Honest questions to Protestant Christians:

Honest questions to Protestant Christians:
1) Without Catholicism and Papa to speak and define doctrine on behalf of the dead apostles, how would we be able to tell which churches were misunderstanding the New Testament and which churches weren’t? Peter anticipates this problem in 2 Peter 3:16 when he says “Paul’s letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    2) In his High Priestly Prayer in John, Jesus prays for Christians to be “perfectly united”. What visible Christian unity is there in the Protestant world without Catholicism?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >how would we be able to tell which churches were misunderstanding the New Testament and which churches weren’t?
      By directly comparing them to the New Testament itself.
      >2 Peter 3:16
      If unlearned and unstable men twist the scriptures to their own destruction, then perhaps learned and stable men do not.

      We have unity in word and sacrament.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is an appeal to earthly authority.
      >Because our organization is the largest on Earth, we are therefore right, and all must be unifired under us.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      1) Literally anything a Pope teaches can be false unless explicitly said ex cathedra which almost never happens. Catholics disagree with the Pope's and church's interpretations all the time. How do you know the current Catechism is correct and won't be changed in the future?

      That's rich from a Catholic, you're not united with the Orthodox churches, they could equally claim there's no unity outside of Orthodoxy. Secondly, the "unity" of Catholicism is a double-edged sword when you have outright heretics like the German and Belgian bishops who totally disagree with church teachings. But it would be too difficult and scandalous to kick them all out and cause a schism, so the Pope just wrings his hands and hopes they don't go even further. Thirdly, Catholics can totally disagree with each other doctrine, for example Ed Feser says that allowing the death penalty is an irreformable ex cathedra teaching, but some other Catholics disagree.

      And finally, the Protestant view is that the church isn't united in a single organisation but is united by faith.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The thing is new priests are getting more conservative. Once the old generation dies off the new people will be in charge and will be able to excommunicate prominent figures that are against what they believe so the figures start to listen to them.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >That's rich from a Catholic, you're not united with the Orthodox churches, they could equally claim there's no unity outside of Orthodoxy. Secondly, the "unity" of Catholicism is a double-edged sword when you have outright heretics like the German and Belgian bishops who totally disagree with church teachings. But it would be too difficult and scandalous to kick them all out and cause a schism, so the Pope just wrings his hands and hopes they don't go even further.

        The younger American clergy wouldn't care. They'd just excommunicate people.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If only the Dirkster was still around, he'd be able to answer this question easy peasy. I need a Dirkpill so bad bros...

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Dirk avoided hard questions.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You lie. Dirkus Maximus never backed down from a debate. He was a hero around these parts, we'd all anxiously wait for him to log on and settle major theological arguments for us.

        Dirk, if you're reading this, come home 🙁

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          the namegay was a complete moron and a dishonest pig who invented terms when he was losing and replied to himself anonymously to create the illusion those were real terms. then when I circumvented his antics he started pretending not to see my posts. intellectual dishonesty is par for the course for christards, but still...

    • 4 weeks ago
      Nega-Dirk

      You lie. Dirkus Maximus never backed down from a debate. He was a hero around these parts, we'd all anxiously wait for him to log on and settle major theological arguments for us.

      Dirk, if you're reading this, come home 🙁

      He still falls before me.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        OH NO NOT homie DIRK

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Dirk avoided hard questions.

      https://i.imgur.com/G1yVdAq.jpeg

      [...]
      He still falls before me.

      https://i.imgur.com/0mnsgLp.jpeg

      OH NO NOT homie DIRK

      Who the hell are y'all talking about

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it's the namegay trying to make it look like he was a beloved personality and that anyone cares that he left

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Frick off Dirk

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >1
    Hermeneutical principles and reason.

    The papist system doesn’t solve this. Rome provides no guidance on the interpretation, or even the authorship of books of scripture. It provides a set of statements to sign up to in order to be in what is claimed to be the one true church.
    >2
    Prot churches are more visibly united morally, ethically, and ideologically than Rome. Rome only has a shallow institutional unity where you can believe and do whatever you want as long as you submit to the Pope. Prots are united behind their confessions of faith.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > Hermeneutical principles and reason
      Why couldn’t couldn’t the Reformers agree on things then?
      > Prot churches are more visibly united morally, ethically, and ideologically than Rome
      You can’t be serious? What ways do you mean? The Protestant world is a chaotic patchwork of differing agreements and communions. Why don’t we have a definitive way of saying which churches are in or out of the church if Protestants are so visibly “one”?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Why couldn’t the Reformers agree on things then?
        Just because two people disagree doesn’t negate objective truth.
        >What ways do you mean?
        There are no Father James Martins or Cardinal Marxs in the Missouri synod or confessional Anglican Church. They would be removed very quickly because they are heretics who teach heretical things. Prots are united on what they believe morally. There are no large groups that say homosexuality is about a sin or another moral issue is not wrong. If there is unrepentant disagreement then they are removed from the church. Look at seminex, or the African and confessional Anglicans leaving communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. If the true believers are in the minority then they leave. Which is what the Bible teaches. It says many times to distance yourself from false teachers.
        >Why don’t we have a definitive way of saying which churches are in or out
        Scripture. It should be very obvious. Especially in the year 2024.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > Just because two people disagree doesn’t negate objective truth
          Which Reformer was right about the nature of the Eucharist or church governance?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The reformers of the conservative reformation. Luther, Melancthon, Chemnitz. The Calvinists don’t believe the plain word for scripture for the Eucharist. And I don’t know about the Anglicans. They either agree or are subverted by Calvinists.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're wrong brother. But what you should have said is "relevance?" because I think he was attempting some kind of D&C

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It’s relevant because it makes true religion indiscernible.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No it doesn't.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Is means is

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Church of England initially taught the Calvinist view (spiritual presence), but later allowed a range of view, so now some also have a Zwinglian view (no presence), some Anglo-Catholics believe in transubstantiation, and some Anglo-Lutheran use the Lutheran explanation.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Which Reformer was right about the nature of the Eucharist or church governance?
            None.
            >then what you b-
            Reformed.
            >How then you-
            God mandates what God wills, basically only one who knows exactly what happens in Lord's Supper is God himself.
            We know that:
            1- It is a divine gift
            2- Spirit of God presents in Lord's Supper
            3- It is Christ's flesh and blood, though how is uncertain, God is truly present
            4- Elements are bread and wine
            5- It communicated grace
            That is it, anything else is exaggeration or manufactured, goes against what God willed, we are not smarter than God himself, we can not know better than God. If God did not told specific physical process during the Lord's Supper, then why should we know? If God wanted us to know then he would let us know. God knows best.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Great articulation

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Perfect unity implies a clear decision process as to whether a Christian group is “in” or “out” out of that unity, don’t you think?
          > It should be very obvious
          Indeed, however, not as a function of current year, but as resulting from the perfect unity Jesus’ followers exhibit.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Why couldn’t couldn’t the Reformers agree on things then?
        Because we're sinners, Anon. And sin corrupts absolutely. It clouds the mind and misleads the will. It isn't a problem with the bible, it's a problem with us.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Schizoidberg

      Prots are gay

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Prots are based. (Only Lutherans, reformed, and Anglicans are prots)

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think there's someone you're forgetting.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Schizoidberg

          Lutherans and Anglicans are some of the gayest churches nowadays. Episcopals are barely Christian. Not sure about reformed, bu Presbies are gay af if they count.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I wouldn't consider most people who identify has Lutheran Lutherans anyway, since their churches don't give a shit about the confessions.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Those aren’t Christians or let alone Lutherans or Anglicans.
            See

            I’ll help you then. For prots the formal principle is scripture alone. The formal principle is the authoritative source of theology. Therefore, unless the Bible affirms homosexual marriage any so-called prot church that affirms homosexual marriage is not Protestant. Because they don’t even believe the formal principle of Protestants. They are using something other than scripture to justify homosexual marriage.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_and_material_principles_of_theology

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What about churches that say the books of Paul aren't scripture so they don't count?

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The idea that there's any sort of ideological or theological unity among catholics when more than 50% of them support gay marriage is laughable. At this point it's just whether you tick a certain denominational box at census time.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They have confessions. Augsburg for Lutherans, Westminster for Presbyterians, 1689 London for Reformed Baptists and so forth. That tells them what their churches have always believed to ensure they keep following what they've always followed, and keep interpreting scripture the same way they always have.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Nega-Dirk

    >1) how would we be able to tell which churches were misunderstanding the New Testament
    Compare what they are saying with scripture and reason.
    I think it’s a bad argument to pretend that most Christians won’t be able to understand black ink on white paper.
    “But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things.” (Athanasius, To the Bishops of Egypt, Ch 1, 4)
    >Peter anticipates this problem in 2 Peter 3:16 when he says “Paul’s letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort
    That is why you aren’t a Christian in a vacuum. You don’t run off into the woods and try do Christianity. You consult with fellow Christians, listen and share in brotherly love and the holy search of truth. Yes some people will stray but people will always stray, but the majority will hope to the deposit of faith. There is a reason Methodists, Anglicans, Calvanists etc all look so similar and generally get along.

    >2) In his High Priestly Prayer in John, Jesus prays for Christians to be “perfectly united”. What visible Christian unity is there in the Protestant world without Catholicism?
    I would say that Protestants have a visible unity. They still have seperate institutions but if someone says to Lutheran Priest “I’m a Hussite” the Luther priest won’t say “your hellbound”.
    Unfortunately they don’t have the same degree of unity we have. I can walk into a Melkite Church in Arab and still get confession and Communion.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > I would say that Protestants have a visible unity
      They don’t though. They all affirm Nicaea, but how could they repeat Nicaea?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Nega-Dirk

        They affirm it insofar as it is a good standard of faith but not infallible.
        >but how could they repeat Nicaea?
        They probably couldn’t, but I don’t think that’s a fair standard.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Catholicism is correct because the trinity is an accurate enough simple summary of important parts. Protestants are correct because you can't give Blacks a soul by feeding them juice and crackers. Catholicism also lost the plot and point of their intercession prayer icons which were introduced for reasons they no longer remember or admit openly. So in the end, they're both partly correct.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Protestants are correct because you can't give Blacks a soul by feeding them juice and crackers.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You didn't realize that the schism was in part over who was to be considered part of the body of Christ?

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >how would we be able to tell which churches were misunderstanding the New Testament and which churches weren’t?
    A saved person is taught to know directly by God.

    "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
    And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
    Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."
    (Matthew 23:8-10)

    "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."
    (1 John 2:27)

    It's that simple.

    >1) Without Catholicism and Papa
    There are many different brands of Catholicism, and all of them are equally false. They're cults that do not follow the Bible. In fact, they often go directly against it, doing the exact opposite of what Christ taught, almost as if it's on purpose. It's almost like a built in mechanism because they don't want you to trust what the Bible says, but only them, to the point of ordering you to do things the Bible prohibits.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >priesthood of believers
    >call no man your father

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Bible itself uses the language of father/son/spiritual children.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Meanwhile, in reality

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Doctrinal unity != adherence

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Yeah you can believe whatever you want as long as you tick the "Catholic" box at census time so we can own the prottoids with imaginary doctrinal unity

        [...]

        Cope

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Who are you quoting?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm just trying to understand why the discordcaths here place so much importance on some imagined unity that catholics enjoy over the protters, when - given the wide variances on what self-identifying catholics actually believe - it's more or less a question of what you identify as at census time.

            Has Biden been excommunicated for supporting abortion, btw?

            https://i.imgur.com/lkp8ybI.jpeg

            New priests are getting more conservative. Once they are in power they will be able to excommunicate everyone they want with ease. They will take power

            >two more weeks
            >trust the plan

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >>two more weeks
            the plan

            Statistics say younger priests are tired of this. Older ones are panicking because they thought the spirit of the 60s and 70s would go on forever.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So it's more or less the
            >give us 40 years until everyone who disagrees with us dies...then we win
            plan?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nta but probably, Gates of hell will not prevail

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The gates of hell shall not prevail!
            >...except the Middle East, North Africa, northern Europe, Japan...

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why are you writing as if the gates of hell prevailed, anon?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why is this plan bad? Then the American clergy can have control over the powerful Vatican and excommunicate political figures that disagree with us.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The heirachy at the top of the church is becoming more liberal. Some more conservative priests in the USA won't achieve much at that level in this generation.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, what's wrong with that? Do you want to explain why that's so dumb as you're pretending it is?

            The heirachy at the top of the church is becoming more liberal. Some more conservative priests in the USA won't achieve much at that level in this generation.

            And a schism will happen, the liberal churches will wither and the conservative christians who are serious about their dogma will win.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Any "march through the institutions" that more or less relies on the opposition dying off over the space of a few decades is pure cope. For starters what makes you think the "liberals" that "took over the Church" will stand idly by as they - presumably - get replaced by younger rivals as they age out? What makes you think they won't put their thumb on the scale to favor "progressive" successors to their position?

            It's not a strategy, it's just wishful thinking

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They'll be outnumbered, conservative christians are much more serious and attend church more. And as already stated, if they try to keep their power by only promoting people who are leftist then the conservative clergy will just schism. Why are you pretending this rational deduction is absurd?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >then the conservative clergy will just schism
            So sedevacantism lol

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There will be no trad revival.
            >The 'officialdom installed in Rome for slightly more than a decade continues its policy of ‘canceling' those who... seek to serve Jesus Christ from orthodoxy and Tradition, said Bishop Aguer.

            And schism will never happen. The Roman church has spent the last 500 years regressing in an attempt to avoid schism. Just look at Union of Brest and De auxilis controversy.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The statistics say otherwise. There have already been several small scale schisms and some ex catholic priests get ordained into other sects.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > I'm just trying to understand why the discordcaths here place so much importance on some imagined unity
            Because it’s in the Bible and is the clearest mark of true churches.
            > given the wide variances on what self-identifying catholics actually believe - it's more or less a question of what you identify as at census time
            Many people are Catholic in name only or by identity/association but not in practise. Point? Protestants hating gays isn’t the unity discussed by Jesus.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Because it’s in the Bible and is the clearest mark of true churches.
            And have you asked every non-Catholic "apostolic" church why they don't just admit that they're basically Catholics too proud to admit that their church has been wrong for the last ~1,000 years, or?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Is this some gotcha?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, the gotcha is catholics persisting in the weird belief that the reformation ruined some imagined unity among all the christian churches up to that time. Are you really implying the ethiopian orthodox church was more or less catholic lol

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Unity was first majorly compromised by miaphysite autists. Christendom being split into two or three in the first thousand years is pretty good. The divisions became EXPONENTIAL in time with the Refornation. At least the legacy churches all share clear liturgical roots as coming from a common ancient pattern.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes the splits were well cemented but...uh...AT LEAST IT WAS 3 SPLITS NOT 12
            why even bother lol, get back to us when the vatican't decides to excommunicate anyone that doesn't toe the party line instead of the wishy washy "uhhhhhh love the sinner hate the sin" shit

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            American bishops can excommunicate people.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And do they actually excommunicate anyone important over shit that would've got the person saying it burnt at a stake 500 years ago, or...?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So you think the liturgy is made up even though all ancient Christians practice it virtually the same?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oh well, that makes it ok, you can support gay marriage, as long as you get the liturgy rite lol

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cope. No apostolic churches support gay marriage and none ever will.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You also avoided the question.

            Of course, no, just 50% of their parishioners lol

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Fully 100% of LGBT churches are Protestant.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >and none ever will.
            This is the problem with the Catholic view of authority. Seems strong but incredibly brittle. You need to obey the church's authority until they're wrong and suddenly the authority retreats to a handful of ex cathedra statements and councils (which can be re-interpreted anyway).

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            catholic church has already weakened its position

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You also avoided the question.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          New priests are getting more conservative. Once they are in power they will be able to excommunicate everyone they want with ease. They will take power

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The current-day vernacular definition of "conservative" and everything else is shifting to the extreme radical progressive direction at a faster pace than people can even keep up with. Many people and viewpoints who would be considered "radical" left just fifteen years ago would fall into "conservative" now merely for not outright worshipping the idols of modern progressivism, though they might still give it significant leeway. Otherwise they might get cancelled, and they are too afraid to do that because they are focused on fitting in at the end of the day.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Meanwhile, tradcaths would be better at keeping the population in line if in charge better than Protestants. Why? Protestants believe in democracy and the free market. People like Nick Fuentes don't and would ban these things from the top down regardless of what the majority thinks.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nick Fuentes, the catboi-fricking closet case?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nick Fuentes is super based and will save America. Who cares about the catboy meme? He's pure fire.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Amazing that people actually do look up to a gay grifter with the personality of a used car salesman

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > I'm just trying to understand why the discordcaths here place so much importance on some imagined unity
      Because it’s in the Bible and is the clearest mark of true churches.
      > given the wide variances on what self-identifying catholics actually believe - it's more or less a question of what you identify as at census time
      Many people are Catholic in name only or by identity/association but not in practise. Point? Protestants hating gays isn’t the unity discussed by Jesus.

      Oh well, that makes it ok, you can support gay marriage, as long as you get the liturgy rite lol

      Cope. No apostolic churches support gay marriage and none ever will.

      Fully 100% of LGBT churches are Protestant.

      is this all christianity is? different denominational schizos arguing over gay people marrying and who's more trad than the other?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Many people are rightfully getting sick of centuries old doctrines being pushed aside so that the church can try to make itself look good for people who don't even go there, while ignoring what it says in the scripture. This is the case for many formerly standard practices, homosexual marriage is discussed in particular because have long been disgusted at the abomination that is sodomy and that the churches are now trying to encourage it laughable as well as offensive and against the scripture. Why do you find this hard to understand?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          because I was under the impression that Christianity was moreso focused on adhering to the logos of God through Christ, and in turn bettering the world and one's own personal relationship with God through faith in Christ and doing good works wherever possible, rather than fannying about and seething over mike and john from two blocks down getting married in a cathedral and then getting in online pissing matches with orthobros, tradcaths, and proddies over who's more correct in scriptural interpretation

          feels like for a religion based around a word of primarily love (if even at times, tough love), most of you terminally online fricks are focused on making sure your interpretation and understanding of things are recognized as THE way to do things moreso than anything else. if this is what contemporary Christianity is, why even bother going to church? there's no bond, no community, it's just ego.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, we can do works in conjunction to caring about stopping our centuries old scriptural doctrines being overturned, and stopping our holy places being desecrated by sodomite "marriages". Can you take your failed gotchas back to twitter?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >sodomite
            you don't even know the meaning of the word
            >Ezekiel 16:49
            >Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, plenty of food, and carefree ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.
            you just parrot shit philo of alexandria said without question and then argue with others over menial stuff that, frankly, does not matter.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, it's you who don't know the meaning of the word, you're parroting a gotcha you read online. The word sodomite is derived from the men at Sodom trying to rape the angels. That's the standard meaning of the word and has been for centuries, and is the term that describes homosexual intercourse in legal documents.
            >menial stuff that, frankly, does not matter.
            The accuracy to scripture and tradition is a very important matter to christians as well as those of many other religions.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are absolutely right. I’m not a Christian, I’m just a degenerate. Killing myself now

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Your exact line of thought is the reason we have gay flags in churches, btw. Just saying

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not in mine.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The "christians" here are mostly just culture warriors and IQfycels, for which denominations and theology only matter inasmuch as they can lay the blame for trannies or worn out IQfy memes at another denomination's feet
        >"the reformation is why trannies exist"
        >"why don't prots spice they churches?"
        etc etc

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >culture warrior
          Like what you're doing now?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You came into a thread of christians bickering about theology and began bringing up trannies and politics

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            An observation of the tendency among "christians" on this board to rant about trannies unprovoked doesn't make me a culture warrior

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You brought it up yourself as well as politics

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Plenty of non christians do that to

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This is true to some degree and admittedly I do so myself (I call it trying to find the intellectual and historical roots of the problems we face) - the ultracalvinism hypothesis. Thoughbeit, on closer examination we find that Unitarianism really came out of Anabaptism, so maybe we've been barking up the wrong tree there.
          https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1649975784881152002.html

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes. What did you expect, a community of belief? Lol. Lmao, even

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the only Christian churches actively gay marrying homos are Protestant

      this is a fact
      deal with it

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Give it a few more decades and I'm sure an enterprising cardinal will find a workaround, same way they found the annulment one to get around the divorce ban lol

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >decades
          It's happening now dude. Every right leaning Catholic publication is throwing a fit about it daily. Gay marriage is doctrine in Catholicism now.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah but for the resident e-caths it's like simon says
            >As long as the pope doesn't *ex cathedra* approve gay marriages catholic clergy and parishioners can believe whatever they want to believe
            Should've seen the hairsplitting over the pope approving blessings for men in gay marriage

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How are they Protestant?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The Presbyterian Church (USA) voted to allow same-gender marriages on 19 June 2014 during its 221st General Assembly, making it one of the largest Christian denominations in the world to openly accept same-sex unions.

          derp

          They aren't Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic/Oriental, or ancient heresies like Arianism or Gnosticism. That makes them protestant.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No it does not make them prot. Do you know what the formal principle of prot churches are?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm sorry, you are delusional.

            The ONLY churches preforming gay marriages are protestant. This is a fact, and it is not going anywhere.

            I don't care if they don't meet your autismo "no true protestant" definitions. Everyone else recognizes they are a product of the so-called reformation, hence protestant.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The ONLY churches preforming gay marriages are protestant
            The Vatican recently restated its commitment to homosexual marriage, and Catholic churches in the US, Germany, Spain, and Italy perform them. Those are just the three countries that I've seen infovaticana b***hing about, so I assume that there's more.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, it didn't.

            You are increasingly desperate because I mentioned the ONLY churches that preform gay marriage are explicitly protestant.

            That's why you feel compelled to lie about how Catholics administer the sacrament of holy matrimony.

            >inb4 you try to represent Fiducia Supplicans
            that would be something a shill would do, I hope you are not actually a shill anon

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No, it didn't.
            Yes it didn, in fact it's actually done it twice now.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiducia_supplicans
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignitas_Infinita
            Those are both from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith so not only was anon right about the Catholic Church reinforcing its commitment to progressivism but it's literally doctrine now.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            cool, can you show me where in that document a regular blessing is confused with the SACRAMENT of marriage?

            You are no better than a shill, even if you do it for free.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What you are doing is called "moving the goal posts" and "coping". Neither will change the reality of the situation.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Blessings aren't sacraments.

            Marriage is a sacrament.

            Since the discussion is about Roman Catholic marriage, which is a sacrament, it is not "goalboasting". You are a shill.

            >circular reasoning.
            Why don’t you look up the formal principle of prot churches? Because your reasoning is not making sense.

            PCUSA preforms gay marriage.

            PCUSA is protestant.
            End of discussion.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >how are they Protestant
            >they are Protestant
            >how are they Protestant.
            >THEY JUST ARE OK!

            You’re not making any point and have faulty Reasoning.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In Calvinism everything is ordained and pre-arranged from God. Gay marriage would be pre-ordained by God since God is ultimately responsible for everything.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >this is the best he could do

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I’ll help you then. For prots the formal principle is scripture alone. The formal principle is the authoritative source of theology. Therefore, unless the Bible affirms homosexual marriage any so-called prot church that affirms homosexual marriage is not Protestant. Because they don’t even believe the formal principle of Protestants. They are using something other than scripture to justify homosexual marriage.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_and_material_principles_of_theology

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cope

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >no argument.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cope

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >chatgpt
            Hahahahaha!

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You can get ChatGPT to accept basically any viewpoint. Just state anything as fact and the AI will happily regurgitate it for you in different words.

            The strange thing here though is that you think "protestant" includes every bizarre cult that does obviously satanist stuff, and you don't think to include Catholicism in that group as well. Many different cults have the same thought process, coming up with a name for outsiders, whatever the case may be. But dividing things up into "my group" and then the catch-all group of everything else is just one person's view of the world, not the way God views things in the Bible. I view the world in biblical terms, of believers and unbelievers. And unbelievers include the leadership of groups that identify as Catholic (whether Roman or otherwise) and of groups that do not. I include them all as part of the unbelievers of the world, because as Christ Jesus said, a tree is known by its fruits (Matthew 7:16-20). I don't artificially divide the world in the way that Christian Identity, Judaism, Catholicism, Mormonism, JW, and so on and so forth do, I believe we should view the world in biblical terms. And if we are going to go by these divisions anyway, there are also Christians which to my understanding are neither Catholic nor Protestant, such as Baptists (churches who are KJV only, independent, fundamental).

            Looking at the history of the "Reformation" and the beliefs of the first Protestants, it wouldn't make sense to lump them in with the credobaptist churches, which have been separate from pedobaptists from ancient times, as the former have only practiced the biblical form of baptism.

            Protestants consider themselves catholics with a lower-case 'c' and they follow many of the same practices as uppercase Catholicism, while KJV-only (or received text only) independent Baptist churches by definition never have observed such manmade practices.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Schizo

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I hope you have a good day, anon.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anglicans are literally just catholics.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            LGBT Catholicism-lite but yeah.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >this is the best he could do

            It's scripture but also concepts like TULIP and God preordaining every action.

            John Piper says God predetermines every sin you commit. It's also consistent to say gay marriage is a sin but also say gay marriage is God's will since God willed gay marriage to happen.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it might blow your mind... but not all protestants are calvinists.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >For protection the formal principle is scripture alone.

            Source? Luther was not the only Protestant, and Mormons and Adventists clearly identify themselves as Christians.

            You don’t get to have your cake and eat it too: no formal heirarchy means anyone gets to join your club and is as validly “Protestant” as you are; whether it’s jimmy John the snake handler, the Israel worshipping mega millionaire evangelist preacher, or your run of the mill baptist church. You cannot gatekeep a movement that by definition does not have a gate.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            As soon as the protestants got into power they began trying to murder "heretics", in their case the nontrinitarians, just like the Catholics happily murdered the predecessors of the protestants before they became theocrats themselves. It would make sense to count nontrinitarians as their own thing, since arianism did survive in small areas into the medieval era.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, there are countless numbers of people who promote sodomy and defend child molestation in all the different branches of Catholicism, and they are in positions of leadership leading things. Meanwhile I can assure you none of that is part of my local church. I refuse to be in communion with such wicked people, for the simple fact the Bible tells us not to be. Your "movement" could have ten billion people in it, but it wouldn't matter because it's illegitimate.

            God is never on the side of such wickedness. That debauchery in sin and idolatry is not the church that God started, even if it claims that title. Anyone who cares about serving God acceptably sees this. And you won't be able to confuse them. Catholicism is something only wicked people would knowingly join, and - very similar to other cults - they do so for some motive other than to glorify God.

            "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
            And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
            And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
            Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
            And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."
            (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you have an example of catholic clergy who defend child molestation?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, the ones that move the molestors into another area and cover it up knowingly, denying and downplaying the results of investigations that happen in these instances, even blaming the people who say they were molested in some cases rather than supporting investigations. It is well known that Roman Catholicism in particular does this.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's covering it up and rejecting people's testimonies, this is different to defending it. There's no use being dishonest here.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's not different, anon. They are absolutely 100% defending it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It is different, saying they're defending it implies they're arguing for the practice and are completely aware of it and attack people who accuse clergy of it, rather than dismissing allegations because they wrongly believe they are false. You know the ambiguities of language here.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're taking Paul out of context, mingling with pagans was fine as long as you weren't influenced.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
            Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
            But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."
            (1 Corinthians 5:9-11)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I pretty much posted a source for the formal principle of prots in that post. I don’t know what you’re talking about. And it’s well known that scripture alone is a principle prots believe. You are wrong. Not everyone you mentioned is a prot. Mormons have a different formal print than prots so they aren’t prots. Mega churches don’t have any principles so they can’t be prots either.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            PCUSA isn't christian, just like roman catholicism isn't christian

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Blessings aren't sacraments.
            >Marriage is a sacrament.
            First, this is complete and utter cope, it's a marital union between two gays in a Catholic church and it's doctrine, that means that gay marriage is doctrine. Pilpulling about how it's actually peepeepoopoo doesn't change that. Second, this isn't 1432 or something dude, the Vatican is moving to stop doing the sacrament of marriage anyways meaning that the point is moot.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the Vatican is moving to stop doing the sacrament of marriage

            it is amazing how such rabid hatred among the schizmatics leads them to lie openly

            for the record, the sacraments are extremely important to all Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Christians in a way most protestants aren't going to be able to understand

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >okay so they are in fact doing gay weddings
            >and they are in fact blessing them
            >and they are moving away from the idea of explicit sacraments
            >but you are a PROTESTANT
            What a joke of a religion lmfao

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            shill

            The New Testament says homosexuals are worthy of death.
            The New Testament says fornicators ought to be kicked out of church.
            These are not the same.
            I figure homosexuals would like people to think they're the same though.

            >New Testament says homosexuals are worthy of death
            Nah, that's Leviticus.

            Nice try though. The Old Testament also prescribed the death penalty for other things, things which people tried to stone Jesus himself to death for.

            You are just like the people who tried to kill Jesus.
            Do you think Jesus wants you to stone people to death because they are sinful? YOU are sinful.

            >NOOOOOOOOOO
            >YUO CANNOT JUST LIVE AS A EUNUCH FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IF YOUR DESIRES ARE UNLAWFUL
            >YUO MUST GET MARRIED TO A WOMAN EVEN IF YOU DONT WANT TO

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >shill
            Do you think that the Pope, the College of Cardinals, and the Bishops of every diocese outside of Africa will change their minds if you keep living in denial?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
            >...Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

            Romans 1, dog.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >...

            funny thing that pause
            you couldn't quote the full passage because he's talking about other things you are guilty of too

            30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

            31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I couldve quoted the passage because it's about a group of people who are homos and ALSO all these things.
            but I didnt for "brevity"

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient
            >unmerciful

            this is you though
            you aren't any better than the sodomites, sinner
            pray Jesus forgives you

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's talking about how every sodomite is all of those things. Notice what it says in verse 32.

            "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
            Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
            Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
            Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
            Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
            (Romans 1:28-32)

            Notice what it says at the end. They know that "they which commit such things are worthy of death," and indeed they are. The sodomites are described by God in Leviticus as an abomination, and in Deuteronomy compared directly with dogs. In the epistle of Jude it says this:

            "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
            (Jude v. 7)

            This is all related to the absolute, no restrictions and complete condemnation of sodomites in the Bible. It had been better for them if they had never been born. They are abominations on the earth, walking manifestations of satanic evil bound for hell.

            >turns the page to Romans 2

            Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

            Exactly. Romans 2:1 is a perfect continuation, and I thank you for posting it. You aren't supposed to judge these things for yourself and say "I don't think it's so bad." You are supposed to follow God's judgement, not your own. That's why it says in Romans 2:2 this:

            "But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things."
            (Romans 2:2)

            The "such things" here obviously points us back to Romans 1:26-28.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You aren't supposed to judge these things for yourself and say "I don't think it's so bad."

            "for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things"

            stop lying about what scripture says

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, I am saying follow what the Bible says in Romans 1 and 2. Other people are instead substituting their own ideas saying it's not so bad.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >judge these things for yourself and say "I don't think it's so bad."

            CONDEMN

            ITS A WORD THAT MEANS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID IT MEANT

            WHEN YOU CONDEMN THESE PEOPLE TO DEATH YOU HAVE CONDEMNED YOURSELF

            BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN UNMERCIFUL

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's not what it says, anon.

            "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things."
            (Romans 2:1)

            It's saying if you judge these things based on your own ideas, you are condemning yourself. It doesn't say if you condemn you are condemned, it says if you judge (meaning, saying "it's not so bad") according to something other than the judgement of God in the Bible, you are condemning yourself.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

            >what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged
            >with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again
            >why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye

            You have made yourself a hypocrite, and twisted the words of scripture to resemble somthing that matches your own feelings of hate. I cannot imagine a worse fate than someone who makes themselves willfully blaspheme the Gospel message.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You get what I'm saying right? In Romans 2:1, it doesn't say you must not "condemn," but rather that you must not "judge." The latter can include saying that something isn't as bad as it really is. You don't have the right to shrug off God's judgement.

            That's why it says in the next verse,

            "But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things."
            (Romans 2:2)

            Because the judgement of God on this matter is absolute condemnation, no holds barred. I don't have a right to overturn that, I actually accept that.

            "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;"
            (2 Peter 2:6)

            They are an example of that which should be burned eternally. God's judgement against the wicked is righteous, regardless of what the world thinks or what you think.

            "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
            (Jude v. 7)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"condemn," but rather that you must not "judge."

            condemnation is a function of judgement
            contextually, Jesus AND Paul are BOTH talking about regular ass unmerciful people like who condemn others to death ITT

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you don't like what the Bible says that is between you and the Lord, not me.

            >condemnation is a function of judgement
            It's talking about people who like to substitute their own judgements about this, basically saying they think it's actually not so bad. That's their own judgement though. They have no right to do so, they are unqualified according to Paul.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's talking about people who like to substitute their own judgements about this
            No, that's what YOU are saying it means. And literally nobody else.

            Because if it doesn't mean that special snowflake tortured backwards inversion of what JESUS HIMSELF teaches about judging others for failing to follow the law, that would make your words ITT hypocritical.

            Which clearly can't be true about le hecking based and tradpilled protestants..

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What's Paul talking about in Romans 1:26-28, anon? Because he repeatedly references it again later as "them which commit such things" such as in verse 32 and Romans 2:2. It's talking about God's own word about this subject, that it's against nature, and of course we know what it says already in the Old Testament. You or the people around you may not like this fact for whatever worldly reason, but neither of us can possibly change it. I, for one, am willing to unconditionally accept everything God says about it and leave it at that. I'm not going to substitute my own fallible judgement about such a grave matter. But I will definitely repeat what the Lord's judgement is.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you think you're a better person than a sodomite?

            Seems that way to me, you say they deserve to die.

            But what you haven't seemed to realize is that YOU deserve death too.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            See 2 Corinthians:

            "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
            And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
            And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
            Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
            And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."
            (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cool, so you're just posting irrelevant bible passages in the hopes they will justify your undeserved sense of personal superiority.

            And you will not directly answer the question. This is how shills behave.

            That sense of being better than others, holier than thou, is literally what Jesus excoriated over and over again. You are no different than them.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."
            (1 Corinthians 10:13)

            >That sense of being better than others, holier than thou, is literally what Jesus excoriated over and over again.
            He also excoriated those who call white black and black white, who call sweet bitter and so on.

            "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
            Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!"
            (Isaiah 5:20-21)

            >You are no different than them.
            The original sodomites in Genesis 19 had a similar line of argument.

            "And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door."
            (Genesis 19:9)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Right, so you believe you are more virtuous than Sodomites. Many people do.

            That the same judgement that fell on them does not apply to you, because you aren't like them.

            But in truth that same judgement applies to everyone, as a consequence of sin. You aren't special just because you don't do a specific thing.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, I would ask you and everyone else to stop trying to push these perversions everywhere; it's against Scripture.

            "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
            For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret."
            (Ephesians 5:11-12)

            "He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him:
            But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them."
            (Proverbs 24:24-25)

            You are the former in this scenario, and I'm the one rebuking the wicked right now. You are calling the wicked righteous, and the righteous wicked. That's exactly what wicked people always do. You're changing darkness for light and light for darkness. You are trying to promote things that are shameful to even speak of, and Scripture 100% disagrees with the relativism you are promoting. The shield of faith will quench all of the fiery darts you try to throw.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I am not condoning sodomy.
            There is no way I haven't been clear about that ITT.

            I am reiterating that just because you don't take it in the ass doesn't mean you're a better person than a sodomite. You are both sons of Adam, and inherit his sin.

            Without Jesus you and the sodomites would be going to the very same place. It wouldn't matter if you didn't do the one thing that makes a sodomite a sodomite, you would still be damned.
            And you call me wicked for trying to correct your misplaced sense of superiority.

            Stop loudly proclaiming your righteousness in the public forum. Jesus says people who do that already have their reward, and that they are hypocrites.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >And you call me wicked for trying to correct your misplaced sense of superiority.
            I'm quoting what Scripture says here. The only person who doesn't understand what I'm saying is the one currently repeatedly falsely accusing me of things I never said. It's just like satan too, because you just make things up that I never said.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Uh, you specifically called me wicked and contrasted yourself as righteous in a public forum though.

            >You are calling the wicked righteous, and the righteous wicked.
            Dude, learn what hypocrisy means. Certain people called Jesus wicked too, and tried to sentence him to death for it.

            >You are trying to promote things that are shameful to even speak of
            "falsely accusing me of things I never said"

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You are trying to promote things that are shameful to even speak of
            >"falsely accusing me of things I never said"
            See here

            shill

            [...]
            >New Testament says homosexuals are worthy of death
            Nah, that's Leviticus.

            Nice try though. The Old Testament also prescribed the death penalty for other things, things which people tried to stone Jesus himself to death for.

            You are just like the people who tried to kill Jesus.
            Do you think Jesus wants you to stone people to death because they are sinful? YOU are sinful.

            >NOOOOOOOOOO
            >YUO CANNOT JUST LIVE AS A EUNUCH FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IF YOUR DESIRES ARE UNLAWFUL
            >YUO MUST GET MARRIED TO A WOMAN EVEN IF YOU DONT WANT TO

            The person who wrote this post is misleading others about what the Bible says on this issue, therefore promoting things too shameful to even speak of. Regardless of if it was you or not, you are at least defending that same view.

            You promote something if you try to make it out to be not as bad as it actually is. It's just like how the serpent in the garden wanted to cause Eve to doubt, and attempted to misrepresent God's word in a subtle way to do so. That is the exact behavior being displayed here

            shill

            [...]
            >New Testament says homosexuals are worthy of death
            Nah, that's Leviticus.

            Nice try though. The Old Testament also prescribed the death penalty for other things, things which people tried to stone Jesus himself to death for.

            You are just like the people who tried to kill Jesus.
            Do you think Jesus wants you to stone people to death because they are sinful? YOU are sinful.

            >NOOOOOOOOOO
            >YUO CANNOT JUST LIVE AS A EUNUCH FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IF YOUR DESIRES ARE UNLAWFUL
            >YUO MUST GET MARRIED TO A WOMAN EVEN IF YOU DONT WANT TO

            The fact is that the New Testament does specifically state that the people who do such things are worthy of death. And it doesn't only say it in Romans 1:32, but in the other passages repeatedly cited as well, such as 2 Peter 2:6. It fully supports what God's word said in the Old Testament. So to say that it doesn't is a material misrepresentation of what the Bible actually says, and it is done in the explicit purpose of promoting something vile. Whoever told you or taught you to make that argument is absolutely wrong.

            >Uh, you specifically called me wicked
            I warned you that what you were doing is exactly what wicked people always do. An actual wicked person I wouldn't say anything to.

            "He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot.
            Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee."
            (Proverbs 9:8-9)

            >and contrasted yourself as righteous
            It's not about me, it's about what God's word says. That's why I have been quoting so much from it, because that is what matters. I didn't write Scripture, so it's not my judgements or views, but rather God's judgement. And that's why it says in Romans 2:2,

            "But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things."
            (Rom. 2:2)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That is me.
            Nowhere in that post did I defend sodomy. In fact, I stated that the law of Moses explicitly decrees death for sodomites.

            The furthest I have gone ITT is saying that love between two men is possible and good, like that between Jesus and his beloved disciple. Nothing about sodomy there, cohabitation is not sodomy.

            >An actual wicked person I wouldn't say anything to.
            Why? Jesus did.
            Jesus didn't come for the righteous. He came for the sinners.

            Luke 5:32

            >New Testament does specifically state that the people who do such things are worthy of death
            As a polemic against the Romans, who buggered each other casually.

            But what you seem to have not grasped is that is not the only thing that is worthy of death. You purposefully left out all the other things they do that are worthy of death, because you are guilty of the same. Everyone is, there is not one person who is worthy of salvation of their own accord. A single violation of the law means you have transgressed the whole of it, and the penalty is death. Give thanks that Jesus delivers us as the final sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.

            >It's not about me
            oh but it is about *me*
            you say I am wicked, not yourself

            imagine a wicked person saying another person is wicked, they would be a hypocrite
            moreover you are comparing me with sodomites in wickedness, but failing to see the ways in which you yourself may be compared with those same sodomites

            you are not a special breed, you are a man just like I am

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why? Jesus did.
            Jesus talked to some people and didn't say a word to others (see Luke 23:8-9).

            "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent."
            (Revelation 3:19)

            If you are in a place where the Lord isn't saying anything to you anymore, you should be very afraid.

            >You purposefully left out all the other things they do that are worthy of death, because you are guilty of the same.
            Do you really think I wrote that post? No, I wrote the one that quotes the whole thing.
            >Everyone is, there is not one person who is worthy of salvation of their own accord.
            That's not the point. There are people who, like Judas Iscariot, are reprobate. That isn't the same thing as being a Pelagianist, anon.

            >A single violation of the law means you have transgressed the whole of it, and the penalty is death.
            It also says in 1 Corinthians 10:13,

            "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."
            (1 Corinthians 10:13)

            It also says in another place,
            "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:"
            (2 Peter 2:9)

            >you say I am wicked
            I warned you that what you were doing earlier is exactly what wicked people always do. Don't you think that can be the right thing to do? Even the disciples sometimes had to be reproved by Christ, but they weren't reprobates. And according to what the Bible says, if there was an actual wicked person I simply wouldn't say anything to them.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >didn't say a word to others
            He knows when it's best to keep silent. Pearls before swine, etc.

            >being a Pelagianist
            typical Calvinist talking point

            absolutely nobody even mentioned freedom ITT, which Jesus says the truth allows you to participate in

            >The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations
            Epistle of James

            2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;

            3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.

            >I warned you that what you were doing earlier is exactly what wicked people always do.
            I warned you that what you were doing earlier is exactly what wicked people always do.

            >reprobates
            Please realize you have no way to know who is reprobate and who isn't.
            Those wicked people you choose not to talk to because you have the impression that they are wicked, in truth you don't actually know if they are reprobate.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Please realize you have no way to know who is reprobate and who isn't.
            "But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
            Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light."
            (Ephesians 5:13-14)

            "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
            For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
            But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."
            (John 3:19-21)

            "Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
            But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
            But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
            In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."
            (2 Corinthians 4:1-4)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You aren't God.
            You don't know how Jesus is going to judge any given person, because you don't share their lived experiences.
            There is no way for you to know if someone is truly capable of repentance or not. That is a fact.

            This rule you have, not to talk to wicked people.
            If the apostles had the same rule, they would have not evangelized all nations in accordance with the great commission. Because there are wicked people in all nations, all nations are wicked.

            Jesus sent his men out by twos as lambs among wolves.

            8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:

            9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

            10 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,

            11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

            12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >This rule you have, not to talk to wicked people.
            This is based on Proverbs 9, which says, "He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot. Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee." (Prov. 9:8-9)

            >you don't share their lived experiences.
            I know what God's word says, anon. I know what the word of the Lord says. And everyone else should know just as well.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it's crazy how Cathodox argumentation devolves into libtard "only God can judge me" argumentation if you press hard enough lol

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee
            that's a good rule

            "into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you"

            this is prefiguration of the event later in Acts when Peter has a vision of the cornicopia of gentile foodstuffs and realizes it is acceptable to eat with gentiles who recieve the church

            >What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

            it's crazy how Cathodox argumentation devolves into libtard "only God can judge me" argumentation if you press hard enough lol

            cool non-argument

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Homosexual blessings are against the original Catholic faith. If you're a step father who sells your step daughter into sexual slavery you're no father at all. According to the modernists we are supposed to be obedient to this.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Homosexual blessings

            it's not just homosexual blessings
            it's blessings for ALL people who are in irregular relationships, heterosexuals included

            Do you live with a female and have sex outside of marriage? Guess what, that's fornication (a mortal sin) and you're on the EXACT same level as sodomites.

            but that doesn't sell as well as "SODOMITES ARE GETTING GAY MARRIED BY CATHOLICS"

            which makes the ridiculous priests allowing people to dress up in wedding garb and film their "totally spontaneous" blessing to post on social media guilty of deliberate confusion and making things more difficult for everyone else

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you live with a female and have sex outside of marriage? Guess what, that's fornication (a mortal sin) and you're on the EXACT same level as sodomites

            Except you can't tell if a couple is fornicating but you can tell if a couple is homosexual. There is also such a thing as natural law. Transgressing natural law is worse than a sin that does not transgress natural law. In addition, the former couple can marry and be sin free but the latter can't. No, this isn't endorsing fornication at all.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you can't tell if a couple is fornicating but you can tell if a couple is homosexual

            a homosexual couple doesn't have to fornicate, just like a heterosexual couple can live chastely
            for example, a man and woman who are courting don't necessarily have to have sex
            in the same way, two men who love one another don't have to sodomize each other

            but that is not a condition of any blessing prescribed by this document, which is telling
            it's a tacit recognition, even elevation of a civil union and tolerance of a pattern of behavior that more times than not leads to the crimes of Sodom

            >this isn't endorsing fornication at all
            I know.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >a homosexual couple doesn't have to fornicate, just like a heterosexual couple can live chastely
            >for example, a man and woman who are courting don't necessarily have to have sex
            >in the same way, two men who love one another don't have to sodomize each other

            The purpose of a romantic relationship is to get somewhere like into a marriage. Things are perused to their logical ends. Sex is the logical end goal to a relationship and we should presume it will happen in the future. Now this supposed romantic relationship will lead to nowhere but sin. What if an adult had a romantic relationship with a 10 year old or a brother had a romantic relationship with his sister?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Dude, don't compare consentual relationships to pederasty. Pederasty is rape.

            What are you supposed to do as a man if you love another man? Just avoid him forever, never tell him? That's profoundly stupid.

            You don't a problem with a man living with another man if they're roommates, but as soon as love is involved suddenly it's a problem. Note I say love, not lust. Love is not identical with the act of coitus.

            >Sex is the logical end goal to a relationship and we should presume it will happen in the future.
            Doesn't have to be.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You don't a problem with a man living with another man if they're roommates, but as soon as love is involved suddenly it's a problem. Note I say love, not lust. Love is not identical with the act of coitus.

            Platonic love is called deep friendship. It's not the same as romantic love. Don't try to tell me it's the same.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Platonic love is called deep friendship. It's not the same as romantic love. Don't try to tell me it's the same.

            The only meaningful difference between Platonic love and romantic love is the degree of lust involved.

            There is nothing wrong with lifelong male companionship, in fact it can be quite wholesome. So long as the butt stuff doesn't happen, that's not cool and this is explained quite well in scripture.

            But what about having romantic love with a sibling? That isn't rape by definition, and you can consent. It would still be perverse.

            Yes it would.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's a huge difference. Do you see that blessing these couples condones it to the world or do you want to play games?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            shill! you are shilling!

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Shilling for what?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            don't impersonate me you piece of shit

            It's a huge difference. Do you see that blessing these couples condones it to the world or do you want to play games?

            You seem to not understand my position.

            I do not think FidSup is a useful or necessary document, it has introduced confusion.

            One thing it doesn't do however is equate civil unions with the sacrament of marriage.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But what about having romantic love with a sibling? That isn't rape by definition, and you can consent. It would still be perverse.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Guess what, that's fornication (a mortal sin) and you're on the EXACT same level as sodomites

            hahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha
            LOL
            I always knew you all were just queers from top to bottom

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do I detect someone who has sex outside of marriage and think's he's better than homo's because it just happens to be with a biofem slag?

            What absolute hypocrisy.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The New Testament says homosexuals are worthy of death.
            The New Testament says fornicators ought to be kicked out of church.
            These are not the same.
            I figure homosexuals would like people to think they're the same though.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you're on the EXACT same level as sodomites.
            Paul in Romans 1 says that sodomy "against nature," which is the only time anything is described that way in the Bible. He also goes on to talk about how the people who do such things are reprobates who have been given up by God.

            "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
            And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
            And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;"
            (Romans 1:26-28)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the ONLY churches that preform gay marriage are explicitly protestant.
            Except when they're Catholic, of course.
            https://infovaticana.com/2024/03/01/el-cardenal-cobo-lamenta-la-ambiguedad-de-la-pseudoboda-gay-en-la-ermita-y-llama-a-no-escandalizar-a-la-gente/
            https://infovaticana.com/2024/02/27/el-padre-damian-celebro-el-dia-antes-una-adoracion-con-la-pareja-gay-que-celebro-su-matrimonio-civil-en-una-ermita/
            https://infovaticana.com/2024/02/26/gran-revuelo-por-la-celebracion-de-un-matrimonio-civil-gay-en-una-ermita-de-madrid/
            https://infovaticana.com/2024/05/15/el-parroco-que-oficio-una-pseudoboda-gay-en-ee-uu-pide-disculpas-mas-o-menos/
            https://infovaticana.com/2024/05/13/boda-gay-en-una-iglesia-de-la-diocesis-de-plasencia-con-presencia-del-parroco/
            https://infovaticana.com/2024/05/10/celebran-una-boda-gay-en-la-antigua-parroquia-de-el-salvador-de-talavera/

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            so you're a shill, cool

            shills hate Catholics

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >homosexual
            get redpilled on sodomites:

            https://rumble.com/v4uomzo-aids-the-judgement-of-god-full-documentary.html

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you really think other christians planted the bomb?
            That is the most likely possibility, yes.

            >and not like, the queers that protested and threatened the church in the first place?
            The queers that were protesting this heretical schismatic sect were most likely also Christian given the simple reality of Christianity in the current year, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

            who's paying you to post here?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nothing but projection

            it's hilarious how completely transparent you are

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >there prot because they call themselves prots
            They aren’t prot.
            So I can assume you also believe this a woman because they call themself a woman. It’s the same reasoning to you.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            even if they are only nominally Christian, there is absolutely NO denying they belong to a denomination that descends from the reformed tradition

            they aren't pastor billy bob's non-denominational congregation, they have a historical legacy that FIRMLY identifies them as protestant

            it just so happens that these protestants are heretics
            which should not surprise you

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >catholic priest goes full globohomosexual and gets defrocked (sometimes)
            >"clearly he had nothing to do with the historical legacy of catholicism that would identify him as catholic"

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Did the priest preform a gay marriage?
            And then he was defrocked as a result?
            Then clearly the church as a whole does not approve of gay marriage, which is doctrinal.

            As opposed to the PCUSA, which as an organization celebrates and preforms gay marriages.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This priest did. I have yet to hear that he was defrocked.
            https://x.com/NovusOrdoWatch/status/1786048150391685596

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, I'll get right on it. That is clearly what he intended.

            But the formula he used is not the sacrament of marriage, it's only an imitation of it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            there are numerous protestant churches which have no communion whatsoever with these homosexual churches.
            there is no overarching protestant church whose job is to defrock other denomination's priests.

            I am saying claiming someone is still protestant despite breaking all the principles of protestantism is just as disingenuous as claiming someone is still catholic despite breaking all the principles of catholicism.

            oh well.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >circular reasoning.
            Why don’t you look up the formal principle of prot churches? Because your reasoning is not making sense.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Give it a few more decades and I'm sure an enterprising cardinal will find a workaround, same way they found the annulment one to get around the divorce ban lol

        >the only Christian churches actively gay marrying homos are Protestant
        All Christian churches in the US, Europe, and Anglosphere, of all denominations, are enthusiastic supports and performers of homosexual """"""""""""""marriages"""""""""".

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/23/us/first-works-baptist-church-explosion.html

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >christcucks blowing eachothers churches up over disagreements over how to proceed with antinomianism
            Yes, that is how Abrahamic religion in general works.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you really think other christians planted the bomb? and not like, the queers that protested and threatened the church in the first place?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you really think other christians planted the bomb?
            That is the most likely possibility, yes.

            >and not like, the queers that protested and threatened the church in the first place?
            The queers that were protesting this heretical schismatic sect were most likely also Christian given the simple reality of Christianity in the current year, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          nah

          also you're mad

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    another freemason/jesuit funded thread

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Without Catholicism and Papa to speak and define doctrine on behalf of the dead apostles, how would we be able to tell which churches were misunderstanding the New Testament and which churches weren’t?
    Does Catholicism and “papa” know that? No. “The church” was greatly different in the times of the apostles and with each “pope” claiming falsely to be the successor to someone who can have no successors, Peter, coming and going what was considered true in peter’s church was changed over and over again as each “successor” inflicted his own views upon it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      "The Doctrine of the Communion of Saints holds us to believe that Saint Peter, as well as the other Apostles, are living members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and as such are not replaced by the generation of their office, but their particular office is represented (made visible) here on earth. Thus, the hierarchy in heaven is made visible on earth when that which is particular to each throne is universalized. In the same way, the Priesthood particular to Jesus Christ is universalized (Catholica) in those who receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders. "

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I guess sedes will become a lot bigger in the future. Picrel.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Roman catholics worship lucifer and the serpent. That alone makes it a false religion

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why do roman catholics hate Christianity so much?

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I have always wanted to know what the history of theories of biblical interpretation
    A modern protestant is going to say that holy spirit will guide them when they read whichever modern English translation of the Bible or even the KJV to gain a correct understanding of the text
    Yet it's clear that we know that some of these people do find the text to be very difficult and they often come to wrong conclusions about them
    If you want you could claim that these people are just not in the elect so the Holy Spirit does not work with them on it
    Have israelites always thought that the true message of the Hebrew Bible is readily available to anyone who reads it?
    What about Catholics?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      in the bible it says that God can supernaturally conceal the true meaning of the text to anyone he wants to, which checks out with my own experience dealing with people who think they get it and tell you what you believe now just because they can read

      2 Corinthians 3

      12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

      13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

      14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

      15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

      16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

      >whichever modern English translation of the Bible or even the KJV
      Yeah, that's one of those things they don't really like talking about. Instead of seeing scripture as if it were part of apostolic tradition, they see it as something completely independent from the apostles.

      Which leads to some problems where different translations like the Vulgate, LXX, and KJV disagree with one another. They don't really have a good answer for this, because they don't treat scripture as one part of a unified apostolic tradition and instead insist the writings are inerrant.

      It's not about the letter of the law, it's about the spirit.

      cont...

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind.”

        -Dei Verbum

        >It is not surprising that according to a practically irrefutable consensus of historians there definitely are mistakes and errors in the Bible in profane matters of no relevance for what Scripture properly intends to affirm.

        -his holiness, Pope Benedict Emeritus XVI, 1962

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind.”

        -Dei Verbum

        >It is not surprising that according to a practically irrefutable consensus of historians there definitely are mistakes and errors in the Bible in profane matters of no relevance for what Scripture properly intends to affirm.

        -his holiness, Pope Benedict Emeritus XVI, 1962

        Yeah, sola scriptura is the worst idea ever invented in christianity. It elevates the Bible to this almost deified level where every single word has a meaning you need to read into and ignore any rationality, allowing you to just dismiss any traditional knowledge and facts about this religion and just invent whatever you want as long as you can find some random verse that appears to approve of it. It doesn't matter if there's no historical record of any apostle or church father thinking the answer you want, God has hidden secret messages in the Bible for you to find! This is how we ended up with absolutely nonsensical denominations like Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Calvinists, Mormons, etc. If you're a protestant, you still must surely understand why Catholics were so outraged at this idea?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It doesn't matter if there's no historical record of any apostle or church father thinking the answer you want, God has hidden secret messages in the Bible for you to find!
          That's what the people who invented infant baptism did.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >and just invent whatever you want as long as you can find some random verse that appears to approve of it
          Yeah, it's much better to theologycel your denomination into believing shit like the assumption of mary lol

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The writings of the church leaders for the first 300 years are nearly endless. There is no mystery to interpretation. They were in universal agreement about everything outside infant baptism and some operational things. If you have a question, just look to their writings. Easy.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Everyone who studies the fathers in depth ends up Catholic or Orthodox.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Everyone who studies the fathers in depth ends up Catholic or Orthodox.
        Why? The Catholic and Orthodox churches both fundamentally disagree with the original church.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Everyone who studies Paul in depth ends up part of some non dogmatic mystical sect like quakers or a gnostic

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Now, protestanism is dollarstore christianity but catholicism is not even christianity to begin with, you don't even have same commandments.
    And then you have shit like Revelation 17:4 along with weird paganistic nonsense like weird hats, hexagrams and what not.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The only reason you have the absurdity that is the Apocalypse of John is because the Catholics decided to preserve it and by then their aesthetic was already decided.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >turns the page to Romans 2

    Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >thou man
      a rhetorical character to prove a point.

      or else... what... is Paul condemning himself?

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you prideful, boastful, arrogant, self-righteous hypocrite
    one who struts about the public forum loudly proclaiming his piety, his virtue, his humility
    pharisee, scoffer, backbiter, whited sepulchre full of corruption

    how will any of you vipers escape damnation

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

    6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

    7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

    8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

    9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the israelite first, and also of the Gentile;

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    protestants pretend to know how to read the bible

    then absolutely fail to know what "judgement" means in biblical context and why is is EXPLICITLY reserved for Jesus himself on the last day

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >is is EXPLICITLY reserved for Jesus himself on the last day
      I know, and the judgement will be according to the word that God has spoken.

      "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."
      (John 12:48)

      That's the book we have been reading from. We have the word of God right now.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Honest question for Catholics, why do you still follow an international grooming gang led by a Marxist? Hard mode, don't just default to "muh cultua muh fugga bix nood".

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >dead apostles
    not-so dead
    1 Corinthians 15:22
    >Christians to be perfectly united
    All Christians are united in baptism, faith and salvation.
    Galatians 3:26-28

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Matthew 15

    ‘This people honors Me with their lips,
    But their heart is far away from Me.
    But in vain do they worship Me,
    Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The modern Vatican is more about submission to an organization than a united faith. You can believe all kinds of heresies and it doesn't matter as long as you pledge allegiance to Rome's hierarchy. This doesn't come from an outside criticism. This guy who was a priest in communion with Rome but is no longer has talked about this and so have other guys in his organization who had similar experiences.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ok, and? The bishop defines the faith.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Do you believe the bishop can say that Jesus isn't God anymore and have it be binding dogma?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I believe the bishop is a grace given to us by God to protect the truth so that won’t happen.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You’re Ngmi.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Blah blah blah, I guess Ignatius and Cyprian and Chrysostom and anyone who submitted to Peter won’t either.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So Arianism is correct and Athanasius was wrong then according to your reasoning. Bishops can’t err let alone the supreme Bishop. Pope Liberius and the man of the churches bishops embraced Arianism but who was right in the end. Wait! it was the excommunicated Athanasius not the Pope and the other Bishops. Your line of thinking would get you damned.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Temporary aberration

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No no no a bishop is a grace of God and protects the truth. They can’t err.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I didn’t say they can’t error, I just said they are a grace of God sent to protect the truth.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are essentially saying that. The pope Liberius and bishops of the time were protecting Arianism. God gave them to protect truth and God will never abandon his church. It can’t be a temporary aberration or else God is a liar. So Arianism must be truth.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            NTA

            Were if they doing what they thought was right, even if they were incorrect? Would you still hold it against them if they only meant to defend the truth as they understood it? Would God hold it against them, even though they descended from his apostles through the laying on of hands?

            Is it POSSIBLE that the Trinity is a divine mystery, that no formulation perfectly describes it?
            And that what we mystically experience is not the ineffable form of the Lord, but is how he appears to us through revelation. An image, if you will. Our perceptual faculties are not sufficient to fully appreciate the essence of the Godhead, so God condescends to or accomidates us and our natural limitations with this divine revelation.

            And that Trinitarianism won out in the end because God guides his church through the ages despite our personal deficencies and errors? One bishop making an error doesn't mean he isn't a Christian, or that everyone associated with him is not part of the church, or that the whole body of the church in Christ is in error.

            God can lie if he wants to btw, he deliberately decieved Ahab.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Would you still hold it against them if they only meant to defend the truth as they understood it? Would God hold it against them, even though they descended from his apostles through the laying on of hands?
            Yes, they aren’t defending the truth. Because Arianism is not biblical. It is not apostolic teaching. Apostolic succession does not shield anyone from false teaching. It is only useful with apostolic teaching. So arians with apostolic succession are false teachers and God would certainly hold it against them.
            >One bishop making an error doesn't mean he isn't a Christian, or that everyone associated with him is not part of the church, or that the whole body of the church in Christ is in error
            It was not one bishop. It was the pope and the majority of the church that fell to Arianism. Athanasius was excommunicated and exiled. A bishop embracing Arianism and teaching does mean he isn’t a Christian. The churches they controlled ceased to be churches. They did not teach scripture. The story of Athanasius and the Arians really is a black eye and makes the claim of papal infallibility/supremacy/primacy demonstrably false.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The story of Athanasius and the Arians really is a black eye and makes the claim of papal infallibility/supremacy/primacy demonstrably false.
            It already was because look at Constantine himself. He is the one who founded that institution. The Pontifex Maximus of Roman times eventually was converted into the Roman Papacy at some point so that even now the two are equal. And look at what Constantine believed and how he persecuted dissenting Christians, undoubtedly his persecutions included the faithful witnesses of Christ who kept the Gospel during those times. He may have legalized Christianity but it was only two years later that he declared that anyone not in his own faction who wouldn't allow him to appoint their bishops was made illegal again. See the Synod of Lateran (313) and Council of Arles (314). People so often forget this.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Constantine set a bad precedent and established a religion firmly entwined with the state. I think it was Theodosius I who did more damage though.
            In is reign TENS of millions of pagans became lay "Christians" through compulsion; temples were converted to "churches" and for whatever* reason the clergy abandoned practices seen in the Ante-Nicene era in favor of things common to pagan mystery cults.
            I understand that in the search for history, many Protestants have championed Augustine, but in truth, he was a dissimulator from the era of Theodosius. A heathen prophet from a rich family who conveniently "converted" in middle age when it would be financially irresponsible (and illegal) not to. I do appreciate his attestation in his time that there were "some who say faith alone saves" (whom he ignorantly rebukes); which everyone seems to ignore.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To add; icons (idols) were nonexistent before Theodosius' Compulsion; and still not widely accepted until Justinian's fabrication of the Image from Edessa.
            From then on idolatry itself was rampant in popular (pagan; of the villages; of the mob) "Christianity" until Leo III Isaurian.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >conveniently "converted"

            his conversion from Mani is well known to be genuine dude
            you can't just ignore his confessions

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Augustine was a continuation of neo-platonism in the line of thought of Origen and ultimately Ammonius Saccas. From a philosophical perspective, neo-platonic thought later fell apart entirely on closer and more rigorous logical inspection. From a Biblical perspective, it is basically just an attempt to somehow save paganism, similar to what the Romans did after they couldn't destroy the church. Origen, Ammonius Saccas, Augustine and others were ultimately based on pagan mysticism, which was an attempt at a continuation of neo-pythagorean thought - which is pagan mysticism that holds to a gnostic view that the world is based on "emanations" from "the one." Eventually they decided that if you can't beat them, join them. So they tried to make this seem Christian. In that philosophical system (sometimes referred to as the "heirarchy of being") they even developed a "pseudo-trinity" that is completely different and foreign from the Biblical Holy Trinity.

            It's easy enough to see that there were credobaptist churches through all of this. That's why they made laws against them during Honorius reign.

            Eusebius of Caesarea wasn't an Arian; though he was accused of semiarianism (couldnt really explain what that means atm)
            Eusebius of NICOMEDIA was uncontroversially and Arian.

            He confused two different people named Eusebius I guess.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no, I didn't

            Eusebius has been accused of being a heretic for aligning with the Arians before I ever called him one

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Alright, and why would it matter if he was an Arian and an unbeliever? If he was an unbeliever, that doesn't mean there weren't other believers at the time. They would be the ones who were still continuing the church. They don't even have to be in communion with him, since the church has congregational church polity as delineated by the New Testament.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >an Arian and an unbeliever

            those two things are not the same
            Eusebius was a Christian, even if he's an Origen fanboy

            >why would it matter
            It matters because you said thinking the Logos is the first-born of creation, as Arians did, means you aren't a Christian

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It matters because you said thinking the Logos is the first-born of creation, as Arians did, means you aren't a Christian
            Arians deny the divinity of Christ.

            It says in John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What I'm saying is heterodoxy doesn't make you not a Christian.

            There are many Christians walking about doing their thing today, that I consider heterodox and burdened by delusion. It happens for a reason.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's easy enough to see that there were credobaptist churches through all of this. That's why they made laws against them during Honorius reign
            interesting, what were these?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Imperatoris Theodosii codex: Book 16, Title 6 (A.D. 413)
            Reinstated in Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6 (A.D. 529)
            >16.6.6 Emperors Honorius and Theodosius Augustuses to Anthemius, Praetorian Prefect.
            >No person shall resort to the crime of rebaptizing, nor shall he endeavor to pollute with the filth of profaned religions and the sordidness of heretics those persons who have been initiated in the rites of the orthodox... if after the time that the law was issued any person should be discovered to have rebaptized anyone who had been initiated into the mysteries of the Catholic sect, he shall suffer the penalty [of death], along with the person rebaptized, because he has committed a crime that must be expiated, provided, however, that the person so persuaded is capable of crime by reason of his age.

            Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6 (A.D. 529)
            1.6.2
            >Emperors Honorius and Theodosius to Anthemius, praetorian Prefect.
            >If any person shall be discovered to rebaptize anyone of the catholic faith, he, together with him who has permitted this infamous crime -- provided the person persuaded to be rebaptized be of an age capable of a crime -- shall be punished by death. Given at Constantinople March 21, 413, C.T. 16.6.6. Revived April 16, 529, C.J. 1.6.2.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nice...

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            wow.
            thanks
            God bless.

            Since we're on the subject I also have this partial translation of a sermon that was given in Latin around the year 320 or slightly earlier. It is called "A Sermon on the Passion of Saints Donatus and Advocatus given on the 4th day before the Ides of March" and the Latin original is found in Patrologia Latina Vol. 8, cols. 752-758.

            "§2 Now then, let's proceed with the situation. ... The incident occurred at Carthage when Caecilian Pseudoepiscopus was there, and Leontius had been appointed comes, Ursatius was dux, Marcellinus tribune, and the Devil appeared as counsellor for all of them. Their practices were rooted in the old Serpent who had already shown himself the enemy of the Christian Name. By deceitful fraud, he strove to lay hold of those he could not conquer by direct persecution. The author of deception lay hidden so that his deception might proceed more easily. But divine precepts are always the arms of victory for those who recognize the snares of the Flatterer, and they are not frightened by his raging harassment.

            "Knowing this, when the contriver came face to face with times of peace, that by worldly seduction, he revived those minds he had overcome in battle by fear of torture. He took away their humility, the only way to tame the anger of an indignant God, and he substituted pride, which he knew for certain would gravely offend God. He promoted the idea that the lapsed, the deserters of heavenly ordinances, could illicitly hold ecclestiastical office again.

            "As much as he recently took pleasure in their weakness of faith, so now he rejoices in this fraud. He is even more secure when they are called 'bishops' or 'Christians', than when they fell to ruin in their denial of the Christian name. As we have already said, this is how he holds onto those he deceives by false use of the Name. Not only does he delight these miserable men with vainglory but he also ensnares the greedy by royal friendship and earthly gifts."

            (1/?)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "§3 Nevertheless, this rapacious robber was frustrated that he did not control everyone by this ruse. So the enemy of salvation concocted a more subtle conceit to violate the purity of faith. 'Christ,' he said, 'is the lover of unity. Therefore, let there be unity.' Those people who were already fawning on him and were deserted by God came to be called 'Catholics'. By prejudice in favor of the name, those who refused to communicate with them were called 'heretics'. He sent funds so that he might weaken their faith or provide an occasion for avarice, through the publication of the law."

            "§4 O most faithful brothers and sisters, it is a crime even to publish what was said and done among the banquets of lascivious youths where despicable women were present.

            "What grief to see such a crime in the house of the Lord, this place accustomed to pious prayers, now profaned by impure deeds and illegitimate incantations! Now I ask you, what person in whatever desperate condition would allow this to be done in their own home? No one would consent except the sort of person who would actually do it. Who denies that such deeds have the children of the Devil as their authors? Who calls the authors of these actions Christians, except the person who wishes to excuse the Devil himself or to disavow Christ the Lord? What diligence by the Serpent! So many evils let loose! How many hatched so that its family might assume the divine Name and hide itself from that Name, the Name it disgraces by its deeds! O the strength of the divine patience so worthy of praise, bearing up while the villainy of evil is spreading! Divine patience puts up with having the deeds of the crafty enemy imputed to itself or to its Name. Let no one think that something trivial happens when so many schisms and heresies arise. Satan's disguise surely dishonors God and Christ through his wicked ministry and adulterous work."

            (2/?)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "§5 But lest we wander too far from the main point, let us omit their defilement of holy virgins. I repress any mention of their slaughter of the priests of God. I keep silent about their assaults, their pillaging, their booty. This way even they may know that we deliberately select few things from among many and we expose it quickly and modestly, seeing that we are eager not to exact vengeance on our enemies but to free the souls of these miserable people from the jaws of the ravenous wolf, indeed from the very mouth of the Dragon.

            "Therefore, the one who corrupts holy discipline would violate the chastity of faith under the by-word of unity, i.e., by compelling unity with himself, not with God. Neither the rulers of this world nor those of darkness arrange things to happen in such a way that what is ordered might reveal the person giving the order.

            "§6 Let us proceed to the final events. They erupted in open threats and unmistakable fury once their subterfuges failed and their snares wore out. At that time you could have seen bands of soldiers serving the Furies of the traditors. Behold, in imitation of the Lord's passion, this cohort of soldiers marshalled by latter-day Pharisees sets forth from their camps to the death of Christians. Against innocent hands stretched out to the Lord, their right hands are armed with cudgels. ...

            "§8 At last, bloodshed marked the end of this hatred. Now the soldiers endorsed the contract and the covenant of the crime in no other way than by the seal of blood. Everyone kept their eyes shut tight while each age group and sex was killed, cut down in the midst of the sanctuary. It is this very sanctuary, I say, between whose walls so many bodies were cut down and buried. Here, in the inscriptions, memory preserves the name of the persecution as 'Caecilianist' until the end of time, lest after his episcopate the parricide deceive others who were not privy to the things done in his name."

            (3/?)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "§9 This day will reflect on how Highest Piety itself did not permit everyone to be butchered here. Scrutinizing the hearts of all, God honors with the reward of the martyrs those whom He saw suffering with the full measure of devotion, for He seeks not the blood but the faith of believers. However, we must hold Caecilian responsible for the blood of all, for we are sure that he arranged for the whole populace to be killed.

            "§10 Nonetheless, there was an even greater madness: even after so nefarious a deed, the killer thought he could take control of the same sanctuary.

            "So he persecuted those who avoided the contagion of communion with him while he promised indemnification to those who would communicate with him even after he committed the killings. O imprudence mixed with vanity and madness! This is how the vilest of robbers was blinded.

            "§12 And so, I think we must inquire what sort of apostasy this may be if it is so worthily called 'Catholic'. For as an enemy of the Name, it manages quite well to the enormous detriment of the Name, so that the common people take it as Catholic when the Caecilianists commit without penalty what is forbidden under common law.

            "§13 While the tribune had prepared to indulge the wishes of the traditors and an abundance of blood had cooled the heat of their cruelty, some of the brethren entered the sanctuary again for however much time they could and held funerals for the martyrs. What passion of soul! What groans of lamentation! What devotion! Dashing among the bodies of the massacred, they hurried to identify each of those lying there. When children happened on the bodies of their parents cast upon the ground, and parents on the bodies of the children, you could see some of them holding their dead in their arms. Others half-dead themselves sank down in grief at the unexpected sight. Still others applied their pious hands to the task of collecting the bodies."

            (4/5)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "§14 O mystery truly divine, so very different from human wisdom! Thus says the Lord through the prophet: 'My thoughts are not your thoughts,' he says, 'nor are my ways your ways: for as far as heaven is from the earth, so far are my ways from your ways, and your thoughts from my understanding.'

            "To be slain in the battle line as an adversary of the Gentiles, this is victory; to be killed by the enemy in our combat is triumph. But the murderer who has lived on after his victory is truly a wretched conqueror.

            "Instructed in heavenly teachings, you struggle unsullied in a battle for which you cannot be blamed. A multiplicity of battles tests you on earth, crowns you in heaven, and commends you to the Lord Christ. Thus one conquers who, after victory, does not know how to be conquered again; thus one triumphs, for whom triumph has no bounds. Only you can fight piously, only you can gain your advantage by the wickedness of others, only you can be crowned with a pure and virgin conscience by Christ. To him be glory and power forever and ever. Amen."

            (5/5)

            I thought this sermon was interesting - and it's sitting right there in Patrologia Latina for anyone to read, no less. Just go to Volume 8, columns 752-758 to see all of it. I found out about it when I was reading the book "Donatist Martyr Stories," a book that was released in the 1990s and translated some little-known works into English.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Attached is one that I rarely post but if anyone actually read this far they deserve it. Notice the particular phrase "born again of water and Spirit" in this account, where the Received text (Greek) in John 3:5 actually says "born of water and Spirit," (not "born again" or "renatus" but only "born" or "natus," to signify the fact that these are two different types of birth; see John 3:6) and this single clarification might have helped dissolve the controversy.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            a volume ought to be made of such accounts imo.
            theyre hidden all over.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I always liked primary sources. Much more difficult to spin or leave out "inconvenient" details.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ah yes, the primary source on Nero.
            Who was not even ten before the year of four emperors, and who wrote during flavian dynasty.
            Totally unbiased source, yes.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Did I say "the" primary source on anything? It's certainly not an unprimary source... but I have plenty of those too.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Here's one I often use because it's a convincing example of a "hostile witness."

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            wow.
            thanks
            God bless.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It is not apostolic teaching. Apostolic succession does not shield anyone from false teaching.

            I agree. But it means that their misconceptions have a real basis in the early church.

            Look, the apostles didn't understand everything Jesus taught them at the time in which he expounded these teachings.

            It was only later, much later in fact for some of them, that they all clicked into place.

            This is a pattern in the way people learn things, especially when it's the way Jesus taught. You know, cryptically predicting his own death before it happened, etc.

            >It was not one bishop.
            A group of people is just a collection of individuals until they are united in the body of Christ as a church.

            >Athanasius was excommunicated and exiled.
            Sure.
            So was Arius.

            >embracing Arianism and teaching does mean he isn’t a Christian
            Subscribing to Arianism doesn't make you not a Christian. I know this because the Arians recieved the laying on of hands.

            >They did not teach scripture.
            They did.

            They just taught an *interperitation* you happen to disagree with.
            I'm sure you have taught things I disagree with, that doesn't mean I don't see you as a Christian who suffers from delusion.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Subscribing to Arianism doesn't make you not a Christian.
            Yes it does, it makes a person a formal heretic.

            John 1:1 for example shows that Arianism is false.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So Eusebius wasn't a Christian.

            Well I hope you're ready to throw out the Ecclesiastical History.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Eusebius of Caesarea wasn't an Arian; though he was accused of semiarianism (couldnt really explain what that means atm)
            Eusebius of NICOMEDIA was uncontroversially and Arian.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Eusebius of Caesarea wasn't an Arian
            he definitely leaned that way dude

            >Eusebius enjoyed the favor of the Emperor Constantine. Because of this he was called upon to present the creed of his own church to the 318 attendees of the Council of Nicaea in 325.[40]
            >Athanasius, foreseeing the result, went to Constantinople to bring his cause before the Emperor. Constantine called the bishops to his court, among them Eusebius. Athanasius was condemned and exiled at the end of 335.
            >According to Eusebius of Caesarea, the word homoousios was inserted in the Nicene Creed solely by the personal order of Constantine.

            the Arian bishops had legitimate apostolic succession, and that's why they were invited to the councils in the first place
            the dispute regarding the Trinitarian formulation wasn't what we crack it up to be now
            the Arians still thought of Christ as the first born of creation, just like we do

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > Subscribing to Arianism doesn't make you not a Christian. I know this because the Arians recieved the laying on of hands.
            It does. Arianism is not scriptural and is false teaching.
            > They did.
            > They just taught an *interperitation*
            Truth is not relative to what a bishop with apostolic succession says. Arianism is not apostolic teaching. It can’t be found in plain scripture.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why do you think God would damn someone for not understanding or assenting to the strict homousian form of the Trinity?

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >If Protests didn't have the Pope to tell them it's ok to bless unrepentant sodomite couples it would be chaos
    Kek
    All schismatics are fake and most of them are gay

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Where is this clarity at in Roman Catholicism? Is the death penalty good or bad?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Is the death penalty good or bad?
      For your Protestant neighbors? Good.
      For homosexual child rapists in the clergy? Bad.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No one would be able to find a mass if you killed all the gay priest.

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Schizoidberg

    1) It's simple: the bible says whatever doctrine my stupid monkey brain can string together. Well, hope I'm not in err!

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Protestant Christians

    Oxymoron

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *