Why Protestant and Jewish Families Rule the Earth

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
He is, in fact CivNation. Ming was deciding to give him a second chance.

I thought this was at least the 3rd.

[Odin]

I find it funny that CivNation is blasting Catholics and Orthodoxers when it was those people who decided what was going to be in the NT. Hey CivNation, your precious word of God was codified by people you think are going to Hell.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Philosophiser
Already answered... look above.

The reply to Elok???

You should be focusing less on my preaching style and more on the salvation of your soul

If the salvation of souls is impacted by your preaching style you cannot ignore your preaching style if you follow the GoldenRule. Even if the salvation of souls isn't impacted by your preaching style you cannot ignore the GoldenRule when it comes to social skills, manners and tact.

He is, in fact CivNation.

I was right earlier then! God gave me a vision that Philo was a DL!!!1! I'm sooo much more holy than Philo.

[Barnabas]

civnation, do you think christians were wrong for 1500 years til the reformation?

Why did God let christians be wrong for a millenium and a half?

[Dinner]

Better question is why did he allow 25,000-50,000 years worth of people to be consigned to hell for not knowing this bit of religious tripe since he didn't feel like revealing the one true way until the first century?

Religion is garbage as exposed by such facts. Any god which would do such things is evil.

[Barnabas]

catholics have a loophole

the perfect ignorance theory

an amerindian who lived in pre columbian america would not be doomed for not being christian because he was perfectly ignorant of christianity/jesus, for example

I am translating from spanish, maybe it has a different name in english

[Ming]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I thought this was at least the 3rd.

Far more than that... And they usually all ended in the same fashion as this one looks like it will

[Sava]

but this is so entertaining

[Odin]

Originally posted by Sava
but this is so entertaining

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Better question is why did he allow 25,000-50,000 years worth of people to be consigned to hell for not knowing this bit of religious tripe since he didn't feel like revealing the one true way until the first century?

Religion is garbage as exposed by such facts. Any god which would do such things is evil.

actually I like the Jewish approach to that. Judaism says that gentiles are NOT obliged to be Jewish or follow Torah - they are only supposed to follow some basic ethical laws, the commandments given to Noah. Now how they are supposed to do that, since they dont study the Jewish Torah, and Noah doesnt seem to have passed them down?

Answer, according to the rabbis - the noachide laws can be derived using HUMAN REASON - gentiles are therefore, only obliged to make their ethics based on human reason, and if they do so, they are ok.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yet you make no point to address the citation I made in my earlier post.

I agree with you that salvation cannot be solely achieved through works, and that you need faith. However, I would hope that as a student of the gospels that you are also aware when Paul says that faith without works is dead.

Secondly, I dispute that the Catholic church teaches that salvation is obtained solely through works, it is obtained solely by grace through faith. If you read a catechism, you will see that there is in fact no divide between what the Catholic church teaches, and scripture.

Finally, what Gospel does the Catholic church preach that is so different from the Calvinists? We preach the same that Christ died for our sins, and it is only through Christ that anyone can be saved.



Oh, I am worse then either. I am a convert to Catholicism.

Why is the Latin mass false, while the vernacular mass true? Calvin and Luther took their beloved bibles in translation from the Vulgate, so if the Vulgate is wrong, Calvin and Luther can hardly be right. Secondly, I agree with you that there are numerous folks, even priests who deny the essential teachings of scripture, that do not see the resurrection as a historical event. However, there are a great deal of faithful Catholics who do adhere to this teaching and cannot be condemned with the same brush.

Christ will judge those to be true or false, many of those who are outside will be inside, and inside outside.

Yes I used to be a Catholic convert as well. Infact I was the Traditionalist Roman Catholic kind, who accepted the Latin Mass and rejected Vatican II.

It was not Paul who said faith without works is dead, that is James. And I fully agree with that statement. That is repeated also by the Apostle John, and also by Paul Himself where he states that now that we have been justified by faith, we must live lives worthy to that which we have been called. He also declares in Ephesians 2 that "faith worketh by love".

Catholics differ from the Protestant teaching in one important point. They teach that even though a Catholic might believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for your sins- that still is not good enough if you haven't obeyed God's law within certain prescribed limits (namely the limit of mortal sin). This is where the false doctrine is. Both Catholics and Protestants agree that good works increase justification and are the inevitable result of a truely justifying faith, but only Catholics state that a faithful person can still be damned if he hasn't obeyed the law well enough.

The scripture also declares that there is only One Mediator between God and man- Jesus Christ. Yet, Catholic teaching declares that there are many mediators between God and men- namely Mary and the saints.

I'm not blasting the Latin Mass per se, or the Vulgate. Language is not the issue. The problem with the Catholic mass is that it teaches that it is a sacrifice. The scripture, on the other hand, teaches that it is a meal between the believers. The Catholic mass teaches that the Mass is a sacrifice that remits the wrath of God, and is an offering to God made by a priestly minister. Yet, the book of Hebrews declares in the scripture that the Old Covenant was imperfect precisely because the priests had to come up and make daily offerings to remove God's wrath.

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. 17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. 20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: 21 (For those priests were made without F20 an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec 22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. 28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. (Hebrews 7)

So we see that Christ's one time offering is enough to satisfy God's justice. There is no need for a Catholic priest or any other priest to approach the altar daily to offer up sacrifices for the sins of Christians.

Also, your Chruch advocates stone worship, and image worship- especially in the more traditional countries where people venerate saints and bow down to their graven images.

I was a Catholic, I know all about Catholic theology. I know all about the Feeneyite controversy, the SSPX controversy, the traditionalist controversy, and the ecumenical councils especially the great high ones of the middle ages like Floreance and the Laterans. So trust me, I've seen it from your side.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
civnation, do you think christians were wrong for 1500 years til the reformation?

Why did God let christians be wrong for a millenium and a half?

Branchy,

Paul prophecied that a Great Apostasy would come when the "man of sin" was revealed. This is stated in Thessalonians. He was referring to the pope and the great apostasy of Roman Catholicism, and the idolatries that it would promote. The Roman Catholic Church is also the Harlot of revelation. The Old Testament symbolized this as Israel in Babylonian captivity, except when it happened to Christians it was a spiritual captivity.

Whenever the scripture mentions a whore, it symbolizes Israel, or the people of God, going after false gods and cheating on the "true God". Namely, selling your soul to false gods. So when Revelation mentions a whore it is referring to a false Church. The whore of Revelation 17-18 refers to the Roman Catholic CHurch, which sits in Rome, the "city of seven hills". Notice that is exactly what Revelation says- the whore will sit on the city surrounded by seven hills. All of the ancients knew that to be Rome, such as Pliny the Elder and Younger. The Old Testament prophets called Israel a whore whenever she forsook God. Therefore, we should expect God to call a false Church the same thing in the New Testament.

There were Christians within and among Roman Catholics, but they were few in number, and the word of God was not well known. Ignorance and darkness abounded everywhere.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
catholics have a loophole

the perfect ignorance theory

an amerindian who lived in pre columbian america would not be doomed for not being christian because he was perfectly ignorant of christianity/jesus, for example

I am translating from spanish, maybe it has a different name in english

Actually Catholics are very divided on that. For example if you look at the Catholic Theologian Tillemont he denies any kind of invincible ignorance, as does Bellarmine. Aquinas accepts it, but then states that the invincibly ignorant will eventually get explicit faith by miraculous revelation if they have "cooperated with God" enough in their unbelief, there is no room there for implicit faith. In fact, implicit faith and the necessity of baptism for salvation are highly debated, and a whole camp based around the late Fr. Feeney was formed which defended a very strict and more Augustinian/traditional view of salvation outside of the visible roman catholic church. For a survey of the history go to the website of a friend of mine- www.romancatholicism.org.

And then by the time of Pope Pius IX, and even before (Alphonsus Ligouri refers to it briefly in his treatises), there were theologians who held that you could be saved via your own religious belief as long as you were not guilty for not finding out about Catholicism.

All of this is total rubbish though in light of the word of God, which teaches that salvation is entirely a gift of God, and that man is incapable of believing whether he hears the gospel or not, unless God miraculously opens his eyes and his heart to the truth.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Sava
but this is so entertaining

??? It was entertaining, when he was doing lame apologetics; the bit about emergent properties in particular was just beautiful. Now it's just tedious bible-thumping and brimstone chucking, which I've seen done much better. I know your perspective is different, being agnostic/atheist, but this is just a bunch of Chick tracts without the illustrations.

His ignorance about Orthodoxy is just lame, too.

EDIT: corrected a word.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The Bible is awesome.

When you're out of toilet paper, accept no substitutes