Be Catholic

>I dunno, as a New Englander I associate it with Puritanism more than with the true Church.

Then you were wrong.

In fact if we are talking burning witches rather than just witch trials then Catholics were more fond of burning 'witches', whereas Protestants hanged them.

Look at what Protestants did with the bible
Misinterpreted the bible a million different ways and made a denomination at every turn along the way

>you were wrong
You can say that all you want, but I don't really see any good reason to take you seriously. It's common knowledge that stories about the Inquisition are almost all exaggerations.

justforcatholics.org/a198.htm

I suggest you research the Council of Toulouse 1229 AD, the Council of Tarragona 1234 AD and the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 AD and what happened to William Tyndale for having the temerity to translate the bible into English.

It was official Catholic policy and NOT merely a case of it being a 'bit of a pain'.

This is Veeky Forums, at least try and get your facts straight.

>It's common knowledge that stories about the Inquisition are almost all exaggerations.

Why are you randomly conflating witch trials purely with the Inquisition?

This is just basic historically illiteracy. Sort yourself out.

>Misinterpreted the bible a million different ways
I'm actually curious as to what you mean here.

Wew lad
Apocryphal books don't exist I guess

According to Paul, writing in approx 50 AD all other gospels or claims of revelation were cursed by God.

>6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Galatians 1:6-9

In other words all four of the gospels in the NT, Acts and Revelation (which claims to come from an angel) which are all dated after the Epistles are Satanic.

>be Protestant
>destroy Western culture

Oh boy. It's another round of my God is bigger than your God. BUT WAIT!!! IT is the same God cause we are keeping the Jews and Muslims out of this discussion SO...
It's I can read and interpret scripture better than you can. OK.
So. The life of the inquisitor. It's a Sadistic bloodlust kind of thing. Power. Think about it. You can water board... NO! that's the USA. Ah. You can burn bad girls alive. That's not blood lust, that's sexual perversion.

God says kill. Well no, God says torture and kill. Kill the baby boys but make sure you keep the virgins for yourselves.

Rant complete...

...

Ahhh. That's sweet.

Another upset religious person pulling out their hat porn collection.

Show us some more of the hat porn collection you have carefully built up over the years. :-) I think it is cute.

>be Protestant
>Protestant

[autism intensifies]

>be protestant
>be against indulgences and the church gaining wealth
>end up with super-rich megachurches and the idea that if you are a good christian, God will make you wealthy

>Be a very specific variety of muslim
>shoot someone to death for not being a muslim or belonging to the same variety as you

Not him, but how butthurt are you?

>stone someone to death for smoking a cig

Where's the hats?

This is disappointing.

No it's not, witches don't exist for "papists".

Not half as much as you.

Isn't everything to you?

>call yourself the Islamic State, aspire to become the homeland of all muslims
>view 99% percent of muslims as heretics

I don't understand the hard on for Catholicism on this board
It's hilariously obvious how many shortcomings it has in doctrine to the point where almost half of tradition is straight up heresy, how the church is organized and designed through politics, and how wrong it has been on almost ever major issue in history's

>Isn't everything to you?

I don't want incoherent posts. I want your cutie wutie hat porn collection. :-)

Because the most prominent and annoying religiousposters are Constantine for Eastern Orthodoxy, and that "I know Jesus personally everything I don't like is a satanic lie" proddie lunatic.

Catholics win by default.

monotheistic judaism is a heresy to the original polytheistic judaism.
the original christianity, the one that Jesus preached is a heresy of monotheistic judaism.
Paul's version of christianity is a heresy of Jesus's religion.

Even if we go all the way back to the gospels, it's still a heresy of a heresy of a heresy (at the very least).

>Paul's version of christianity is a heresy of Jesus's religion.

Since Pauline Christianity predates any serious source about Jesus this seems unlikely.

Holy shit the butthurt is strong

That Aelian tripfaggot who endlessly spams threads with bible quotes and other assorted horseshit is a catholic though, and he is at least as annoying as the other two you mentioned.

>Be atheist/agnostic
>Don't te anyone
>Don't give a fuck about this shit
>Get money fuk bitches

Can't we come to a consensus that all christkeks are equally annoying? I'd argue constantine is the worst of them but that's beside the point.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers
the original judaizers were Peter and James, who personally knew Jesus, unlike Paul, with whom they had a dispute with. I think it's safe to assume that the guys who knew Jesus knew better what he wanted.

No, not really. I for one think some are far more annoying than others, although I would go for the proddie one myself.

>Holy shit

Whoops, blasphemy.

That's a stoning. ;-)

youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk

There's no sources from James and only forgeries that are allegedly from Peter.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Petrine_epistles

>be protestant
>return to semite tier fanaticism and lifestyle

the judaizing stuff is actually in one of Paul's epistles, it states that he had disputes with Peter and James on wether Christians, especially converted pagans need to adhere to moseic laws like circumscision.

Tbh I honestly don't understand why you have a problem with the persecution of pagans.

Good goy.

autis.m

...

>ROME HAD SPOKEN, THE ISSUE WAS SETTLED.

If the Pope is fallible, how do we know The Holy Mother Church chose the right books?

If the Pope is infallible, why attempt to reform the Holy Mother Church at all? It is perfection on earth, as it exists by the decree of the Pope.

No. There are differences between the aforementioned assholes and the average christian poster on here.

People like you are why fedoras exist.

>why attempt to reform the Holy Mother Church at all?
Good point, you shouldn't.

>be stoner
>smoke joint
lmao do you even gatorade bong?

Eh?

Can't we at least swap hat pics, friend?

>british""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""comedy"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

>Comedy can't be informed.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZegjCgfiIsk

>be born into poor catholic family
>go to first day of college after financial struggle to even be able to attend
>get called a "WASP" by the teacher and used as an example of of how "others can be unaware of their privilege level"
>mfw and forever afterward

This guy gets it, the hat is like spiderman now, you know the person using it is mad the second you see it.

>Misinterpreted the bible
Catholic church is not christian, in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Paul summarizes the gospel that he preached, and it is faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Period.

No priests; no church; no works; no sacraments.

I'm praying for you.

PROTESTURDS EXPLAIN

The first clear attitude to emerge on the relation between Scripture, tradition and the church was the coincidence view: that the teaching of the church, Scripture and tradition coincide. Apostolic tradition is authoritative but does not differ in content from the Scriptures. The teaching of the church is likewise authoritative but is only the proclamation of the apostolic message found in Scripture and tradition. The classical embodiment of the coincidence view is found in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian.

These both reject the Gnostic claims to a secret tradition supplementing Scripture. Apostolic tradition does not add to Scripture but is evidence of how it is correctly to be interpreted. This tradition is found in those churches which were founded by the apostles, who taught men whose successors teach today. These apostolic churches agree as to the content of the Christian message, in marked contrast to the variations among the heretics. It is important to note that it is the church which is the custodian of Scripture and tradition and which has the authentic apostolic message. There was no question of appealing to Scripture or tradition against the church. This is partly because the apostolic tradition was found in the church but not just for this reason: the Holy Spirit preserves the church from error and leads her into the truth. The real concern of Irenaeus and Tertullian was not with the relation between Scripture and tradition but with the identity of ecclesiastical with apostolic teaching. Any exposition of their teaching on Scripture and tradition which fails to show this is to that extent defective. (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 39, 40 – )

That's the spirit. ;-)

Have you got any more?

But Roman teachings don't have anything to do with holy scripture.

...

You have not explained how Sola Scriptura is compatible with that of the Apostles and Early Christianity where Tradition serve as the evidence for how Scripture is to be correctly interpreted.

Such is incompatible with Sola Scriptura as Scripture is the ultimate evidence for how legitimate Tradition is.

Perfect :-)

I love Christian apologetics.

> you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. {7} You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you, when he said, {8} ‘This people honor me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. {9} It is IN VAIN that they keep worshipping me, because they teach COMMANDS OF MEN as doctrines.’"
- Matthew 15:6-9

Nuff said

Sola Scriptura was developed as a response to Roman abuse of ecclesiastical authority. To ensure that such extravagances would no longer occur it was necessary to confine dogma within the bounds of the original canon.

Christians demonstrate their compatibility with the original apostles in the praxis of their faith; how well they love God and their neighbor.

Except of course when the same Scripture itself speaks of Tradition.

The fact is that the very stuff Jesus had taught the Apostles and his parables would be by definition Tradition which came from the Lord himself.

The Apostles themselves passing on their teachings does not leave them Scripture Alone. They taught them BY WORD and letter.

That means no Sola Scriptura and that matches with what ANS Lane points out about Early Christianity's view of Scripture and Tradition which is incompatible with Sola Scriptura.

Too bad.

See

Except when Protestants still keep to the very definition used by the Reformers, that Scripture is the Highest authority superseding Tradition.

The Early Church and Apostles reject this premise hence rejecting a core tenet of Protestantism!

We love to apologize.

Do you follow the Spirit or the men?

>We love to apologize.

Thank you for saying sorry.

You are not answering the argument.

Do you accept the authority of Tradition as the evidence to interpret Scripture and as the guide to read it?

Under Sola Scriptura, you cannot do both of these!

By claiming Scripture as the highest and sole authority in all matters of faith, you've shown yourself and all Protestants to be incompatible with the very first Christians.

Thank God.

I accept that I am a competent minister of the new covenant -- not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

> "Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar
-Proverbs 30:5-6

God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows emphatically that it is God’s Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.

I don't believe in Allah, I'm thanking you. Don't play yourself down.

I'm off to bed now user, if you could sacrifice a goat to Allah for me that would be tremendously appreciated :-)

History shows Protestants doing this!

The word of God never condones Scripture Alone as shown by how the first Christians read and interpreted Scripture. This includes those directly taught by the Apostles themselves!

So this entails Protestants as adding to the very words of God by taking away the original meaning of it and even composition and putting their own in its place!

Where are the Church Fathers who deny the change in the Eucharistic elements?

If your point is true then Christians in the previous age will also have the same view as you

Jesus loves you.

Transubstantiation is not a salvation issue; it's something for theologians to sharpen each others wits with. Jesus will save all who know Him and the sheep know their shepherd.

No one's talking Transubstantiation. And that IS a Salvation issue because,

a)God cannot contradict himself by making it such that A can be not A simultaneously. That is an illogical contradiction

b)Protestants bicker over this as important which means you have no say over what is and what is not important for Salvation

So where are the Church Fathers denying the Real Presence?

I'm waiting.

Followers of Jesus are identified by how well they love others and not by their theology.

There is a reason the scribes and teachers of the law despised our Lord.

Then by definition, a Jain who strives not to even harm a single microorganism despite lacking a belief in Jesus will go to Heaven!

But wait! Protestants will say this is not true.

So which is it?

The same problem applies to viewing the Eucharist.

You say it doesn't matter. But if this is so then God is either stupid, contradicting himself by declaring two incompatible things are true simultaneously or God is attempting to deceive hence withholding truth

Loving others takes more than doing no harm to them.

Do you think a theology lecture is going to save those standing before the Great White Throne?

ITT:

youtube.com/watch?v=bRwXrcz-F9M

It's already difficult not to harm a single microorganism. Too bad.

By your own definition, anyone who shows compassion to others go to Heaven. But the fact that other Protestants reject this thesis entails that you can be wrong. BUT, all sides claim the same shit!

So which is it?

I'm making things much easier by using the issue of the Eucharist.

Show me where the Church Fathers deny the change in the elements.

Show me where Sola Scriptura is

Go on, I'm waiting.

A CANNOT be A and not A at the same time.

No only those who have been washed in the blood of the Lamb will go to heaven; their compassion is a gift.

The church fathers were saintly men but men nonetheless.

And ALL of them believed in things in opposition to yours.

This means if any, the Holy Spirit is probably telling them the truth given how their beliefs remain consistent over decades and centuries.

Yours can't as shown by the squabbles between those that take your shitty view!

God makes all things new.

>falling for the discourse of decline meme

So God can change the truth? AND actually did it?

This entails that NOBODY can even know what is true simply because it can change to something else contradictory at any moment by God's own whim.

Such means that I need not have any warrant to believe ANY of your claim since God will simply make it new by changing it and does so at any moment.

This also make anything human beings ever known to be false and entails that every assumption about reality ever made to be pointless to begin with.

Only a deity of deceit will do such a thing, a deity you worship

God is the truth.

It's of course true!

There you go ignoring the argument.

We hence shown why Protestantism and your version of Christianity are untenable

This thread demonstrates why Eastern Orthodoxy is the true Christianity.

There is no argument; if you know Jesus then you know the truth.

Can I point something out...

Both Islam and Judaism have this concept where instead of letting some random dude translate the holy book into a new language (all with translation errors and bias), the goal is that if you are really interested in religion that you actually spend the goddamn time to learn the language the holy book was written in.

I mean if religion is so important, why can't you learn Aramaic and Greek?

Jesus IS the word.

There is which you did not address at all.

You are only saying "X is true because YOU say so" without ANY justification.