Protestant or Catholic

Early Christians were known to read every book in the Bible prior to them being compiled

I am a Protestant personally. But I have nothing against Catholics and just wish we could all acknowledge that the true enemy are the Muslims and not each other.

Catholics.
If you trace back the degeneracy that is killing the west far enough, it will lead you to the creation of Protestantism

Attached: remove-crumpet[1].jpg (400x500, 150K)

In short, this: The Bible contains the Bullshitting of Paul, who was not of the original followers of Jesus. Tradition curbs the influence of his prolific shitposting, while "the text only" fags literally tell you that if you actually enjoy fucking your wife, you're doing it wrong. Cathcucks introduced the blasphemy of the supreme Pope, which is contrary to Christ's teachings. There was not supposed to be a Christ after Christ, there were 5 equivalent Churches at the start, the Pope just kind of came to be when people wanted another Peter

Catholics are pagans.
Protestants are shit-eating inbreds.
Fuck both of them.

As well as Many other epistles and gospels.
That's why 3 world councils were called to decide which books were inspired and which ones were not.

GO GO ORTHODOX

Actually why the fuck do you need a denomation to order you around?

>"for God so loved the world, he gave his only Son that whosoever believeth in him will not perish but have everlasting life"
thats all you need to know. God will show you where you need to be. any cat who tells me i need the dogma, or any prot who tells me im still not doing it right, you can go be a jew.
this, fren.

The early Church fathers, the prominent early Christian writers of the first centuries, recognized that Peter is the rock on which Jesus ONE church was founded. There are many citations one could bring forward, but here are just a few.

Tertullian, On Monogamy, 213 A.D., refers to Peter and speaks of the Church,
“built upon him...” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:381)

St. Cyril of Alexandria (370-444), who played a key role with the Council of
Ephesus, stated in his Commentary on John: “He [Jesus] suffers him to be no
longer called Simon... He changed his name into Peter, from the word petra
(rock); for on him He was afterwards to found His Church.”

St. Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.), Against Eunomians, 4: “Peter... who on
account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.”

St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D.), Oration 26: “... of
all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church...”

St. John Chrysostom, great Eastern father and Bishop of Constantinople, Homily
3, De. Poenit. 4, 387 A.D. “Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...
when I name Peter I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation...”
One could also quote St. Ambrose, Jerome and many others, but the point should be clear.

All this was written before the Bible had been made into one book at the 397 AD in Carthage

Pentecostal because my dad was Pentecostal, his dad was Pentecostal, and his dad's dad was Pentecostal. I don't really think about other denominations one way or another.

And the jews too, right?

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

Saint Ambrose (died A.D. 397):
"Where Peter is therefore, there is the Church. Where the Church is there is not death but life eternal. …Although many call themselves Christians, they usurp the name and do not have the reward."

Saint Augustine (died A.D. 430):
"No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church." (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem)

Saint Thomas Aquinas (died A.D. 1274):
"There is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the ark, which denotes the Church." (Summa Theologiae)

>protestants
>believe Bible
False. The words of Christ clearly show he thought Judaism was a false religion, and the religious Jews 'of their father the devil.'
Modern Protestants believe the Jews were the chosen race, and that they're destined to rebuild Solomon's Temple, I shit you not.

It is just because there are so many different interpretations as to what the Bible means. It is the sad result of the doctrine of the right of private judgment. Every Protestant denomination claims to be founded on the Scriptures. Then how can they all be right? Is the Methodist right, or the Lutheran, or the Baptist or the Episcopalian? They can't be right for they all differ in doctrine and government. If they do not differ, then why are they separated? Protestantism says, "Let each one read the Bible for himself and then the Holy Ghost will guide him into the truth." Well, then the Holy Ghost must be blamed for the Babylon of religions around us. If the Holy Ghost guides one man he becomes a Baptist, if he guides another to be a Jehovah's Witness that does not believe Jesus is God, he becomes something else and so on until people give up religion entirely. The Holy Ghost inspires no one using his own private interpretation. The Holy Ghost was guaranteed to the Church and not to individuals in the teaching of truth.

By way of analogy, suppose our Constitution of the United States could be termed our Bible of Democracy. Just think what confusion would happen if every Tom, Dick, and Harry using the right of private judgment interpreted the laws of our nation as he felt himself inspired by the Holy Ghost. See what would soon happen to our 48 states if we didn't have the Supreme Court to tell us what the Constitution is saying. Without the Supreme Court our nation would come to an end as a democracy if we tolerated in government the absurd and fallacious principle of private judgment. As we must maintain a Supreme Court in government is it not all the more rational and reasonable that we have a Supreme Authority to interpret the Bible, our Constitution of Christianity, to avoid religious confusion? The proper authority to interpret the Bible is the Supreme Court of the Catholic Church, which gave the Bible to the world

Peter himself called Paul’s writing scripture

Did not Christ promise that He would send the Holy Spirit to teach us all truth?

He did not promise that the Holy Spirit would teach each individual separately. If every individual were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, all who read Scripture sincerely should come to the same conclusion. But they do not. The frightful chaos as to the meaning of Scripture is proof positive that the Holy Spirit has not chosen this way of leading men to the truth. It is blasphemy to say that the Holy Spirit does not know His own mind, and that He deliberately leads men into contradictory notions. Christ promised to preserve His church as a Church by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the only Church which shows signs of having been preserved is the consistent Catholic Church. The individual is guided by the Holy Spirit to a certain extent in the ways of holiness, but in the knowledge of revealed truth he is to be guided by the Catholic Church which Christ sent to teach all nations.

Catholics. Protestant logic is that material that contradicts the bible must be disposed of, but the bible contradicts the bible as a matter of course and they still have that. If Judas can die by hanging in Matthew and by accidental disembowling in Acts, then the Pope can say homosexuals don't go to hell.

How many times must Jow Forums have this same tired ass argument? Christ TOLD PETER TO REPRESENT HIM! HENCE BISHOPS! Fuck off already faggot. just fuck off

But you agree that the current Pope is a disgusting commie and has to go?

I’m a Catholic Wasp mutt. I respect both equally. Fuck the Church and any Protestant “church”

Attached: 71F3FF4A-139D-4A77-B4D0-82ED53BD2DEF.jpg (750x700, 118K)

Ask yourself: If the bible contradicts itself, is it the product of a perfect god or of men making up shit?
youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

Why do they incite Protestants to hate Catholics so much?

Oh, absolutely. Christianity was designed to destroy itself and take Europe with it, and Frankie is 100% on board with that.

>user: I really want to know God
>God: Hey, come to me, and read my word!
>user: Hmm... Protestants or Catholics?
>God: Who? I'm right here dude!
>user: I dunno lol let me make a Jow Forums thread

The answer is Jesus my friend, humbly read the Bible and come your own conclusions.

Those who truly seek the Lord will not be lost. Seek and ye shall find, knock and a door shall be opened.

If you're only seeking after religion and tradition, you will never be in God's presence.

>Be a Catholic
>religion differs from Protestantism because Protestants believe in the Bible instead of what the priest tells you about the Bible
>listen to some dude who self appointed himself as the holiest man alive, second to Jesus
>If you question it you are excecuted
>Proper term is 'Roman Catholic'
>Catholic originated from the term whole or everywhere, but it's based in the Vatican City (still called Roman Catholic)
>unadaptable, Protestant sects do not adhere to any old stupid rules, (reading in Latin etc.)

God made sure which Books will be preserved and which are meant to be lost.
The Bible today is, in fact, a result of countless decisions, multiple people trying to do what they thought was right. Do you think God would leave such process to randomness and chaos?
It's true that books were verified from early on and they circulated widely among believers so the whole 'bible was invented in 4th century is bullshit.
All in all, Bible is not a book emerging from random decisions and what we see today was meant to be viewed by modern people. Alongside gnostic books which we can now compared with canonical books. There is a contrast and gnostic sources mostly have contradictions within themselves.

100% true

Attached: Screenshot_20180912-194051_Gallery.jpg (1078x671, 307K)

Catholic here. Suck my dick

That's what a Jesuit is

Neither, get out of religion and into the loving arms of Jesus. Religion has been subverted by Lucifer one really doesn't have to look far to see that. The time is coming stop playing with sin. 177777777

Divide and conquer user. If the European Christians all came together, then we would finally be a yyuge bunch of so-called whites that could not be stopped, as we crush teh jew and the mudslimes. But, alas, they cannot allow that to be.

because Protestants have a problem with authority and obedience. To the point of changing the Bible even.

Look up John 3:36 here in Greek here.
biblehub.com/text/john/3-36.htm
“ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τoν υἱoν ἔχει ζωήν αἰώνιον· ὁ δε ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ, οὐk ὄψεται ζωήν, ἀλλ’ ἡ ὀργη τοῦ Θεοῦ μένει ἐπ’ αὐτόν.”
“He who believes in the Son has eternal life, and he who disobeys the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abides on him.”

Now look at the same passage in the KJV
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 3:36&version=KJV

They do not want to obey because that would means works have a role in their salvation.
Instead of opening Gods sacraments and ordinances, they believe they can go easy mode and just "believe" and be saved. That is why they refuse to submit to the authority of Gods church.

>traditions of men, the pope

Attached: 1497919945735.jpg (1252x1252, 229K)

>Catholic
>gregorian chants
>each village has a church hundreds of year old
>the renaissance

>Protestant
>Lovin' Our Lord #LoveEveryDay
>Pop songs
>Churches look like gyms
>youtube.com/watch?v=-Jgv6BS5jP4

Falling into the hands of false teachers leads to hell, user.

Observe that in the Bible there are two kinds of religious tradition – human and divine. Observe that when Christ accused the Pharisees He was referring to "precepts of men" (Mark 7:7), to their human traditions. Christ wanted divine tradition preserved and honored because He made it part and parcel of the Christian deposit of faith – as the Apostle Paul affirmed: "Stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." (2 Thess. 2:14. Also see 2 Thess. 3:6). This divine tradition to which Paul refers – this revealed truth which was handed down by word rather than by letter – is the tradition upon which, along with Sacred Scripture, the Catholic Church bases her tenets of faith – as the primitive Christian Fathers affirmed. Wrote St. Augustine: "These traditions of the Christian name, therefore, so numerous, so powerful, and most dear, justly keep a believing man in the Catholic Church." The New Testament itself is a product of Christian tradition. Nowhere in the New Testament is there any mention of a New Testament.

All scripture is inspired by God.
Is the gnostic "Gospel of Thomas", written centuries later, inspired by God? No? Then no, it does not belong in the bible.

Who determines what books are in the bible?

The Holy Spirit of God.

Peter also turned away a non-Jew Roman from baptizing and then did the exact opposite later in the case of another Roman.

Christ told that to Peter because he asked. Christ wanted everyone to do the same, but he had to reaffirm Peter's faith because he had such low self-esteem.

>Labels labels labels, and more labels!
Why does everyone here over complicate things so much?

I don't know or care about your definitions or labels, all I know is that Jesus is my Lord and Redeemer, his spirit lives in me, his word is my foundation, and his presence is my joy.

God told us that the truth is held by the church. it's even in your bible. Not the personal interpretation of any man.

youtube.com/watch?v=BF-10c261Vw

noice brother

Just because you are an important Apostle doesn't make you a pope. The idea of a pope was formulated way later. There is literally zero mention of a pope position in early church. You may have a lot of authority, because you are the apostle, but it doesn't make you a dictator.
In fact, historically, apostles went in different directions and planted the seeds on their own, as they were meant to do. They didn't pile up in Rome and 'build a church' were Peter would sit on 'a throne' and say, do my bidding as I'm like Christ.

