WHY I COULD NEVER CHOOSE TO BE A PROTESTANT. (one stupid thread title is as good as another)

[Marymog]

I don't have a clue what you'r talking about. But that might be not so bad and could be a good thing.

Hi T1300,

I agree with five out of the 22 words you just wrote. See, we can find common ground when you state facts.

Mary

 

[Triumph1300]

As I said, I don't have a clue what you'r talking about.


And your response does not change that.
Luckily that's just fine.

 

[Stranger]

I disagree with a lot of non-Catholics here - but SOME of them ask intelligent questions and post well-though-out answers.
YOUR posts have NONE of that.

I don't know whose posts are more immature and stupid - YOUR or mjrhealth's. Actually, you could throw GerhardEbersoehn's in there as well . . .
HOW old are you?

Sure. 'Intelligent questions' and well thought out answers' translated means....those you can easily debunk. You're right. My posts have none of that.

Please, your personal insults simply reveal your loss in the argument. Don't take it personal. After all, you are just a 'yes' man for the Roman Church.

Old enough it would appear.

Stranger

 

[Phoneman777]

People who buy into your hate speech are generally uneducated funnymentalist morons. Did you complete gr. 5?

I don't answer cluster bomb/shot gun tactics. It's evidence you don't want to discuss one thing at a time, you are only interested in stupid Catholic bashing. Nothing is harder to open than a closed mind.

Maybe one day you will grow up and put away your comic book theology.

No, no, the "hate speech" that you accuse me of is actually what comes out of the Vatican. The RCC put countless individuals to death over the period of the Dark Ages, y'know that period when the RCC sought to conceal the truth as it is found in Scripture and supplant it with satanic doctrines like obligatory confession of one's sins to another sinful man to obtain forgiveness for them, murdering innocent children as punishment for parents who refused to recant their God honored beliefs, St. Bartholomew's Massacre where the RCC pretended to be accepting of Protestant believers, while all the while plotting the mass murder of them on that dreadful night of terror - a night that so pleased the Pope that he had a commemorative coin struck in honor of it. The level of hate that has emanated from the RCC is second only to the demonic ranks of the kingdom of hell.

 

[Phoneman777]

That's right. The Apostles had the audacity to shift the primary day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, because Jesus had the audacity to rise from the dead on Sunday. THE NERVE OF HIM!!!

And THIS is the crux of the issue right there! Holy angels in heaven veil their faces before the glory of God, but the RCC thinks that pathetic, sinful, child-raping control freaks think they have the power to change what God wrote with His own finger in stone!

 

[Phoneman777]

No evidence.

Again, no evidence.


This is typical 7th Day Adventist hate propaganda. No context for each of his phony man charges as a coward wouldn't give any.
I'll discuss any ONE item of your rant. But like I said, you are too much of a coward to face up to your lies. You are not representative of most of Protestantism, as most Protestants have outgrown the pope/anti-Christ stupidity that started 500 years ago, and not before.
One more thing, phony man. The thread title is why I could never be a Protestant. It's not a soapbox for your anti-Catholic psychosis.

No evidence? So, where does the Bible command us to confess our sins to a sinful priest?
Propaganda? You're confusing that with answerable argument, I think.

 

[Phoneman777]

You are so blinded by hate and lies how can you even see the screen these words are written on?

I have no reason to engage with a man who's heart who has been so hardened that it has turned to stone. However, I am not mad at you. It was the men before you who spewed these lies. You soaked up their lies like a sponge. Instead of doing your own research, you rely on theirs. I encourage you to do your own research.

Mary

LOL, I just love the way you delusionalists scream "lies" without backing up the claim and throw that "h" word around. News flash: NO ONE CARES.

The inability to separate emotions from critical thinking on your part does not constitute a hateful attitude on my part.

Read Leviticus 19:17, and you'll discover that your failure to warn others of their perilous Catholic path demonstrates your hatred for them, and my desire to expose the Antichrist power in Rome, as did Luther, Calvin, Tydale, Jerome, Zwingly, Coverdale, Melancthon, Huss, Wycliffe, Foxe, and too many other names to list, reveals genuine love for those Jesus died for and seeks to lead out of the Whore of Babylon and into His glorious Christ-centered church.

 

[amadeus]

Thank you. Maybe I can make my question a little more clear by being more blunt. Your answer is very what I would call "hippy" like and it may tickle the ears of some but your not tickling this old gal.

I am doctor who goes to a Christian church and I consider myself a Christian because I follow scripture and all the commandments. I have been performing abortions, on demand, no questions asked, for the last 20 years. That is what I am really doing and my intention is to abort the fetus and my heart feels no empathy for that fetus or the mother. I insist I am not taking/ending a life and violating Gods commandment. Would you insist that a am wrong?

That's a hypothetical situation. God's answers are definite to His sheep in real situations according to need... and He decides on the need. For this reason we who are His sheep must always be paying attention to His voice:

"To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice." John 10:3-4

Just to clarify: You would never insist that anyone is going to hell????? Would an unrepentant person go to hell if they violate Gods commandments? What to do with Matthew 12:31-32???? Hmmm....
​

​

Who am I to insist? It is not in my job description. Then again what and where is hell? The unpardonable sin is just that, but who is able to identify it other than God and the person who has committed it? ​

 

[epostle1]

115. Sola Scriptura literally couldn't have been true, practically speaking, for most Christians throughout history, since the movable-type printing press only appeared in the mid-15th century. Preaching and oral Tradition, along with things like devotional practices, Christian holidays, church architecture and other sacred art, were the primary carriers of the gospel for 1400 years. For all these centuries, sola Scriptura would have been regarded as an absurd abstraction and impossibility.

116. Protestantism claims that the Catholic Church has "added to the Bible." The Catholic Church replies that it has merely drawn out the implications of the Bible (development of doctrine), and followed the understanding of the early Church, and that Protestants have "subtracted" from the Bible by ignoring large portions of it which suggest Catholic positions. Each side thinks the other is "unbiblical," but in different ways.

117. Sola Scriptura is Protestantism's "Achilles' Heel." Merely invoking sola Scriptura is no solution to the problem of authority and certainty as long as multiple interpretations exist. If the Bible were so clear that all Protestants agreed simply by reading it with a willingness to accept and follow its teaching, this would be one thing, but since this isn't the case by a long shot (the multiplicity of denominations), sola Scriptura is a pipe-dream at best.
About all that all Protestants agree on is that Catholicism is wrong! Of all Protestant ideas, the "clarity" or perspicuity of the Bible is surely one of the most absurd and the most demonstrably false by the historical record.

118. Put another way, having a Bible does not render one's private judgment infallible. Interpretation is just as inevitable as tradition. The Catholic Church therefore, is absolutely necessary in order to speak authoritatively and to prevent confusion, error, and division.

119. Catholicism doesn't regard the Bible as obscure, mysterious, and inaccessible, but it is vigilant to protect it from all arbitrary and aberrant exegesis (2 Pet 1:20, 3:16). The best Protestant traditions seek to do the same, but are inadequate and ineffectual since they are divided.

115. Sola Scriptura literally couldn't have been true, practically speaking, for most Christians throughout history, since the movable-type printing press only appeared in the mid-15th century. Preaching and oral Tradition, along with things like devotional practices, Christian holidays, church architecture and other sacred art, were the primary carriers of the gospel for 1400 years. For all these centuries, sola Scriptura would have been regarded as an absurd abstraction and impossibility.

116. Protestantism claims that the Catholic Church has "added to the Bible." The Catholic Church replies that it has merely drawn out the implications of the Bible (development of doctrine), and followed the understanding of the early Church, and that Protestants have "subtracted" from the Bible by ignoring large portions of it which suggest Catholic positions. Each side thinks the other is "unbiblical," but in different ways.

117. Sola Scriptura is Protestantism's "Achilles' Heel." Merely invoking sola Scriptura is no solution to the problem of authority and certainty as long as multiple interpretations exist. If the Bible were so clear that all Protestants agreed simply by reading it with a willingness to accept and follow its teaching, this would be one thing, but since this isn't the case by a long shot (the multiplicity of denominations), sola Scriptura is a pipe-dream at best.
About all that all Protestants agree on is that Catholicism is wrong! Of all Protestant ideas, the "clarity" or perspicuity of the Bible is surely one of the most absurd and the most demonstrably false by the historical record.

118. Put another way, having a Bible does not render one's private judgment infallible. Interpretation is just as inevitable as tradition. The Catholic Church therefore, is absolutely necessary in order to speak authoritatively and to prevent confusion, error, and division.

119. Catholicism doesn't regard the Bible as obscure, mysterious, and inaccessible, but it is vigilant to protect it from all arbitrary and aberrant exegesis (2 Pet 1:20, 3:16). The best Protestant traditions seek to do the same, but are inadequate and ineffectual since they. are divided.

120. Protestantism has a huge problem with the Canon of the NT. The process of determining the exact books which constitute the NT lasted until 397 A.D., when the Council of Carthage spoke with finality, certainly proof that the Bible is not "self-authenticating," as Protestantism believes. Some sincere, devout, and learned Christians doubted the canonicity of some books which are now in the Bible, and others considered books as Scripture which were not at length included in the Canon. St. Athanasius in 367 was the first to list all 27 books in the NT as Scripture.
150 Reasons why I'm a Catholic

 

[epostle1]

That's a hypothetical situation. God's answers are definite to His sheep in real situations according to need... and He decides on the need. For this reason we who are His sheep must always be paying attention to His voice:
"To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice." John 10:3-4
Who am I to insist? It is not in my job description. Then again what and where is hell? The unpardonable sin is just that, but who is able to identify it other than God and the person who has committed it?

There is nothing hypothetical about killing babies. It's wrong. Period.

 

[amadeus]

There is nothing hypothetical about killing babies. It's wrong. Period.

Many things are wrong, such as murder and adultery. King David committed both but God put away his sin and he was allowed to live although he was according to the letter of the law worthy of death. We should be listening to God so as to know His judgment regarding any real situation where we need to know.

 

[epostle1]

We know what the word “sacrifice” means. It means the surrender of something precious to the god in whom a person believes. Sacrifices have been part of world religions since the dawn of recorded history. Without exception, the deities of all the religions of the ancient world demanded sacrifices in their honor. The Egyptians and Babylonians, the Greeks and Romans, the deities of pre-Christian India and of the continent of Africa required that their adherents offer what we call sacrifices in their name.

What is less well known, however, is that these religions also required the sacrifice of children as an oblation and even as a condition, for obtaining blessings from the gods. We read in the Office of Readings for today’s Divine Office that the Lord spoke through the prophet Jeremiah, charging the Jews of imitating the pagans in their practice of child homicide. Said the Lord, “They have built high places for Baal to immolate their sons in fire as holocausts to Baal: such a thing as I neither commanded nor spoke of, nor did it ever enter my mind.”

As we read statements like foregoing, we ask ourselves: how could human beings be so deluded as to seriously believe that their gods required human sacrifice as a condition for receiving divine favors? The key word is “deluded.” Thirty years of teaching comparative religion has taught me that there is no limit to the irrational, indeed insane, practices that religious mythology will not put into practice as a mandate from the deities in whom they believed. Thus we read in the history of the Aztecs in South America before Columbus that they would kill up to ten thousand children on a major feastday in honor of one of their gods. Although seldom mentioned, infanticide as a religious ritual was practiced in India before its colonization by Great Britain.

Abortion as the widespread practice that it has become today is incredibly a religious practice. It is inspired by the evil spirits who, in Christian terms, were and are the malignant deities of paganism. These deities, often goddesses, demanded the sacrifice of children to be propitiated. Unless children were killed and offered to these gods, they would avenge their anger against the people in the most devastating ways...
Fr. Hardon Archives - Abortion as Pagan Sacrifice

 

[twinc]

No, no, the "hate speech" that you accuse me of is actually what comes out of the Vatican. The RCC put countless individuals to death over the period of the Dark Ages, y'know that period when the RCC sought to conceal the truth as it is found in Scripture and supplant it with satanic doctrines like obligatory confession of one's sins to another sinful man to obtain forgiveness for them, murdering innocent children as punishment for parents who refused to recant their God honored beliefs, St. Bartholomew's Massacre where the RCC pretended to be accepting of Protestant believers, while all the while plotting the mass murder of them on that dreadful night of terror - a night that so pleased the Pope that he had a commemorative coin struck in honor of it. The level of hate that has emanated from the RCC is second only to the demonic ranks of the kingdom of hell.

of course you have it wrong protestant 'good' Queen Bess spilt more blood than Catholic 'bloody' Mary imho - twinc

 

[epostle1]

 

[epostle1]

What kind of doctor uses death as a therapy?

 

[Helen]

I don't have a clue what you'r talking about.
But that might be not so bad and could be a good thing.

Haha! I must admit I feel like that about many of the posts that I read on this Site.
Fun eh!

 

[epostle1]

you tube silent scream Dr. Bernard Nathanson - Bing video

 

[epostle1]

54. Protestantism (mostly its liberal wing) has accepted abortion as a moral option, contrary to universal Christian Tradition until recently (sometime after 1930), and the Bible (e.g., Ex 20:13; Job 31:15; Ps 139:13-16; Isa 44:2; Isa 49:5; Jer 1:5; Jer 2:34; Lk 1:15; Lk 1:41; Rom 13:9-10).

 

[amadeus]

We know what the word “sacrifice” means. It means the surrender of something precious to the god in whom a person believes. Sacrifices have been part of world religions since the dawn of recorded history. Without exception, the deities of all the religions of the ancient world demanded sacrifices in their honor. The Egyptians and Babylonians, the Greeks and Romans, the deities of pre-Christian India and of the continent of Africa required that their adherents offer what we call sacrifices in their name.

What is less well known, however, is that these religions also required the sacrifice of children as an oblation and even as a condition, for obtaining blessings from the gods. We read in the Office of Readings for today’s Divine Office that the Lord spoke through the prophet Jeremiah, charging the Jews of imitating the pagans in their practice of child homicide. Said the Lord, “They have built high places for Baal to immolate their sons in fire as holocausts to Baal: such a thing as I neither commanded nor spoke of, nor did it ever enter my mind.”

As we read statements like foregoing, we ask ourselves: how could human beings be so deluded as to seriously believe that their gods required human sacrifice as a condition for receiving divine favors? The key word is “deluded.” Thirty years of teaching comparative religion has taught me that there is no limit to the irrational, indeed insane, practices that religious mythology will not put into practice as a mandate from the deities in whom they believed. Thus we read in the history of the Aztecs in South America before Columbus that they would kill up to ten thousand children on a major feastday in honor of one of their gods. Although seldom mentioned, infanticide as a religious ritual was practiced in India before its colonization by Great Britain.

Abortion as the widespread practice that it has become today is incredibly a religious practice. It is inspired by the evil spirits who, in Christian terms, were and are the malignant deities of paganism. These deities, often goddesses, demanded the sacrifice of children to be propitiated. Unless children were killed and offered to these gods, they would avenge their anger against the people in the most devastating ways...
Fr. Hardon Archives - Abortion as Pagan Sacrifice

Such practices are certainly deplorable, but this still is not a basis for condemning any one person by name. That job still is not ours. If what they have done is a basis for condemnation, then are they not condemned already? Are they not already dead in their sins?

 

[Helen]

54. Protestantism (mostly its liberal wing) has accepted abortion as a moral option, contrary to universal Christian Tradition until recently (sometime after 1930), and the Bible (e.g., Ex 20:13; Job 31:15; Ps 139:13-16; Isa 44:2; Isa 49:5; Jer 1:5; Jer 2:34; Lk 1:15; Lk 1:41; Rom 13:9-10).

Well don't speak for me..or all the people I know.
I don't know any who condone abortion!!!