-->
@disgusted
Not at all.
Why are you a Protestant?
Posts
Total:
62
-->
@Mopac
Oh yes you are.You know as well as I do that it is absurd to request that I present you with something uncreatedI can tell the difference between The Uncreated and creation.If I couldn't tell the difference, I would have surely presented you something.
63 days later
The name label and term called " Protestant " first appeared at the Diet of Speyer in 1529, when the Roman Catholic emperor of Germany, Charles V, rescinded the provision of the Diet of Speyer in 1526 that had allowed each ruler to choose whether to administer the Edict of Worms.
On April 19, 1529, a protest against this decision was read on behalf of 14 free cities of Germany. And six Lutheran princes who declared that the majority decision did not bind them because they were not a party to it and that they were forced to choose between obedience to God and obedience to Caesar.
Since then Roman Catholics have used this word to label all Non-Catholic Christians who refuse to align themselves with Roman Catholic doctrines, ideologies, theologies and faiths. - as Protestants. The word, label, and term called " Protestant " means simply " To PROTEST " Roman Catholics hold to the idea that their Organization, their Church and their faith alone is the only faith that is the correct faith.
If you notice - in the last 2000 years of Roman Catholicism - there has never been a single Non - Catholic saint. Roman Catholics will never consider a Non - Catholic _ to be called a saint _ or to enter into heaven as a saint.
In the mind of the Roman Catholic - there are no Non - Catholics Saints in heaven. Protestants also often have this same attitude toward Roman Catholics. There are many dividing lines and disagreements that exist as conflicts of faith. I used to have some Catholic friends that I worked with at my job - before I retired and they were always nice people.
But ( The Non - Catholic Christian ) Will never be a saint and will never be going to Catholic heaven - Or Accepted or Allowed to enter. After 2000 years they have clearly proven that they have never found even a single protestant Christian deserving, worthy or capable of being considered for sainthood. This concept simply does not exist. And many Protestants feel the same about Catholics. I believe that there will be Catholics in heaven and I have known many Roman Catholics who are very kind, considerate, loving and wonderful people.
The Summo Iugiter (On Mixed Marriages), Encyclical promulgated on May 27, 1832, #2 Tell that The Great Pope Gregory XVI, - Declares that "MISGUIDED PEOPLE attempt TO PERSUADE themselves and others, THAT MEN ARE NOT SAVED ONLY IN THE CATHOLIC RELIGION, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.'
and The Bull of Union with the Copts', Council of Florence, Session 11, on February 4, 1442. .... the Great Pope Eugenius IV - Declares that " All OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, Jews or heretics CANNOT SHARE IN ETERNAL life and will GO INTO THE EVERLASTING FIRE, which was prepared for the devil and his angels, UNLESS THEY ARE JOINED TO THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH .There are so many, many more Statements of Popes who make Demands that one Must be a Romantic Catholic in order to be saved and to serve the SAME God. Such as - 'Heretics (those who are NOT MEMBERS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH or who DO NOT HOLD TO CATHOLIC DOCTRINE) - Worship a God WHO IS A LIAR, and a CHRIST WHO IS A LIAR.'
This is the message of the Great Catholic Father - St. Augustine, (quoted in 'Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graca', by Fr. J. P. Migne, Paris: 1866, 42:207). - The lines are drawn pretty clear - of course many, many Catholics do not believe this today and they love protestants and want nothing but the best for them. But after 2000 years - the fact remains that never has a single Non - Catholic Christian ever been allowed to be considered as a saint. This is pretty much set in stone in the foundation of pure Catholic theology and faith. But the term Protestant was a label that was attached or castigated onto Non-Catholic Christians, by Catholics at the time of the 15 th century
reformation, where Non-Catholics sought to translate the Bible into another language other than _ or outside of the Latin language.
almighty God - by rejecting the faith of The Roman Pontiffs. Roman Catholics are very historically firm in their faith.
-->
@triangle.128k
Protestantism is an umorganized religion that has easily been able to devolve and distort itself under modernism.Catholicism has stayed true to doctrine and century old teachings. It's resisted modernism to a greater extent.What makes you follow the former?
Hi Triangle, thanks for your question. I wish to point out a few things with the statements you have made. Firstly, Protestantism is not a religion, organised or unorganised. Protestantism was in the first place a reforming movement within the Christian Religion. It has in many ways existed from the beginning of the church, yet, did not really obtain a label until Luther arrived on the scene. Prior to Luther, protestants existed throughout the church history. I would suggest that both Augustine and Athanasius were protestants well before the label ever became fashionable. Both were reformers because like the protestants they did not like the way the church was becoming synchronised with the world around it. Both believed that the church in Christ through his word and his Spirit should transform the world - not the other way around it. Constantine for instance was a believer yet in his passion to make his kingdom united in Christianity - he politicised it - and compromised many Christian values for the sake of unity over truth. He brought into the church many things from the pagan religions at the time and they became part of the tradition that many of the church believed and some still do - even when the evidence is against them.
Hence, Protestantism like the early reformers is not a new religion. It was an intentional movement to try and restore Jesus teaching from the beginning. Hence it protested for the authority of the Scriptures over and above church teaching and over and above tradition. It did not throw away church teaching or tradition save and except where it was in opposition to the Scriptures. It took the view that the Scriptures were the OT books accepted by Jews as Scripture. It understood the books of the NT as Athanasius had listed them and which the early church had accepted and received as the Scriptures. It also rejected the gnostic books and other books which were not in accord with the ecumenical creeds formulated and restated at the ecumenical councils. Protestantism was born protesting for the authority of the Scriptures. But it was not a new church nor a new religion. It was and remains the Christian religion. Luther for instance did not reject Catholicism - but did what any other professor and doctor in the church would have done when issues of controversy appeared - he organised for discussion to take place. Nailing is thesis to the door of Wittenberg was not novel, but the ordinary thing of the time. What was different however is that his thesis was copied with the new printing press and his ideas were circulated like it had never been possible before. With a wider circulation - the ideas were able to be discussed more broadly and this was something quite new.
Modernism has become quite wide spread in Protestantism. This is quite true. And it has been a particular scourge in some circles. Yet, modernism is also prevalent in the Catholic Church and in the Orthodox church. It is also true in the non-protestant churches as well, including the Baptist, charismatic, Salvation Army and Brethren. These latter churches are not protestant. Modernism by the way has different aspects to it. The question is with its intent and purpose. I take the view that modernism is a good thing for the most part. Yet, when its takes on Marxism or the dogmatic assertion of tolerance / unity like Constantine many years ago - then its modernity is going to compromise the church's teaching from the beginning.
Catholicism has not stayed true to its teaching. Vatican 11 changed much - it called it reform. The Orthodox church has also reformed over the years. Reforming itself is not wrong per se.
Protestantism is NOT a church or a religion. It is a movement.
-->
@Tradesecret
Once they start teaching tolerance they fall into the heresy of Jesus who also taught it.
-->
@disgusted
Tolerance always has to be qualified. In today's progressive Marxist society - tolerance only applies to those whom you agree with. they don't tolerate Nazi's for instance nor do they tolerate those who hold exclusive views. In other words - it is one sided. they expect others to tolerate them - and their wacko ideas but reject any position which criticises them as being intolerant.
Jesus did not teach tolerance in the same way that the Marxists do. He did teach exclusivism. He was opposed to the religious slavery of the day - because it was opposed to the freedom he was bringing in. The religious organisation of that day was much like our Marxists today. Don't step outside of what we tell you to do and to say.
when I look around the western world today - freedom of speech and opinion has been so watered down - that saying you disagree with something - e.g. homosexuality is tantamount as being intolerant. For me, that is the essence of bigotry and hypocrisy. when people cannot say they disagree with something - and not be labeled then perhaps tolerance may mean something in our society. Unfortunately it has been twisted and distorted so that tolerance means - agreeing with it. and if you don't agree - then you are shamed and made to be an outcast. And for whatever twisted and perverted reason - it is ok to be outcast in this case - and it is wrong to try and say - don't treat them like outcasts. In fact if you support someone who has been cast out - then you are treated in the same way. I say - that if this is tolerance - then I don't want it. I don't want to be your slave - and I refuse to be subjected to such one sided and hypocritical views.
-->
@Tradesecret
Tolerance always has to be qualified. In today's progressive Marxist society -
You poor frightened little godists are just so completely unaware, Marxist bwuahahahahahaha. You really shouldn't display your wilfull ignorance in public like this. Your god was a socialist you fucking heretic. bwuahahahahahaha
tolerance only applies to those whom you agree with.
I tolerate you and your ignorant buddies regardless of how stupid your beliefs are. I won't tolerate you trying to impose the misogyny and hatred you've been taught by your IPSS, this is the real world.
they don't tolerate Nazi's for instance nor do they tolerate those who hold exclusive views.
I don't tolerate nazis but rightwing nuts like you not only tolerate them you embrace them and their ideology, funamentalist christianity is indistinguishable from neo nazism. Sorry no tolerance for that.
In other words - it is one sided. they expect others to tolerate them - and their wacko ideas but reject any position which criticises them as being intolerant.
Because I reject your nazi views you consider me intolerant, well done numpty.bwuahahahahahaha
Jesus did not teach tolerance in the same way that the Marxists do.
You have an ignorance that is unassailable when it comes to everything but especially Marxism, get an education and you won't be back.
He did teach exclusivism.
He taught unity if he taught anything you heretic, just ask satan. bwuahahahahaha
He was opposed to the religious slavery of the day - because it was opposed to the freedom he was bringing in.
He was in favour of real slavery not your pretend slavery but the slavery that had children raped and slaves killed with impunity, you heretic.
The religious organisation of that day was much like our Marxists today. Don't step outside of what we tell you to do and to say.
Once again your ignorance is mind boggling.
when I look around the western world today - freedom of speech and opinion has been so watered down - that saying you disagree with something - e.g. homosexuality is tantamount as being intolerant.
Do you disagree with birds flying, because disagreeing with homosexuality is the equivalent and that is some serious stupidity, why do you believe that nonsense should be tolerated? I mean fuckin' WOW.
For me, that is the essence of bigotry and hypocrisy. when people cannot say they disagree with something - and not be labeled then perhaps tolerance may mean something in our society.
I've already addressed why gross stupidity has no right to tolerance, an opposing intelligent point of view is entitled to tolerance but an attempt to impose that POV on others has no right to tolerance. Your POV regarding homosexuality is actually the POV of long dead IPSS who's ideas have no place in our society.
Unfortunately it has been twisted and distorted so that tolerance means - agreeing with it. and if you don't agree - then you are shamed and made to be an outcast.
The way you and your ignorant tribe of the morbidly afraid have tried to shame and outcast homosexuals for millennia?
And for whatever twisted and perverted reason - it is ok to be outcast in this case - and it is wrong to try and say - don't treat them like outcasts. In fact if you support someone who has been cast out - then you are treated in the same way. I say - that if this is tolerance - then I don't want it. I don't want to be your slave - and I refuse to be subjected to such one sided and hypocritical views.
This is meaningless incoherent drivel, you just got seriously lost there didn't you?
-->
@disgusted
Who would have though that someone so hateful and ignorant would be a pinko.
Not surprised.
The God you don't even believe in was a socialist. That's funny.
Socialism violates several of the 10 commandments. For example, do not covet. Do not steal. No idolatry? Yeah, funny how anti-God and really anti-human socialist governemnts tend to be.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that you want the pinkos to be in charge so that they would take care of this Christian problem.
-->
@RationalMadman
Christianity worships Lucifer. Jesus was Lucifer. Lucifer was not Satan. Satan is the god in the OT.
One right out of four is pretty bad, makes me think you only got the one out of pure chance.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I didn't ask you what you thought.
-->
@Mopac
Like the Scandinavian countries you trilobite.
-->
@disgusted
Which Scandinavian country would you call socialist?
-->
@Mopac
All of them, try and get an education.
-->
@disgusted
-->
@disgusted
I'd like to point out this one is even at a Christian school. Students are instructed to thank the sun and the rain not God.
Step in the right direction, eh?
-->
@Mopac
I would say it is, yes.
According to this site,http://www.friendsinternationalcenter.com/advice/the-swedish-education-act/
the Swedish Education Act mandates:
(Section 5) "The education shall be structured in accordance with basic democratic values and human rights such as the sanctity of human life, the freedom and integrity of individuals, the equal worth of all human beings, equal opportunities and solidarity between human beings.
The 'nice' aspects of religion are those where it forgets about gods and resembles humanism. Humanists believe - or perhaps know - that you don't need god to be good.
-->
@triangle.128k
i'm an atheist, but if I was religious I would be a protestant because I am British and Henry VIII broke from the catholic church. If I was French or Spanish I'd be a Catholic; if I was Indian I'd be a Hindu, and so on.
-->
@keithprosser
Don't need truth to be good.
Gotcha. I guess it makes sense that good is about as arbitrary as everything else.
I guess that is why you think children in Christian schools shouldn't be allowed to pray.
Making it a lot harder to believe that you wouldn't look the other way if Christians were taken away in unmarked vans never to be seen again. After all, believing in God according to you is not good.
-->
@Mopac
On the contary - the truth is all that matters. And the truth is that there is no god that hears or answers prayers, nor a deity to reward and punish the dead. It is not true that a conscious act by a thinking creator brought the universe and life into being.
Yes, there is an "ultimate truth", but it is nothing like the god you imagine it to be.
-->
@keithprosser
You don't know my God because you lack the charity to get past your own superstitions.
And that is how I know that the truth isn't in you.
Yet in the same post you blaspheme God you confess that God exists. What can you say? That Ultimate Truth is nothing like I can imagine it to be?
Find me anyone who would dispute you on this! Obviously imagination, something which is by definition creation, can not be The Uncreated!
And my words you will not take as a sign, because if there is anything you are in error about it certainly isn't this!
The Only Reality is God.
Do you believe your prayers are heard? Do you believe you have an eternal soul? What is it that hears your prayers or judges your soul? You confuse 'God is real' with 'God is reality'. I can guess why you do that; I think it is because reality is undeniable: ergo God is undeniable. You think you have it all buttoned up.
Well, God is not the same thing as reality. God=reality/truth is just a word trick you use to convince yourself. You are constantly reminded that you are alone in your self-regarding delusion that you have an insight unavailable to lesser intellects!
-->
@Mopac
Scandinavian socialist countries who all have a higher standard of living than your backward hillbilly heaven, they always score miles above your ignorant backwater for happiness and you were ignorantly unaware of their existence, their education is vastly superior to yours obviously.
-->
@Mopac
Why are you using a pagan propaganda site to support some stupid lies that have nothing to do Scandinavian countries being socialist and therefore far superior to the uneducated country where you live.
Try to learn about that which you speak before speaking, indoctrination is not education.
-->
@Mopac
You don't know my God because you lack the charity to get past your own superstitions.
It's hilarious when someone who believes in caveman wishful thinking accuses someone else of being superstitious. bwuahahahahaha
And that is how I know that the truth isn't in you.
I seriously doubt, as evidenced by everything you write, that you know anything at all.
Yet in the same post you blaspheme God you confess that God exists. What can you say? That Ultimate Truth is nothing like I can imagine it to be?
Gods don't exist, making blaspheme a meaningless word.
Find me anyone who would dispute you on this! Obviously imagination, something which is by definition creation, can not be The Uncreated!
You've already declared your inability to differentiate between created and real.
The Only Reality is God.
And there is your unwavering superstition, go you good thing. bwuahahahahaha
-->
@disgusted
Well when your country is the size of New York and you tax at 50%
-->
@keithprosser
I am not confused, I know what my faith is. You do not. I would say you pretending to makes you awfully arrogant.
And since you can't accept the very fundamental, the single most essential truth of my faith, you get nothing else.
-->
@Mopac
I know what my faith is. You do not.
I've read nearly all your almost 3,000 posts - I think I know what your faith is.
-->
@keithprosser
Yet you still say that I am confusing "God is real" with "God is reality".
Which shows you don't get it, and it is in fact you who are confused. I stand in unison with the church. You do not.
The Ultimate Reality IS God.
And you, in your foolishness say that The Ultimate Reality exists but God doesn't.
-->
@Mopac
All those socialist countries that are so much better than yours could ever hope to be and suddenly you come face to face with the lies of your indoctrination and it's just one more thing to add to the ever expanding list of things you fear.
-->
@disgusted
"Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.....All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity."