Religion and theology thread

All you have is insults, but that just shows how dumb you protestants or those who support the protestant position are. You don't have arguments for why they are correct on sola scriptura or apostolic succession. Just "haha ur dumb DURR!"
On the side of apostolic succession, it's the Anglicans with the longest paper trail and even that only gets around 700 years. You have to trust the church on blind faith when it says the over a millennium before that went not merely without interruption but without flaw in procedure, despite all the crackdowns prior to Constantine and numerous ways an ordination could be respected but "improper" in that much less formalized period.

And in terms of the early Church Father writings about why, it's a blatantly sectarian move trying to gatekeep the mystery cults like the Gnostics rather than a carefully-constructed argument from scripture, so the odds are rather high of a break from the apostles in "proper" procedure with the laying on of hands and all because it wasn't a serious dogma for several generations of church leadership.
 
So what do you know about Protestant theology, can you tell me about it just a quick basic bits?
Sorry, do i need to copy paste wikipedia here or are you going to forget about larping as school exam?
And no not something droll like "They don't accept the pope."

Because logically based on protestant theological beliefs you can justify a lot, and when you look at what evangelicals support and what they say about WHY they do it. It looks VERY VERY bad.
Here's your problem: It matters jack fucking shit what according to *your* logic you can justify using *your* idea of protestant theology. For practical purposes it matters what protestants do with their logic using their theology.
It also matters jack shit whether your "homebrew" protestantism looks bad or not. It's a protestantism fanfiction, as fictional as religions of Warhammer.

Again they aren't only in my head there are protestants that fully believe in sola scriptura that the only things that are christian are things that are in the bible and if it's not in there it's not valid or heresy, believe that ONLY faith alone gets you into heaven and WORKS ARE NOT NEEDED, and believe that Jews are God's chosen people.
Ok, what the fuck does that have with them wanting to nuke humanity off the planet? Works or not, wouldn't that kind of super-genocide be you know, a kinda serious sin?
Now do most of them go full on with the faith alone? No especially high church protestants don't mean that "Faith is needed, not works" ubiquitous sense. But there are especially low church protestants who do mean it literally when they say faith alone.
Have you polled them? Why would anyone take your word for how much of protestants interpret their doctrine in their way, especially considering your constantly demonstrated sentiment against them?
As it is, it's very clearly done from a openly hostile position.
 
Sorry, do i need to copy paste wikipedia here or are you going to forget about larping as school exam?
Just in your own words what you think basic protestantism is would be fine.

Here's your problem: It matters jack fucking shit what according to *your* logic you can justify using *your* idea of protestant theology. For practical purposes it matters what protestants do with their logic using their theology.
It also matters jack shit whether your "homebrew" protestantism looks bad or not. It's a protestantism fanfiction, as fictional as religions of Warhammer.
But it's just not me. Again most might not take it that far because at the end of the day they don't really believe in their religion.

BUT if I can find one that means there are more.

Ok, what the fuck does that have with them wanting to nuke humanity off the planet? Works or not, wouldn't that kind of super-genocide be you know, a kinda serious sin?
The problem is that if "faith alone not works" is what gets you into heaven then something being a sin or not doesen't matter at all.
If faith alone is really true:
You can go be a drunk,
You can go beat your wife everyday when you come home from work,
You can murder someone and steal their wallet,
You can rape women and children,
You can sell drugs,
You can help communists or Nazis take over a nation and implement their policies,
You can be a Doctor who mutilates children who have been tricked by lgbt.
You can be an abortion doctor.
You can do all this and more and still go to heaven when you die and enjoy eternal bliss without having to repent or change your ways, as long as you believe in your heart of hearts that Jesus Christ is the son of God and he died for your sins.

Have you polled them? Why would anyone take your word for how much of protestants interpret their doctrine in their way, especially considering your constantly demonstrated sentiment against them?
As it is, it's very clearly done from a openly hostile position.
No I haven't polled them. I look down on Protestants until they prove that they don't hold to such evil satanic doctrines. A person should not be required to check the background and belief of every person they interact with. Do you think it's unfair for someone from an affluent background to be more guarded towards someone from a drug ridden ghetto? Unlike with race religion and political belief people can organize you can have leaders who represent a belief.

A Bishop can represent the Christians of an area while there is no equivalent for races so no guy who can say "Black people think this is wrong" So why the double standard where we can do this to racial minorities or immigrants, or whatever but not protestants?
 
Just in your own words what you think basic protestantism is would be fine.
I don't think you are worthy of such effort of my part considering our previous exchanges.
But it's just not me. Again most might not take it that far because at the end of the day they don't really believe in their religion.

BUT if I can find one that means there are more.


The problem is that if "faith alone not works" is what gets you into heaven then something being a sin or not doesen't matter at all.
If faith alone is really true:
You can go be a drunk,
You can go beat your wife everyday when you come home from work,
You can murder someone and steal their wallet,
You can rape women and children,
You can sell drugs,
You can help communists or Nazis take over a nation and implement their policies,
You can be a Doctor who mutilates children who have been tricked by lgbt.
You can be an abortion doctor.
You can do all this and more and still go to heaven when you die and enjoy eternal bliss without having to repent or change your ways, as long as you believe in your heart of hearts that Jesus Christ is the son of God and he died for your sins.
For one, unlike you, i know that evangelicals do understand that ultimately it's up to God to judge their faith and repentance or lack of it, not some silly word gaming of written doctrine, and if you read some news you would hear that they do in fact recognize the importance of repentance, after all if they didn't, why would they do this if they thought it doesn't make any difference in the end?
No I haven't polled them. I look down on Protestants until they prove that they don't hold to such evil satanic doctrines.
I shall do the same for whatever doctrine you represent that go to the point of wanting to turn western countries into dysfunctional failed states.
A person should not be required to check the background and belief of every person they interact with. Do you think it's unfair for someone from an affluent background to be more guarded towards someone from a drug ridden ghetto? Unlike with race religion and political belief people can organize you can have leaders who represent a belief.

A Bishop can represent the Christians of an area while there is no equivalent for races so no guy who can say "Black people think this is wrong" So why the double standard where we can do this to racial minorities or immigrants, or whatever but not protestants?
Can he? On paper, bureaucratically he can. But as the saying goes paper will take anything. But i guess you are a big fan of substituting bureaucracy for reality...
We both (hopefully) know Catholic bishops span from woke urban German ones to serious conservatives in Africa and eastern Europe. Obviously they don't represent the same ideas despite sharing the organization and doctrine, technically.
But who cares? I don't, i prefer seeing things for what they are.
 
For one, unlike you, i know that evangelicals do understand that ultimately it's up to God to judge their faith and repentance or lack of it, not some silly word gaming of written doctrine, and if you read some news you would hear that they do in fact recognize the importance of repentance, after all if they didn't, why would they do this if they thought it doesn't make any difference in the end?
That's because they get angry at people doing sins. Under their logic of faith alone who cares why not support lgbt as long as you believe in Jesus it's ok.

I don't think you are worthy of such effort of my part considering our previous exchanges.
Then what is the point of you interacting here with me?
I shall do the same for whatever doctrine you represent that go to the point of wanting to turn western countries into dysfunctional failed states.
Go ahead. Though I'm not speaking on behalf of all Eastern Orthodox. Your comparasion is also disingenious. Since I'm just some guy on the internet. If a Bishop was saying it sure.

Can he? On paper, bureaucratically he can. But as the saying goes paper will take anything. But i guess you are a big fan of substituting bureaucracy for reality...
We both (hopefully) know Catholic bishops span from woke urban German ones to serious conservatives in Africa and eastern Europe. Obviously they don't represent the same ideas despite sharing the organization and doctrine, technically.
But who cares? I don't, i prefer seeing things for what they are.
Again all that happened in your vaunted secular states. You are the reason why we have wokeism and globohoma. It would be fine if you were smart enough to accept it was your fault, instead of denying responsibility.
 
