The Protestant church is the result of an attack on family values.

Originally posted by Zarn
Seriously, I will respect your decision but I would like to know why you continue being Protestant, despite the changes back then. I guess you guys really don't like popes or something. Please tell your current 'thesis' against the church. I won't flame you or put you to the stake for doing so. I'm just curious. PM me if you don't want to say it in the thread.

It would probably have something to do with the beliefs of most protestants being quite a bit different than catholics.

As said above, the whole thing with priests interpreting for you.. and the Pope.
Confessional (sp?)
all the stuff with Mary
And conflicting with me personally, is the catholic belief that you can be saved through works.
Just to name a few.

I'm Methodist, btw.
 
Thanks for the feedback guys. I thought it was bascially what you guys were saying. I guess I was right. I'm glad the responses were civilized, too.

Another question: Do some Protestants believe that the trinity is three different beings and wouldn't worship Jesus and the Holy Spirit like a Catholic would? IIRC, Eastern Orthodox believes the trinity is one like the Catholics think. I thought some Protestants might be with the Catholics on this one, (Angelicans maybe) too.

I am not sure what other Christian religions believe here. I'm sorry, but I am just being a little curious right now. I'm just trying to understand the world around me a bit more and have been curious about this for a while. It also gives this thread a more positive feel to it or something.
 
The Trinity has always been a hazy concept for all types of Christians. It goes counter to all logic to think that 1+1+1=1. As for me, I'm really not sure what I think about it. I definitely believe in God the Father, and I also believe that Jesus was the son of God, but their wacky flying sidekick, The Holy Spirit, is a bit unclear.
 
wacky flying sidekick :lol:

I remember when I was a devout catholic, I even became involved in theological debates here. How the times have changed....
 
Originally posted by Speedo
And conflicting with me personally, is the catholic belief that you can be saved through works.

One of the biggest issues I had with the church I was raised in (Southern Baptist) was that works (and actions) meant little to determining salvation. An evil Baptist would be granted salvation over a good Muslim or even a good person who lived in an isolated jungle tribe and never heard of Jesus. It was all about belief in the right saviour. The only sin that seemed to be prominently highlighted as one where faith did not necessarily save you was homosexuality.
 
i don't believe a lot of things the catholics do. like praying to mary sure she was jesus mother but she is not self righteous and even she had to believe in jesus(wouldn't that be freaky having to worship your kid) I also believe homosexuals can get into heaven(even if many christians do not) I haven't really studied the bible, but i don't see where it says to get into heaven you have to believe in god, jesus, and you can't be gay(if you wish to argue your point specifically find a verse that says this)

I also have a hard time with how there can be atheists. to me that says that there is no god so therefore since humans rule the earth we are the suppreme being. well i refuse to believe that the snot nosed acne covered kid that works at mcdonalds and ask would you like fries with that is a damn supprem being
 
Alot of Catholics belive that one that doesn't have that Christian or Jewish influence to go to Heaven. I posted something about it earlier. Leaving the Catholic faith or Christianity as a whole is pretty unacceptable to me. I have no problem with people born non- Jewish, non- Christian. I think they can still make it to Heaven.
 
Originally posted by JollyRoger
One of the biggest issues I had with the church I was raised in (Southern Baptist) was that works (and actions) meant little to determining salvation. An evil Baptist would be granted salvation over a good Muslim or even a good person who lived in an isolated jungle tribe and never heard of Jesus. It was all about belief in the right saviour. The only sin that seemed to be prominently highlighted as one where faith did not necessarily save you was homosexuality.

Ah yes, good 'ol burn-in-hell southern baptists ;)

But anyway, thats where things get a little confusing... If you've truly repented and accepted Christ, then you shouldn't still be the "evil baptist" as you said. If you are, then IMO you aren't really saved, and sadly, I think a lot of people who call themselves Christians fall into that category. And personally, I believe that God is smart enough (being that He created the universe and all) to know how much a person has heard about christianity. People who haven't heard enough here on earth to be able to accept Christ will be told, and get that chance.
 
I have hard time to understand why in 2003, poeple still practice 2000 year old religious ritual.

Religious is mystisism and mysticism allow you to beleive anything you want, like immaculated conception ( i didnt know conception was dirty), like some vaporous spirit talking to poeple and so on, those 2000 year old folks didnt know anything about fossile,astronomy,biology so they invented something to fill in their own ignorance.

In my country ( Québec hehehe) since 1960 not very much poeple practice religious, church are empty and no more young priest, why ???

1.- a lot of Catholic priest have commit sexual abuse on child

2.- a lot of nones have abuse lonesome children, making them work very hard without any thing in return, they use children as slave and collect money.

3.- They try to culpabilise poeple with sexuality, saying sex is a sin and blabla bla while they themself abuse child.

4.- They ally with europeen invader to convert the first nation, saying their god is salvation and yours is heresy.

5.- They have absolutly nothing to teach in those modern day.

6.- they have ton of cash while they are suppose to be poor and help the poor.

7.- they still beleive in creation while fossile lay on the ground and we know several human species have exist in the past.

8.- what else, i forgot a lots of other non sens about them.
 
Tassadar - some of your points are way messed up. Christian charities give TONS of money and other services to poor people. And to say christianity has nothing to teach today is ridiculous. Whether you believe Christ was the son of God or not, his message is something we would all benefit by adhering to. Read the New Testament. It's not about "kill all muslims and gay people", if that's what you think.

Anyway, I'm not religious, but to dismiss the value of it all as a bunch of nonsense is base ignorance.
 
Originally posted by Shadylookin
i don't believe a lot of things the catholics do. like praying to mary sure she was jesus mother but she is not self righteous and even she had to believe in jesus(wouldn't that be freaky having to worship your kid) I also believe homosexuals can get into heaven(even if many christians do not) I haven't really studied the bible, but i don't see where it says to get into heaven you have to believe in god, jesus, and you can't be gay(if you wish to argue your point specifically find a verse that says this)

Yes, but to repent also means to turn away from. And if they still search for pirate gold..........................
 
Originally posted by Speedo

But anyway, thats where things get a little confusing... If you've truly repented and accepted Christ, then you shouldn't still be the "evil baptist" as you said. If you are, then IMO you aren't really saved, and sadly, I think a lot of people who call themselves Christians fall into that category. And personally, I believe that God is smart enough (being that He created the universe and all) to know how much a person has heard about christianity. People who haven't heard enough here on earth to be able to accept Christ will be told, and get that chance.

Amen to that.
:worship: :) :worship: :jesus:
 
Originally posted by Greadius
[BEpiscopalians must be doing something right. On average, they're the wealthiest religious group in America :yeah: [/B]
Even wealthier than Scientologists! :eek:

I'm with Speedo on most of this stuff.

The only sin that seemed to be prominently highlighted as one where faith did not necessarily save you was homosexuality.
Not true to my knowledge. They can still be saved. Paul distinguishes sexual sin as greater in the New Testament because it is a sin against yourself such that it can harm your relationship with God (not by him being unforgiving).
 
The Anglican Church is generally regarded to be more in line with the Catholic Church than with the Protestant Movement. It largely retains the Catholic structure, beliefs, and rituals. Consider it to be, for lack of better words, "England's Catholic Church." The Protestant Movement was an extension of Martin Luther's bold posting of the 95 Theses in 1517 in Wittenberg, which was the beginning of the Reformation. The proponents of the Protestant Movement truly wanted to reform the errors and injustices that they felt that had crept into the Catholic Church over the centuries. Some churches in this category are Lutheran, Baptist, and Methodist. Some felt that the Reformation didn't quite go far enough in its correction of errors ; therefore, in the 1800s, they began a movement which theologians generally regard as the Restoration Movement. These groups intensely focused on the Bible to see how things operated in the early New Testament churches, and sought to pattern themselves after those churches. These churches, including the Christian Church, and the Churches of Christ, are generally not "high-church," but "low-church," in which more importance is given to every member, every person has a part. This is in line with the Apostles teaching that every believer is a priest, only having to go through Jesus Christ, the high priest, in order to talk the Father (God). This is in stark contrast to the Catholic and Jewish (and others) practice of a believer's having to go through a priest to talk to God and to be forgiven of sin.

Sorry, I suppose I got carried away in attempting to give you a very basic overview of the Catholic-Christian Churches since 1517. In a nutshell, the Reformation and Restoration Movements
sought to restore the importance to every member which he/she originally had in the days of the early church before governmental beauracracy drastically changed the church structure and largely stripped the "layperson" of their individual freedoms in Christ, such as ministering to others and praying directly to God for forgiveness. By the way, based on what you believed to be the history of the Anglican church, your logic was sound. :goodjob: It was the facts upon which that logic was based that was misguided. ;)
 
Some historical points:

(1) Catherine of Aragon married King Henry VII's oldest son Arthur to create an alliance between England and Spain.

(2) Arthur died. Now the standard church ruling was that
it was not permitted to marry your sister-in-law. However
a special dispensation was obtained (the papacy bribed)
and so King Henry VII's other son Henry married Catherine.

(3) King Henry VII died and Henry VIII was crowned.

(4) The new King Henry made a denunciation of protestants
which so impressed the Pope, that the Pope awarded
King Henry VVIII the title 'defender of the faith'.

(5) However Catherine never produced a male heir,
and had numerous children who died young, in child
birth or miscarried. Only one Mary survived.

(6) Henry concluded that he had sinned by marrying
his sister in law and that God was punishing him
and Catherine.

(7) Henry asked the pope for an annulment.

(8) The pope took the fee and asked for more.
A large gift was paid, but the pope then refused
to grant an annulment. This was solely because
the Spanish felt snubbed and there was a Spanish
army near him in Italy.

(9) Henry VIII was furious that the pope had taken
the money and then refused to deliver. Henry regarded
that having a male heir was a key duty for a king;
because not having a heir might mean a civil war
as had previously occurred in the War of the Roses.
Henry took the view that the papacy had been
dishonest and was interfering in secular matters
and seeking to prevent Henry from doing his duty.
Henry's nobles and the people full supported him.

(10) However the clergy recognised the Pope as
their leader.

(11) Henry therefore declared political independence
fromn the Papacy, pronouncing himself head of the
church, and using the papacy allocated title
'Defender of the Faith'.

(12) Henry then divorced Catherine and remarried.

(13) The english monasteries objected so Henry had
them dissolved.

(14) Henry had no religious dispute with catholic
doctrine. His dispute was simply that the papacy
had no business in interfering with his marriages.

(15) England started to become protestant during
the reign of the King Henry's child son Edward.

(16) After Edward died, Mary succeeded, declared
England catholic and married the King of Spain.
Widespread burning of protestant clergy started.

(17) After Mary died, Elizabeth succeeded and restored
the protestant religion as the official state religion.
 
I come from a country that is 95% Catholic, and the vast mojority of people that I know come from broken families or families that at least don't live up to the 'family values' status.

Religious 'family values' is a crock of sh*t, it never existed and it never will, Its an illusion.
People are people with all thier faults, and if things are'nt going right, no God is going to fix it.

The Protestant religion makes more sense to me, if I was religious I would be protestant. Most catholics are more Protestant than Catholic in practice anyway, without even thinking about it.
 
Neomega,

Others have already tackled your charges about the Anglican Church, but Protestantism was born of several movements, not just a horny and power-hungry English king or a jaded Frankfurt priest. A century before Martin Luther, there were writers and movements all across Europe all agitating against Church corruption. John Wycliff in England, Jan Hus in Bohemia, etc.

When the Protestant movement was born with Luther, others also took up the cause though for very different reasons - look at Calvin and Zwingli. There was a myriad of reasons behind the Protestant Reformation.

Ultimately all of Europe benefitted from Protestantism - well, all those who weren't killed in the various Catholic-Protestant wars - because it set in motion a cycle of reform that everyone has benefitted from, Catholicism as well. Both Catholics and Protestants have produced their extremists and kooks, but in the end after they learned to stop killing one another Europe became a better place to live. They borrowed from one another far moreso than they are comfortable admitting. Best not to be pointing an accusatory finger.

The Anglican Church is generally regarded to be more in line with the Catholic Church than with the Protestant Movement.

As indeed the American framers of its Constitution thought so, especially the Virginians (all of them raised as Anglicans). Hence the "separation of church and state" clause...
 
Originally posted by gael
I come from a country that is 95% Catholic, and the vast mojority of people that I know come from broken families or families that at least don't live up to the 'family values' status.


Not really fair to blaim the church, however. I think that people will act in that department anyway they would please, religion being a non-issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom