones that fell off were discarded and the ones that remained became the Bible. Some actually believe this silly story, its origin seems to be something snarky Voltaire said once (he didn't believe it himself; he was, as noted, being snarky).
Here are a few others I've heard:
John Wycliffe was charged with heresy and executed by the Roman Catholic Church (in truth, Wycliffe died a natural death and was only charged with heresy several decades after his death, his body was exhumed and dumped into a river however).
William Tyndale was executed by the Roman Catholic Church (in truth, Tyndale was executed by the British Crown, and this was several years after Henry VIII had broke away from Rome and made himself head of the English Church).
Witches were hunted and killed on a massive scale during the middle ages. The belief in witches and witchcraft was regarded as heretical superstition in the middle ages, and both church and civil law explicitly and expressly forbade hunting or killing witches; attitudes only began to change with the publication of the Malleus Maleficarum; as such with hunting was a post-medieval phenomenon, which is why we see it happening (e.g.) in Salem, Massachusetts. Witch hunts and belief in witchcraft isn't a medieval thing, it's a modern thing; medieval Christians new better.
The "Dark Ages". Just that, the idea of this period of time known as "the dark ages" is regarded by historians to be straight up wrong. Also, a failure to understand what the term "dark ages" means in an historical context--it refers to a period of time of which we know very little because of a lack of written records. Which is why "the dark ages" isn't used by any serious historian to refer to the period between the fall of Rome in the 5th century and the rise of Scholasticism and/or the Renaissance; but instead speak of the early middle ages, high middle ages, and late middle ages (etc). There are plentiful records from the time, and other false ideas about them (such as these were backward, technologically and scientifically stifling, or spiritually dark) remain just as false. There were no dark ages in regard to that period in Western European history.
That "Roman" in "Roman Catholic Church" has any relation whatsoever to either the Roman Empire or the Holy Roman Empire; rather than a reference to the Bishop of Rome and/or the Roman/Latin Rite.
That the term "Protestant" refers to a protest against the Catholic Church. In fact the term "Protestant" referred specifically to the German Elector-Princes who formally protested the decision at the second Imperial Diet of Speyer in which the Holy Roman Emperor reversed the decision from the first Diet. The First Diet gave the princes the right to choose for themselves whether to practice the Evangelical or Roman forms of religion, the Second Diet said that all the territories of the Empire had to observe the Roman--the Evangelical Princes protested in an act known as the Protestation at Speyer; for which they were given the name "Protestant". It had nothing whatsoever to do with protesting the Catholic Church.
Then there are all the Christ-Mythicism claims, e.g. that Christianity just plagiaraized from the cultic following of Mithras, Osiris, etc; such claims are rooted in complete modern nonsense that is demonstrably false by bothering to learn the myths or beliefs/practices of those who worshiped these deities. E.g. the claim that Mithras was born of a virgin is demonstrably false since the birth of Mithras is a frequent theme in ancient Mithraic art where he is shown emerging as a fully formed adult male from solid rock; or that Osiris was crucified and raised from the dead when Osiris was murdered and his body torn apart by Set who then scattered his body parts all over Egypt, Osiris' wife Isis then gathered all the parts of his body, made an incantation, and Osiris was reborn as the king of the underworld.
Then there's anything written by Alexander Hislop: that Nimrod married Semiramis and gave birth to Tammuz and this was the beginning of Babylonian religion. There's nothing in the historical record that mentions Nimrod marrying the legendary queen Semiramis, and there's definitely nothing tying either to the Mesopotamian worship of Tammuz: Hislop made it up from thin air; something he seems to do frequently in his work. Chick Publications was pretty big on repackaging Hislop's Fables.
"Allah" is a pagan moon god. Well, no, it's just the Arabic word for "God" and it's what Jews and Christians have also used to refer to God in the Arabic language, and long before Islam was ever around.
I feel like I could go on, because I've heard so much over the years, but I think it's sufficient to end my list here.
-CryptoLutheran