I don't base laws on land. My opinion of what laws I believe in are the ones that result in the closest to freedom, as defined by libertarianism. I endorse a land concept solely because it would enable a place to act libertarian, but I don't want that at the expense of setting up a(nother) pedophile government.
So yeah, it's hypocritical if I had a strong belief in land based government, it's not if I think such a government is an imperfect method of getting the government I want, so I add controls to it.
I'm not understanding? Do you think a libertarian government should have universal jurisdiction?
But they were leading the flock astray. They kept adding things not in the bible, encouraged the worship of graven images, completely screwed up communion into a thing that wasn't even close to a shared meal (only the priest got to have it), etc. I can go on too.
The Bible is not the sum total of Christianity tradition is a thing that has been a part of the faith since the early church. You are right that catholics add things, but so do protestants. Heck some protestants have gone farther.
As for accusations of idolotry this is eye roll worthy. There is a right way to read the Bible and reading at it, you can see that the Ancient Hewbrews had icons(Cherubs on the Ark) they did not agree with Muslims or Jews or Protestants on not having images.
I will grant you the communion though.
See, protestants, despite having different groups, are actually much more catholic (lowercase 'c', meaning universal) than Roman Catholics (until one of the Vatican councils). In general, they believe that other protestants and catholics and orthodox, who also truly believe in God, are saved. The ICC takes this the farthest, I'd say, and believes claiming a denomination itself is what separates churches, so no church should claim a denomination.
Meanwhile, the point at which there was one church that all believed the same thing died a very long time prior to the reformation, because right beliefs matter. It's impossible to tell which church even had the correct apostalic succession even if you believe in that, as a few churches claim it.
Also, I think S'task's point is very relevant here: the non-denominational churches usually are united in thought with a denomination, they just don't have higher up governance.
But it's a false unity as it's the same type of unity Muslims have. Sure they put up a united front, but once the common enemy is gone they turn on themselves.
As for denominations they aren't always taken by the group sometimes it's imposed by others. For instance most non denominatinals are actually Baptist in their theology.
The point of denomination is that to be in communion to be brothers in christ we have to believe in the same Christ. After all we are not brothers with Muslims even if they believe in one god, and think Jesus is messiah. We have VERY BIG differances.
As for apostolic succession, no we do know who has it. The Church's that claim it do have. It's not just one church that has apostolic succession. Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, Armenians, and Anglicans have/had apostolic succession. Belief does matter, it's most important. But apostolic succession is important and it does allow us to help separate the wheat from the chaff. The denominations that have a lineage going back to Christ are the ones to look at and investigate as they are more likely to be carrying Christ's true message as opposed to a new sect made thousands of years later by people that never met Jesus.
I do agree that there is some overlap between what would result from works following faith vs faith and works, but I think that works following faith is the correct view, because there are some who have no faith but do works. I could just have easily argued that allowing deathbed confessions means that you actually believe in works following faith, as that's the only thing present in a deathbed confession.
That depends what do you consider faith and what do you consider works? I'd say conversion, repentance, and baptism are works. Those are needed to be saved.
Assumed guilty until proven innocent, eh?
Meanwhile, in your kind of religion, a man can as evil as he pleases, as long as he has a priest handy to grant him absolution. Penance? Purgatory? That stuff only applies to the normal little people, the clowns in robes and special hats can make it go away anytime they please - especially if you are someone powerful and wealthy, and willing to make a generous donation to the church finances. Then you're golden, even if you on a daily basis do things that should get you put on trial at the Hague.
Stones and glass houses.
Guilty until proven otherwise yeah lol. Though to be fair being wary of groups you have no way to know anything about until you deal with them personally is generally wise. With big organizations you can know what their statement of faith is what they believe are they heretics or not.
As for your argument about how the priest can grant absolution through confession and requiring penance only applies to commoners, while the rich can avoid all that. First not always you assume there is always corrupting. But even so the protestant model is hardly any better all someone has to do is in their head say I'm sorry. Date rape someone just feel bad and silently ask god for forgiveness, then you can go about your life without having to worry about anything.
At least with confession there will be regret because you are saying something you are ashamed about. I doubt politician Joe pedo is going to be thrilled to have to say he did such evil actions. If a church holds you to account you won't want to come in later and tell the priest "I want to confess again I cheated on my wife/rape/went to a prostitue/etc."
Are you that shameless, that you can tell someone your disgusting fuck ups?
Also I'm curious on how many protestants vs catholic and eastern orthodox politicians have supported wars and assassinations and war crimes just because it's advantageous for them or maybe the nation.
I already
addressed this nonsense before but I'm going to be generous and assume you simply missed it. Protestants read the Bible you know, and there's a major section of the Book of Romans that addresses EXACTLY THIS TOPIC: Romans 6, which, to get to the core of the matter explicitly states:
See I'll be honest to me it sounds like what you are saying is what I agree with. You need faith and works. If you have faith(believe that jesus died for your sins) but you don't have works aka you still live in sin then it will kill you aka you won't have eternal life. Unless I'm misunderstanding you.
Now, if you do not like that God extends Grace to all Sinners because you feel it's unjust, Jesus himself has a story for you:
Note I'm not arguing that sinners who have done heinous acts should NOT be forgiven because they don't deserve it. I know Christianity says we ALL don't deserve it.
But the story with the prodigal son does not say that the prodigal son "Continued to waste his father's wealth on wine and prostitutes."
When you come to Christ you are supposed to repent and try to lead a godly life. Some mistakes are understandable as we aren't perfect But if you aren't even trying then you aren't saved.
That's why I've been harping against what protestants would call free grace. Heck that famous protestants are even arguing about it shows that when us eastern orthodox, or Catholics warned you guys way back that "faith alone" will lead to this and you did not listen it just shows that what I'm talking about is not just a small one off thing but an actual movement.
Young don calvinist argues against free grace movement.
Dr. James White a protestant talking about the actions of a baptist pastor steven Anderson.
Video by sedevacantist about Steven Anderson. While it's funny how he keeps insulting him by calling him a heretic or anti christ the video is way too long. So only 15 or 20 minutes is needed and you'd get the jist.
To be fair I will give a video from a "free gracer" pastor responding to Young Don's video so that they can defend themselves.