That's because they get angry at people doing sins. Under their logic of faith alone who cares why not support lgbt as long as you believe in Jesus it's ok.
Idunno, God would be expected to care at least and that's whose opinion matters regarding who will go to hell?
Then what is the point of you interacting here with me?

Go ahead. Though I'm not speaking on behalf of all Eastern Orthodox. Your comparasion is also disingenious. Since I'm just some guy on the internet. If a Bishop was saying it sure.
If bishops truly represent a religion that has them, why aren't your views and bishop's views on religious matters the same?
Again all that happened in your vaunted secular states. You are the reason why we have wokeism and globohoma.
It "happened". The leftists aren't asking everyone else for permission. You want to *make* it happen intentionally. That puts you in the same position as said leftists who made it happen on their conviction that what they are doing is the best shit ever.
It would be fine if you were smart enough to accept it was your fault, instead of denying responsibility.
I will if you accept all religious wars even remotely related to your religion are your fault instead of denying responsibility :cool:
 
Idunno, God would be expected to care at least and that's whose opinion matters regarding who will go to hell?
God is not a liar. If he says faith is all you need to go to heaven, then you will go to heaven. No what these people say is that God can cause natural disasters or cause physical destruction of you and your people. But well that's rare how many evil men have escaped God's justice on the earth? The only hope is for the after life.

If bishops truly represent a religion that has them, why aren't your views and bishop's views on religious matters the same?
But they are the same. I agree with Eastern Orthodox Bishops. If a Bishop says something I would accept it. If I did not I would be rebelling against the Church.

It "happened". The leftists aren't asking everyone else for permission. You want to *make* it happen intentionally. That puts you in the same position as said leftists who made it happen on their conviction that what they are doing is the best shit ever.
What? Are you high? I WANT to make the Church's woke and let gay priests and gay marriages happen? Are you trolling?

I will if you accept all religious wars even remotely related to your religion are your fault instead of denying responsibility :cool:
I will accept this. You want me to accept personal responsibility for the crusades? The reconquista I am proud to do so, I am also happy for Tours. Stopped Muslim invasion into Europe.

You are welcome Marduk, I would like you to thank me for this.
 
God is not a liar. If he says faith is all you need to go to heaven, then you will go to heaven.
That it implies "feel free to sin as much as you want, as unrepentantly as you want, just have faith" is however just your fanfiction to excuse your shitting on evangelicals.
No what these people say is that God can cause natural disasters or cause physical destruction of you and your people. But well that's rare how many evil men have escaped God's justice on the earth? The only hope is for the after life.
As above. Have fun in your heroic fight against strawman evangelicals.
But they are the same. I agree with Eastern Orthodox Bishops. If a Bishop says something I would accept it. If I did not I would be rebelling against the Church.


What? Are you high? I WANT to make the Church's woke and let gay priests and gay marriages happen? Are you trolling?
I specifically linked to your post advocating failed state style confessionalist government without a single law of the land, you will not sneak out of that bullshit from me. Why don't you move to Lebanon or another confessionalist state to enjoy the "benefits" of such third world governance on your own skin instead of trying to inflict it on others?
I will accept this. You want me to accept personal responsibility for the crusades? The reconquista I am proud to do so, I am also happy for Tours. Stopped Muslim invasion into Europe.

You are welcome Marduk, I would like you to thank me for this.
Oh don't forget the thirty year war, and keep your credits closer to your church, so take responsibility for all the shit Russia does in the name of its KGB run branch of Orthodoxy, especially considering your attitude to it.
 
Wait no, I don't think you understand. No they don't all have joint jurisdiction over you. The only ones that have jurisidction over you would be the central government, and the religion YOU ARE A PART OF! If you don't want to be under Sharia law then just don't be Muslim. Don't like canon law then don't be Christian, don't like hallacha law then don't be a Jew. If you want a religion that is easy then Buddhism would have few rules. The other religions you are not a part of would have NO authority over you.
Frequently, if you offend a religion, that religions court does have some power over you. Like if a Christian draws Mohammed, etc.

If you are saying that's not the case, then I retract this statement.

As for your three issues the first all groups punish you for defection even secular nations like the US won't like you if you renounce citizenship. So why should the citizenship of the Kingdom of heaven be different? Though since this is a discussion about possible laws, there could be a compromise made where the central government WILL allow you to leave your faith if you aren't in the middle of being convicted for a crime in your community.
You can generally renounce US citizenship, and still even visit the US afterwards. There's a difference between renouncing citizenship and defecting (i.e. turning traitor) when it comes to citizenship.

But importantly, the usual Sharia punishment for leaving Islam is death, so this would create a ratcheting effect for Islam. This is also why mostly islamic countries institute these sort of rules, to impose sharia on more and more percent of the population.

.


Third what do you mean? Practically the laws could only be enforced within the borders of the nation, but even secular nations have laws based on citizenship that you are bound to follow no matter where you are in the world even if you are not in the country anymore.
In general, I disagree with those laws, with a few exceptions (going abroad to rape kids I think should be banned, but other than a few really serious crimes, I don't like international jurisdiction).

You are changing the goal posts. There is a difference between being woke and being corrupt. A big difference between making up new bullshit for the religion and just taking bribes or spending money that was supposed to go to charity for your own use.

Both are bad yes, but wokeism is actual heresy, sin where you do evil acts is bad but being a false teacher is much worse.
IMO, the Catholic Church eventually became about as bad as a modern woke church that still believes in resurrection of Jesus. Now, it stopped that bad now that most indulgences can't just be bought and the counterreformation helped too, but it was that bad. And I'm not even getting into the more crazy popes. It was just differently bad than wokism, but IMO it was teetering on heresy, if not actively heretical at the time.

But more importantly, the general principle applies: when you marry the church to worldly power, the church will corrupt itself as the world invades it desiring the power it has. Giving such power to the church won't bestow good governance for long, instead it will encourage people to corrupt the church. And since the Church is a fallible man made institution, it can crumble when under such assault.

The first part seems reasonable.

But I don't understand the second part of your paragraph. What does
"But religious law having jurisdiction over any religious manner over the entire jurisdiction, in addition to other law,"

mean? Like the way I envision it is that each community has it's own laws so for murder if a Christian kills a fellow Christian then the nations police would arrest him investigate the crime see who the victim is then they would send him to a Christian court, and the christian court would give whatever punishment canon law says is appropriate same for Muslims and Jews. For crimes that occur in their community it is a problem for the community to handle that is small government truly. The only time the central government should get involved besides arrests and investigations is if there is a crime from one community against another. So if a Christian attacks a Jew, or a Muslim a Christian. In that case it would be strictly a "federal" matter. You'd probably want strict punishments here to prevent racial/religious animous and riots/pogroms.
One issue here was the inability to exit while still practicing your religion. But more, I want places one can go to where one gets ruled by a specific set of laws, not membership in a group means you have to obey X laws. Connecting these to a physical space both lowers tensions from self segregation, and allows for more options.

Because in the US, there's tons of individual denominations of christians, all having slightly different beliefs on morality (e.g. when is divorce acceptable? Catholic is never unless the pope gives an annulment, Baptist is adultery when done by the innocent party, others allow for adultery/abandonment, yet others allow for adultery/abandonment/abuse, etc).

God is not a liar. If he says faith is all you need to go to heaven, then you will go to heaven. No what these people say is that God can cause natural disasters or cause physical destruction of you and your people. But well that's rare how many evil men have escaped God's justice on the earth? The only hope is for the after life.
The protestant argument about this is that Faith Alone saves, but works are what the faithful do, and if you keep doing bad works, then you probably don't have faith (though of course only God can know for certain).

This matters for cases like the Thief on the cross, where the Thief was clearly saved (Jesus told him in person that he was saved), but the thief's works clearly were bad up until asking for repentance.
 
Last edited:
That it implies "feel free to sin as much as you want, as unrepentantly as you want, just have faith" is however just your fanfiction to excuse your shitting on evangelicals.

As above. Have fun in your heroic fight against strawman evangelicals.
So your argument is basically "Nu uh" You haven't put forward the argument for faith alone salvation.

I specifically linked to your post advocating failed state style confessionalist government without a single law of the land, you will not sneak out of that bullshit from me. Why don't you move to Lebanon or another confessionalist state to enjoy the "benefits" of such third world governance on your own skin instead of trying to inflict it on others?
Lebanon's problems are not because of a confessional system. After all Belgium and Holland had a system like that until modern times. Where Catholics, Protestants, and Liberals, and Socialists had their own parallel societies set up. Until liberals and socialists teamed up to break it down.

Lebanon's problems are because they let in TOO many foreign Muslims come in as refugees AND Israel fucking with them. Both the Muslim groups and the Jews fucked over Lebanon.

Oh don't forget the thirty year war, and keep your credits closer to your church, so take responsibility for all the shit Russia does in the name of its KGB run branch of Orthodoxy, especially considering your attitude to it.
Muh KGB Orthodoxy. What a meme argument. It's false, the Soviets were anti religion and oppressed it. Russia also hasn't conqured all of the Eastern Orthodox or messed with the established national church's in an improper way.

Frequently, if you offend a religion, that religions court does have some power over you. Like if a Christian draws Mohammed, etc.

If you are saying that's not the case, then I retract this statement.
Yes in this system an outsider would not be forced to abide by blasphamy laws for other religions. SOME confessional states might make laws where no one can insult any of the accepted religions (think like Singapore) so that there isn't a religious riot/civil war. But that's not inherrent to confessional states. If a confessional state was strong and stable then you would not have to obey the religious laws of other nations. So you can say what you want about Muhammud.

You can generally renounce US citizenship, and still even visit the US afterwards. There's a difference between renouncing citizenship and defecting (i.e. turning traitor) when it comes to citizenship.

But importantly, the usual Sharia punishment for leaving Islam is death, so this would create a ratcheting effect for Islam. This is also why mostly islamic countries institute these sort of rules, to impose sharia on more and more percent of the population.
But there are consequences, the US won't take you back, if you renounce it there is no coming back you can't go and try to get naturalized to be a citizen again. So you are different from another foreigner, you also might be denied entry back into the country. Still way better than them killing you.

Also when I say all groups punish defection, I don't mean defect in the sense of betrayal for enemies. I mean all tribes look down on those who are going to abandon the tribe. Jews, Mormons, Amish, and JW's will shun people who leave their faith. All human groups have this it's a survival strategy to ensure the group is less likely to have people abandon them or relying on the group and basically being a parasite and then leaving them when it's more advantageous.

In general, I disagree with those laws, with a few exceptions (going abroad to rape kids I think should be banned, but other than a few really serious crimes, I don't like international jurisdiction).
Why? Isn't that a double standard, you aren't being consistent. You should always be consistent even dealing with evil people. If we base laws on land then we should only care about what happens in our land, if someone goes to a land where things are legal there but illegal here it's not our problem. Otherwise your logic is inconsistent.

We don't work like that though as even if you aren't in the US if you are a citizen you still owe the government protection money.

IMO, the Catholic Church eventually became about as bad as a modern woke church that still believes in resurrection of Jesus. Now, it stopped that bad now that most indulgences can't just be bought and the counterreformation helped too, but it was that bad. And I'm not even getting into the more crazy popes. It was just differently bad than wokism, but IMO it was teetering on heresy, if not actively heretical at the time.

But more importantly, the general principle applies: when you marry the church to worldly power, the church will corrupt itself as the world invades it desiring the power it has. Giving such power to the church won't bestow good governance for long, instead it will encourage people to corrupt the church. And since the Church is a fallible man made institution, it can crumble when under such assault.
I'm going to flatly disagree here. Because a corrupt preacher can still lead his flock if he is teaching the correct things. If your priest is cheating on his wife but tells the congregation adultery is a sin the priest might be hellbound but the congregation can still be safe and going to heaven.

But if a priest was faithful to his wife but preached free love and that there was nothing wrong with having other partners that are not your wife, that is a WAY bigger issue.

One issue here was the inability to exit while still practicing your religion. But more, I want places one can go to where one gets ruled by a specific set of laws, not membership in a group means you have to obey X laws. Connecting these to a physical space both lowers tensions from self segregation, and allows for more options.

Because in the US, there's tons of individual denominations of christians, all having slightly different beliefs on morality (e.g. when is divorce acceptable? Catholic is never unless the pope gives an annulment, Baptist is adultery when done by the innocent party, others allow for adultery/abandonment, yet others allow for adultery/abandonment/abuse, etc).
But you aren't practicing your religion(christianity) if you keep spliting off because you want to do things your own way because you have some minor disagreement or dislike the style of the preacher or whatever you are going against what the Bible says. This is why I disagree with you on non denominational church's being good.

1 Corinthians 1:10
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.

I can't see anyway to square this circle the thousands of sub denominations are a failure of us Christians to obey the will of God and do what was asked of us.

As for all the denominations didn't this conversation start with us saying that we would give historical groups rights? This is to prevent new cults from growing up. We went full circle lol.
The protestant argument about this is that Faith Alone saves, but works are what the faithful do, and if you keep doing bad works, then you probably don't have faith (though of course only God can know for certain).

This matters for cases like the Thief on the cross, where the Thief was clearly saved (Jesus told him in person that he was saved), but the thief's works clearly were bad up until asking for repentance.
But then it's not faith alone.

If you say "Faith alone is what saves us, but if you have TRUE FAITH you will have good works." Then you are in essence saying what the apostolic church's have said faith and works. Because everyone accepts deathbed confessions like the thief on the cross. We don't know if it's genuine repentance only God does.

Note what you said is the majority opinion for high church protestants reformed and Lutheran. But there are low church protestants especially a sub group called the "free grace" doctrine who do disagree with that bit where those with true faith will have good works.
 
the non-denominational churches
OK, something to clarify here. Non-denominational Churches don't actually LACK denominations, not in the sense that matters to be a religion. There's two major meaning of denomination: the first is strictly organizational, that is, Church government and hierarchy. American non-denominational Churches lack that form of denomination yes, but the second meaning, that of "a group of Churches with shared theology and scriptural interpretations" non-denominational actually tend to fall very cleanly into.

First, many are just forms of Baptist, most closely aligned to the Southern Baptist convention though they have not fully associated with them.

The second major denomination they fall into is Pentecostal.

These two alignment account for the vast majority of non-denominational Churches in the US, there's a few outliers that aren't one of these two traditions but they frequently are just independent Churches that still fit cleanly into other traditional Christian theological denominations without any problems.

How can you tell where they actually fit? You basically just read about the Church's core beliefs. 90% of the time when you do you can immediately recognize where they actually fit into things, but it does require a certain level of understanding Christian theology.

As an aside: "evangelical" is actually meaningless when it comes to Christian denominations. All these non-denominational Churches are frequently thrown together as "evangelicals" but often have rather dramatic theological differences between them. "Evangelical" is just a term that got labeled onto them because the rise of these independent churches corresponded with a rise in public evangelism in the 1960s to 1990s via people like Billy Graham and so they kinda got lumped together even though they often are unrelated theologically aside from being Protestant.
 
IMO, the Catholic Church eventually became about as bad as a modern woke church that still believes in resurrection of Jesus. Now, it stopped that bad now that most indulgences can't just be bought and the counterreformation helped too, but it was that bad. And I'm not even getting into the more crazy popes. It was just differently bad than wokism, but IMO it was teetering on heresy, if not actively heretical at the time.
I won't even say that it was comparable to woke. It was exactly woke - which is to save that it wants to sanctify a technologically enabled deviation from the true and inalterable definition of righteousness (which is liberalism) - for innumerable practices, but most especially monarchism, which had been condemned by Samuel in no uncertain terms, and the Bible wastes no word of condemnation for the insects it enabled. Any Abrahamic religion enabling monarchic rule, especially at this point in history, is woke.
 
I won't even say that it was comparable to woke. It was exactly woke - which is to save that it wants to sanctify a technologically enabled deviation from the true and inalterable definition of righteousness (which is liberalism) - for innumerable practices, but most especially monarchism, which had been condemned by Samuel in no uncertain terms, and the Bible wastes no word of condemnation for the insects it enabled. Any Abrahamic religion enabling monarchic rule, especially at this point in history, is woke.
So Islam is woke?
 
OK, something to clarify here. Non-denominational Churches don't actually LACK denominations, not in the sense that matters to be a religion.
Your point is completely correct, but not actually relevant in so far as the point I'm making. Here, I care far more about church governance than what the denomination's theology is. Because if you have a ton of different church jurisdictions, who gets to judge between a non-denominational Baptist vs an SBC? If it's a civil court, the idea of religious judges dies because it becomes very rare. Otherwise, it's attacking the faith of one side or the other, and choosing a winner.

Basically, I'm saying the proposed solution isn't workable in the US, regardless of merits, because of how many Non-denominational Churches there are, and also how many denominations there are.

Why? Isn't that a double standard, you aren't being consistent. You should always be consistent even dealing with evil people. If we base laws on land then we should only care about what happens in our land, if someone goes to a land where things are legal there but illegal here it's not our problem. Otherwise your logic is inconsistent.

We don't work like that though as even if you aren't in the US if you are a citizen you still owe the government protection money.
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 going to flatly disagree here. Because a corrupt preacher can still lead his flock if he is teaching the correct things. If your priest is cheating on his wife but tells the congregation adultery is a sin the priest might be hellbound but the congregation can still be safe and going to heaven.

But if a priest was faithful to his wife but preached free love and that there was nothing wrong with having other partners that are not your wife, that is a WAY bigger issue.
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.

But you aren't practicing your religion(christianity) if you keep spliting off because you want to do things your own way because you have some minor disagreement or dislike the style of the preacher or whatever you are going against what the Bible says. This is why I disagree with you on non denominational church's being good.

1 Corinthians 1:10
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.

I can't see anyway to square this circle the thousands of sub denominations are a failure of us Christians to obey the will of God and do what was asked of us.
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 then it's not faith alone.

If you say "Faith alone is what saves us, but if you have TRUE FAITH you will have good works." Then you are in essence saying what the apostolic church's have said faith and works. Because everyone accepts deathbed confessions like the thief on the cross. We don't know if it's genuine repentance only God does.

Note what you said is the majority opinion for high church protestants reformed and Lutheran. But there are low church protestants especially a sub group called the "free grace" doctrine who do disagree with that bit where those with true faith will have good works.
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.
 
Last edited:
No I haven't polled them. I look down on Protestants until they prove that they don't hold to such evil satanic doctrines. A person should not be required to check the background and belief of every person they interact with. Do you think it's unfair for someone from an affluent background to be more guarded towards someone from a drug ridden ghetto? Unlike with race religion and political belief people can organize you can have leaders who represent a belief.

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.
 
The problem is that if "faith alone not works" is what gets you into heaven then something being a sin or not doesen't matter at all.
If faith alone is really true:
You can go be a drunk,
You can go beat your wife everyday when you come home from work,
You can murder someone and steal their wallet,
You can rape women and children,
You can sell drugs,
You can help communists or Nazis take over a nation and implement their policies,
You can be a Doctor who mutilates children who have been tricked by lgbt.
You can be an abortion doctor.
You can do all this and more and still go to heaven when you die and enjoy eternal bliss without having to repent or change your ways, as long as you believe in your heart of hearts that Jesus Christ is the son of God and he died for your sins.
. . .

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:
Romans 6 said:
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.

Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

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:
Luke 15:11-32 said:
Jesus continued: "There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them.

"Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

"When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.' So he got up and went to his father.

"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

"The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'

"But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate.

"Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 'Your brother has come,' he replied, 'and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'

"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'

"'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.'"
(Bolded important point for emphasis.)
 
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.
 
From what I understand Protestants have more protection against corruption in the sense of, there is no institution to corrupt compared to the Orthodox and Catholics.
Seeing as how both have a central authority
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top