>Who determines what books are in the bible?
>
>The Holy Spirit of God.
Who did the holy spirit reveal this to ?
A select few ? Or everyone ?
If so how come there are books not deemed scripture by some and by others they are deemed inspired ? Why did the apostles use the Spetuigent and modern Protestants say that teh Septuagint is blasphemous ?
God left us a church to be the bulwark of the truth for us.

yeah, great, but you forgot Church doesn't equal to 'catholic church'. The idea of a true Church is never pointing towards the catholic church UNLESS you first assume it is and do some kind of a circular reasoning.

Documentary: Protestantism's Big Justification Lie
youtube.com/watch?v=L14UNjaZJm8

Mary's Sinlessness: A Biblical Documentary
youtube.com/watch?v=ZTVyptxPQ04

St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church: "A pope who is a manifest heretic
automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a
Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by
the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest
heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

Accepting Francis = Apostasy
youtube.com/watch?v=a3AnX_GBWJw

What Francis Really Believes (4th Edition)
youtube.com/watch?v=fvjmveYw0tE

The pope is just the Bishop of Rome. It's a title.
There was many Popes in the early church.

Canon wasn't agreed open until The Council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) Council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament.

before that there had been 38 Popes. That's the same number of Popes as from Gregory XIV (1590) until Pope Francis (2013)

Catholic magesterium had already defined dogmatically decisions on baptism, consecration, ordination, penance, and continence, the celibacy of priests and the trinity.
ALL without a Bible.

I'll trust in two millennia of philosophy, history, and theology more than my own "well, I feeeeeeel like it should be this way" intuition that's been corrupted by zog/satanic influence my whole life
Why would you call for Orthodoxy, probably the most rigorously legalistic and traditionalist sect after Catholicism, if you don't care about denominations? Join Pastor Jim's shopping-center hoedown at that point

>reading in Latin
Which really shows how literally every sect is blasphemous. Almost every charge of the Catholics against non-Catholics is true, and yet those who would be the saviors of Christianity are blasphemers themselves.
Did not God grant a miracle to the followers of Jesus when they spoke to a crowd whose languages they did not understand, and yet they spoke in their languages? Literally biblical evidence God wanted to spread his teachings to all the fractured peoples, but self-important Romans insisted that if you weren't a Jew or from one of the Greek-speaking provinces, the priest HAD to preach to you in LATIN.

The Catholic church was like "these belong in the bible" and then protties came and were like "let me yank these ones out (deuterocanonicals)" and now you have blasphemous man-made crap such as "once saved always saved" and TULIP.

So at least you agree that it is the chrurch that is the bulwark of the truth and not your personal interpretation.

So which church ? How does ones church decide what is the truth of scripture ? Can you tell me the way your church does it ? I can tell you clearly how the Catholic Church does.

Protestant all the way. As a Briton, I refuse to be ruled by Rome, although ironically nowadays, Salvini is 100% /ourguy/.

>ALL without a Bible
Bible are just legit Books compiled together.
All of doctrines were based on the Books. None were conjured up from the 'throne in Rome'

Both are properly shite.

Mexican intellectual with an important question.

In truth both Churches are now pozzed beyond redemption so I don't think either one is worthy of your attendance.

Attached: 6fLWOVb.jpg (600x925, 113K)

>Christcucks vs Christcucks

Attached: 1533366615453.jpg (1600x900, 168K)

Who said they were conjured by Rome ?
How many books and epistles do you think were in use in the christian world in the time of Christ's death until the canon of the bible was set. it's was 10s of thousands of Books and epistles.
Thank goodness that jesus left us a church to decided what was the truth and what was just rubbish.

>christian or papist
ftfy

catholicism vs. protestantism = people vs. books

do you think the church is living, breathing visible organism made up of people and connections between them across space and time, a multi-generational enterprise consisting of the efforts of thousands of individuals going back to the apostles and christ himself, OR do you think the church is primarily a set of books, kind of an "owner's manual to life" that you grab and read it by yourself?

a living being or a dead object?

unity or fragmentation?

participation or alienation?

the ONE church or 40 thousand "denominations"?

all cancerous modern ideologies are really just ultimate expressions of protestatism. Atheism is just the ultimate protestant denomination.

the protestant schism is the conception of modern degeneration.

Non-denominational christianity for the way. Priests can go find real jobs for once.

You fell pray to 'there is no easy answer so I'm gonna stick with the biggest church so maybe I get it right'.
There is no obvious answer cause Church doesn't equal to a specific denomination. It's all about your relationship with Jesus and His teaching. When you sign up to a denomination, you do it not because you KNOW it's the right one. You sign up BECAUSE you have faith this church will help you get closer to God and if it doesn't, you have faith God will help you make the right decision to stay or go somewhere else.
There is not a single church on the planet which gets all things right. It's impossible. So you can't make the choice of a church a requirement of the salvation.

Canon was Trent a thousand years later; the magisterium has never been right about the bible in its entire existence. How could it?

Yes, you'll trust the traditions of men more than the Holy Spirit, which is why you are lost.

>Catholic priests' pedophilia is non-degenerate

Ave Mariiiiiaaaa...

well said

People who had the Holy Spirit within them. The test was rather simple. The tanakh became the Old Testament. Any book written by an eyewitness of Jesus' life, ministry, death, resurrection, and so forth whose book did not contradict anything in the OT was included in the NT. Had to be 100% perfect, had to be 100% inspired by God.

Easy peasy.

They do have real jobs. Like hand writing Bibles for over 1000 years so you have something to read to give you some small type of guidance since you reject God's church.

Before the art of printing was invented, Bibles were rare things; Bibles were costly things. Now, you must all be aware, if you have read history at all, that the art of printing was invented only a little more than four hundred years ago – about the middle of the Fifteenth Century – and about one hundred years before there was a single Protestant in the world.

As I have said, before printing was invented books were rare and costly things. Historians tell us that in the Eleventh Century – eight hundred years ago – Bibles were so rare and costly that it took a fortune, a considerable fortune, to buy oneself a copy of the Bible! Before the art of printing, everything had to be done with the pen upon parchment or sheepskin. It was, therefore, a tedious and slow operation – a costly operation.

Now, in order to arrive at the probably cost of a Bible at that time, let us suppose that a man should work ten years to make a copy of the Bible and earn a dollar a day. Well, then, the cost of that Bible would be nearly $3,650! Now, let us suppose that a man should work at the copying of the Bible for twenty years, as historians say it would have taken him that long, not having the conveniences and improvements to aid him that we have now. Then, at a dollar a day, for twenty years, the cost of a Bible would be nearly $8,000.

Suppose I came and said to you, "My dear people, save your soul, for if you lose your soul all is lost." You would ask, "What are we to do to save your souls?" The Protestant preacher would say to you, "You must get a Bible; you can get one at such-and-such a shop." You would ask the cost, and be told it was $8,000. You would exclaim: "The Lord save us! And can we not go to Heaven without that book?"

Or you simply do as the catholics did, and redefine catholic from "universal" to "just us".

Like concentrated evil, your post.

The biggest issue with Protestantism is how hollow everything is. What is their doctrine? How did they arrive at that doctrine? Why do they believe what they believe? It's like asking someone to write a philosophy paper and they just write JESUS or BIBLE in giant bubble letters on every page. Having the Lord as your cornerstone is admirable of course, but there's nothing to it beyond that, which leads to all sorts of blasphemy due to how easy it is to cherry-pick verses to justify effectively anything.
The Catholic Church, meanwhile, has dipped its toes in some faggy modernization after V2, but has remained effectively unchanged in its official doctrine and tradition since its earliest days- it is a rock in the fucked-up modern world, and will remain unyielding forever, no matter how strong public opposition is.

Right after they tell us what sort of order they belong to, that still has "priests" in positions of authority over the laity.

>Christian concensus on the Bible for centuries is that it is divinely inspired, but nevertheless written by fallable men
>Thus it may contain factual errors and contradict itself, but this is considered to be entirely acceptable
>Protestants come along and declare that the church sucks but the Bible is the literal word of God and the sole source of religious doctrine no matter what
>They actually believe this somehow makes them "better" Christians
>Spend the next 500 years pulling off all kinds of crazy mental gymnastics to be able to deny the inconsistencies and errors stemming from the fact that it's written by fallable men
Protestantism is a lunatic cult that turned the Bible into an idol which they worship

Makes sense.
>It's not idolatry when we do it.
>It's not pedophilia when we do it.

It may contain copyist errors from the autographs, but it contains zero errors and zero contradictions.

"Protestantism" was catholics rebelling against their own church 500 years ago.

>the protestant schism is the conception of modern degeneration
and the Roman Catholic Church tried to turn Christianity into a scam to place a bigger king above all the other kings.

The Bishop of Rome is hailed as the Pope literally because after Jesus departed, everyone flocked to the man who broke down because Jesus told him he'd deny his Lord thrice and he did. The idea of giving Peter's office the "princeps inter parem" status chimed well with the Roman Emperors, since there'd otherwise be a moral schism within the Empire if
>1 rulers
>entire committee of Gods/Bishops

People always compare Protestants to Catholics but not to orthodox

Wth

So firstly you admit that the church is the bulwark of the truth.
Then you say it's not the Catholic church.
Now you devolve into, personal interpretation of the bible.
So if the Holy Spirit is personally guiding you how come other earnest people come to different conclusions than you ?
I can tell you why. Because you are not the bulwark of the truth. The church is.
The church can tell you what the proper interpretation of scripture is because Jesus promised his church that the holy Spirit would always be with it and that it's faith would not fail.

Neither it's all kike faggotry.

>it is divinely inspired, but nevertheless written by fallable men

Do you even see how this is impossible? Wait, of course you don't. All men are fallible. The Holy Spirit is not. The Holy Spirit is the lead partner in that collaboration, not the man. The Holy Spirit inspired men to write things that they then had to form study groups to understand what had been written. By them. Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God.

>was 10s of thousands of Books and epistles.
you lost me there.
before the canon was created, there weren't many Books and epistles as they were accepted or rejected since their emergence in the circulation. The original Books and letters were authenticated by the Apostles than by their successors. If there was a problem and only one Bishop held a unique position, obviously a book wasn't broadly accepted. But seriously, this is not something you can briefly discuss. There is plenty of history to study.
A summary is like this: the original literature created by the Apostles was not lengthy and there weren't many Books and letters, definitely not like 10s of thousands unless you meant copies from the start. All cancer which appeared later like gnostic literature, was quite easy to distinguish as it mixed Christian ideas with cultural and mythological ideas. It was fought against immediately, Christians didn't wait till the 4th century.

There is no significant difference between Catholics and EO, only organizational differences. They're the two legs representing Rome on the statue in Daniel; two legs of iron that each ruled for a thousand years first from Rome, then from Constantinople.

[Projection]

who protestant neo-orthodox master race here?

Attached: karlbarth.png (499x529, 329K)

Church = body of believers. Is it really that hard?

You forgot about the child rape

>orthodox
Because there's a fuckton of them
There are the Russians, Greeks, Copts, and they all have their own priesthoods

And the Revelation put a cap on the bible, being the last book written, the last book needed, and the last book inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.

roman catholic
because based (inb4 le jews,SJWs and gay meme in eastern europe)

The Prots who appoint trans Muslim female bishops claim they're acting in accordance with the Spirit too, that doesn't mean they are.
Does it not seem fair that pure logic as used by the medieval theologians, and divine mysticism as practiced by the ancient ascetics, brings us to the closest possible understanding of God and his will? I trust them far more than I trust myself- and light years more than some rando who decides he's been contacted directly by God and decides to turn what he "thinks" is right into a denomination that contradicts all the former. Same logic that Mormons use, they're only mocked because their conclusions are more outlandish than Pastor Jim's, but it's two heads of the same heretical snake

>Then you say it's not the Catholic church.

She's the whore of Babylon, not the Body of Christ. Read Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons" and Dave Hunt's "A Woman Rides The Beast".

Or read a newspaper headline.

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwQY8D8NXJNPkE3VZDYFYZOuo-x4UNdJB