Protestantism and catholicism

[shunyadragon]

Protestantism early movement also came to be about delivering the Bible to the masses in their own language. There were many streams, some formed rivers of blood.

Blood of both Protestants and Roman Church believers.

 

[exchemist]

Apparently you've never been to the Red Light District in Amsterdam, but I would never be so dishonest as to call the Netherlands or Amsterdam a "brothel". Your stereotypes are just so utterly pathetic and dishonest as they are a form of lying while demeaning others.

I don't recall a particular prostitution problem in Italy when I was last there. But Italy has since that time borne the brunt of a lot of illegal migration. I wonder if this may be an unhappy consequence, due to destitute people.

I should have thought the Christian response to such a thing would be to try to understand the circumstances and perhaps consider a donation to an appropriate charity.

 

[outlawState]

I don't recall a particular prostitution problem in Italy when I was last there. But Italy has since that time borne the brunt of a lot of illegal migration. I wonder if this may be an unhappy consequence, due to destitute people.

I should have thought the Christian response to such a thing would be to try to understand the circumstances and perhaps consider a donation to an appropriate charity.

Response? I was on a coach trip with a load of other tourists. In fact the sight of so many prostitutes rather spoilt my holiday. I think they owe me a partial refund. I certainly wouldn't go to Italy again for a holiday.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes: one of the foundational principles of the Catholic Church is that their doctrine was laid out by Christ and has not changes since then.

I recognize that Catholic doctrine has changed significantly over the ages, but major shifts all at once make it untenable to even pretend that permanence of doctrine is a thing.

I do not believe that the core doctrine and dogma of the Roman Church defined in the Catechism today has changed much over the millennia of the history of the Roman Church. The changes proposed in Vatican II are subtle and direct mostly toward developing a uniform universal Catechism, and an increase in diplomacy and dialogue out side the Roman One True Church. To establish this uniformity the Vatican II for the most part cites previous church documents and the Church Fathers to justify this.

Within the church there was some controversy concerning the concept of 'Salvation Only within the Roman Church,' and the concept of potential Universal Salvation concerning those without knowledge, and those below the 'age of consent' including the unbaptized was controversial, but the Roman Church based this on previous documents and the Church Fathers. It has always been the belief of the church that there is the potential of salvation up until the moment of death, therefore no individual is condemned during one's lifetime..

Actually the Vatican I was proposed in the 1860's, but was differed because of the crisis of the breakup of the Vatican States, and rise of Italian Nationalism. The Vatican II contains much of what was in the Vatican I to establish the uniformity of the doctrine and dogma of the Roman Church.

What other than this has actually changed in the doctrine and dogma of the Roman Church?

 

[outlawState]

Blood of both Protestants and Roman Church believers.

I think you'll find that the blood of Protestants was spilt in droves, whilst the blood of Roman Church "believers" was very little spilt by Protestests, although many Catholics did die in Catholic wars, such as the invasion of Russia by Napolean, and in the defeat of the Spanish Armada, etc.

The massacres of protestants were numerous. Extermination of Albigenes, and Waldeneses and Huguenots to name but a few. The Crusade bull called for the extermination of Wyclifites and Hussites. In addition there were numerous Catholic attempts to invade the UK, and the protestant Netherlands. Perhaps the most interesting thing from those days was when the army of Charles V comprising Spanish Catholics and Lutherans sacked Rome. Catholic destroying Catholic. Do I laugh or cry?

 

[exchemist]

I think you'll find that the blood of Protestants was spilt in droves, whilst the blood of Roman Church "believers" was very little spilt by Protestests, although many Catholics did die in Catholic wars, such as the invasion of Russia by Napolean, and in the defeat of the Spanish Armada, etc.

The massacres of protestants were numerous. Extermination of Albigenes, and Waldeneses and Huguenots to name but a few. The Crusade bull called for the extermination of Wyclifites and Hussites. In addition there were numerous Catholic attempts to invade the UK, and the protestant Netherlands. Perhaps the most interesting thing from those days was when the army of Charles V comprising Spanish Catholics and Lutherans sacked Rome. Catholic destroying Catholic. Do I laugh or cry?

You? Laugh. Without a doubt.

 

[outlawState]

Apparently you've never been to the Red Light District in Amsterdam, but I would never be so dishonest as to call the Netherlands or Amsterdam a "brothel". Your stereotypes are just so utterly pathetic and dishonest as they are a form of lying while demeaning others.

On the contrary, it is an integral part of my political and theological outlook that open toleration of prostitution can render the whole place as a conceptual brothel, even if the act itself is only carried on by a few. Jer 3:1 the land itself is said to be defiled by prostitution. The very thing is a criminal offence under Levitcal law (the penalty on the woman was death), and the condoning of it by its aiders and abettors equally so

Consider that all Canaanite nations were given over to destruction, not because all the inhabitants were prostitutes, but because all tolerated it and condoned it. Same with Sodom. The social and legal structure of a society organized around the toleration of prostitution can be legitimately said to be completely defiled, and by analogy, contrasted with living in brothel, where the rules of the brothel constitute the law. The Babylonian legal system regulated prostitition.

Hos 6:10
I have seen an horrible thing in the house of Israel: there is the whoredom of Ephraim, Israel is defiled.

Incidentally, the concept of living in a brothel extends far further than to street-walkers. Any society permitting divorce at will by women can be similarly contrasted and construed.

There is also the spiritual analogy. "The whore of Babylon" and references to "whoredom" in the bible do not only embrace the literal but the spiritual descent into idolatry, humanism, and human (i.e. criminal's) rights law etc, that comes from rejecting God's law.

That is not to say that Italy is without hope, as new governments, and new politicians, have begun to appear seeking radical changes, including separation from the EU in certain fields, which IMO is long overdue.

 

[metis]

On the contrary, it is an integral part of my political and theological outlook

No, anti-Catholic bigotry is what your "political and theological outlook" entails because you blame Catholics but excuse Protestants for doing the same alleged things.

 

[Shiranui117]

I think you'll find that the blood of Protestants was spilt in droves, whilst the blood of Roman Church "believers" was very little spilt by Protestests, although many Catholics did die in Catholic wars, such as the invasion of Russia by Napolean, and in the defeat of the Spanish Armada, etc.

The massacres of protestants were numerous. Extermination of Albigenes, and Waldeneses and Huguenots to name but a few. The Crusade bull called for the extermination of Wyclifites and Hussites. In addition there were numerous Catholic attempts to invade the UK, and the protestant Netherlands. Perhaps the most interesting thing from those days was when the army of Charles V comprising Spanish Catholics and Lutherans sacked Rome. Catholic destroying Catholic. Do I laugh or cry?

"very little spilt"? Bro, look at the history of the UK. Look at the Peasant Wars. Look at the rampant vandalism and iconoclastic pogroms led throughout Switzerland and the Netherlands. Thousands upon thousands of Catholics were martyred by Protestant armies and mobs, disenfranchised and deprived of equal rights. The Catholics in Maryland had to pass the Edict of Toleration just to keep the incoming droves of Protestants from killing them wholesale and driving them out of their own colony. And let's not even mention the Protestant KKK's treatment of Catholics, Jews and blacks.

Two can play at the grudge game. Your mudflinging against the Catholic Church does not make your own position more viable. It just makes you look like a crappier debater.

If you want to discredit the Catholic Church, there are plenty viable, intellectual, respectful arguments you can take. And while you're at it, you can take this line of argumentation to another subforum. This isn't a debate forum. Let's not stoop to this lowbrow wallowing in the mud.

 

[outlawState]

You seem to have a very strong prejudice of "Catholic=morally bankrupt and root of all evil in the world". The Netherlands and Scandinavia allow for prostitution as well. Heck, most of the traditionally Protestant countries in Europe are increasingly secular. Each Christian denomination is facing its own set of difficulties nowadays in modern society as people take the religion less seriously and start to move away from it.

The Netherlands and Scandinavia are not even protestant. Just pagan, especially Sweden where the State church is in fact atheist. There are no truly protestant countries in Europe any more, as "increasingly secular" should be "predominantly secular." Catholicism is not the root of all evil, but has a tendency to co-exist with evil on many occasions, as does secular protestantism. I concede that within Catholicism there is a vast range of practice, belief and opinion, but protestantism cannot be so described, as it is a far narrower concept and does not embrace the concept of "non-catholic" as you infer, because it grew up out of, and is constrained by, a serious attitide towards Christianity, rather than the laissez faire attitude of the antinomian crowd who can't be bothered with Christian discipline. Thus historical protestantism regularly excommunicated such groups as it regarded as antinomian or heretical, such as the anabaptists, socinians etc. In fact I might be stretching the term (historically) by applying it to myself given that I repudiate a strong trinity, or at least that belief in a strong trinity is necessary for salavation. Yet I think we can say that serious students of the bible can retain the term, provided that they are orthodox in every other respect, such as acknowledging that the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ are of God.

 

[exchemist]

The Netherlands and Scandinavia are not even protestant. Just pagan, especially Sweden where the State church is in fact atheist. There are no truly protestant countries in Europe any more, as "increasingly secular" should be "predominantly secular." Catholicism is not the root of all evil, but has a tendency to co-exist with evil on many occasions, as does secular protestantism. I concede that within Catholicism there is a vast range of practice, belief and opinion, but protestantism cannot be so described, as it is a far narrower concept and does not embrace the concept of "non-catholic" as you infer, because it grew up out of, and is constrained by, a serious attitide towards Christianity, rather than the laissez faire attitude of the antinomian crowd who can't be bothered with Christian discipline. Thus historical protestantism regularly excommunicated such groups as it regarded as antinomian or heretical, such as the anabaptists, socinians etc. In fact I might be stretching the term (historically) by applying it to myself given that I repudiate a strong trinity, or at least that belief in a strong trinity is necessary for salavation. Yet I think we can say that serious students of the bible can retain the term, provided that they are orthodox in every other respect, such as acknowledging that the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ are of God.

You seem to have got it in for just about everybody! Well at least that's fair, I suppose.

A tangential thought: are you by any chance anything to do with that creationist museum in Portsmouth?

 

[outlawState]

You seem to have got it in for just about everybody! Well at least that's fair, I suppose.

Yes the elistist, secular, political(ly correct), educated, liberal elites, of whatever nominal composition, catholic, protestant, atheist or muslim are pretty much all of one caste these days, which tends to be antinomian but not exclusively so, and are frequently alienated from biblical faith. I think its something to do with the liberal media, TV and the press, which is pretty uniform in its relegation of the bible and true religion to the status of a cult and the dustbin of history.

You seem to have got it
A tangential thought: are you by any chance anything to do with that creationist museum in Portsmouth?

You mean, tangentially, am I off piste in believing in man made fables such as creationism? I think not. I did a degree in Chemistry myself and am firmly rooted in a scientific approach to matter,

 

[exchemist]

Yes the elistist, secular, political(ly correct), educated, liberal elites, of whatever nominal composition, catholic, protestant, atheist or muslim are pretty much all of one caste these days, which tends to be antinomian but not exclusively so, and are frequently alienated from biblical faith. I think its something to do with the liberal media, TV and the press, which is pretty uniform in its relegation of the bible and true religion to the status of a cult and the dustbin of history.


You mean, tangentially, am I off piste in believing in man made fables such as creationism? I think not. I did a degree in Chemistry myself and am firmly rooted in a scientific approach to matter,

UKIP voter?

 

[outlawState]

UKIP voter?

I have only voted once in my life for the "Monster Raving Loony Party." They don't often field candidates so most people don't get the opportunity to vote for them. It's quite a privilege.

 

[exchemist]

I have only voted once in my life for the "Monster Raving Loony Party." They don't often field candidates so most people don't get the opportunity to vote for them. It's quite a privilege.

Yes, Screaming Lord Sutch!

He performed at a ball I once attended at Oxford, being, as I am, a member of the despised liberal elite. (I'm also shortly expecting my membership card for the Illuminati - us patrician members of the Catholic elite often qualify, you know.)

 

[outlawState]

....being, as I am, a member of the despised liberal elite.

I knew that already, from your support for women priests. If anything says "I am a member of the liberal effete" more than anything else, it is support for "women's equality."

Unfortunately it's not in the bible but is something derived from paganism.

....being, as I am, a
(I'm also shortly expecting my membership card for the Illuminati - us patrician members of the Catholic elite often qualify, you know.)

I suppose so. The illuminati probably don't really care about religion so much as power, which explains your preference for Catholicism, which is all about power, rather than religion.

 

[metis]

I knew that already, from your support for women priests. If anything says "I am a member of the liberal effete" more than anything else, it is support for "women's equality."

Unfortunately it's not in the bible but is something derived from paganism.


I suppose so. The illuminati probably don't really care about religion so much as power, which explains your preference for Catholicism, which is all about power, rather than religion.

Is there a conspiracy theory you don't believe in?

 

[outlawState]

Is there a conspiracy theory you don't believe in?

Not when it comes to Catholicism, because Catholicism has the reputation of embracing just about every aspect of paganism that there has ever been in the world, including canabalism (eats the real flesh!).

 

[metis]

Not when it comes to Catholicism, because Catholicism has the reputation of embracing just about every aspect of paganism that there has ever been in the world, including canabalism (eats the real flesh!).

Seems you missed this:
John 6 [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

In order to put this in perspective, one should be aware of the Hellenistic influence in the Jewish community and the early church, whereas one can apply the concept of "essence", as Plato used it. If your church doesn't use the above, what do they teach to show they are not ignoring what the scriptures actually say?

Also, do you celebrate Christmas or Easter by chance? Just because something may have started out as being of a "pagan" symbol or ritual doesn't mean that Christians couldn't adopt some of it but attach a Christian meaning to it.

Also, a reminder that the Bible as we know it didn't exist during Jesus' and the apostle's time, so is that "pagan" as well? Since its canon was chosen by the CC in the 4th century, then maybe your Bible is worthless-- can't trust those pagan Catholics, ya know.

 

[outlawState]

Seems you missed this:
John 6 [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

cf. When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus in John 3, he said "You must be born again." Nicodemus construed it as literal. "4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

Jesus reminded him that he was speaking spiritually,

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

Same with eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood. It is refering to faith in his words and in his sacrifice, productive of sanctification and justification.

Seems
In order to put this in perspective, one should be aware of the Hellenistic influence in the Jewish community and the early church, whereas one can apply the concept of "essence", as Plato used it. If your church doesn't use the above, what do they teach to show they are not ignoring what the scriptures actually say?

The NT is of the spirit, the OT is of the flesh. Essence is for those who do not understand the ways and language of the spirit.

Seems
Also, do you celebrate Christmas or Easter by chance? Just because something may have started out as being of a "pagan" symbol or ritual doesn't mean that Christians couldn't adopt some of it but attach a Christian meaning to it.

That is partly true, but the dangers of utilizing pagan symbolism are immense. As you are well aware Christmas and Easter "celebrations" have largely reverted back to their pagan origins. Eggs and rabbits are the stuff of paganism, as is nearly everything associated with Christmas. Christ is not even deduced to have been born at Chrismas time, according to the latest analysis. So it really is a case of adopting a pagan festival and substituting Jesus for the pagan god. The dangers of confusion are very great.

Seems
Also, a reminder that the Bible as we know it didn't exist during Jesus' and the apostle's time, so is that "pagan" as well? Since its canon was chosen by the CC in the 4th century, then maybe your Bible is worthless-- can't trust those pagan Catholics, ya know.

The canon was being referred to in the 2nd century by certain church fathers and heretics such as Marcion, and so we don't really need the 4th centruy CC to tell us what books were regarded as authoritative back then.