Why is New World Protestantism so god damn deluded?

/thread/.
As much as I'd like a unified Church, I'd rather have uncucked teachings even if it takes some effort to find them in the Protestant climate.

Jesus was declared that Peter would be the “rock” on which He would build His church. Jesus appears to be using a play on words. “You are Peter (petros) and on this rock (petra) I will build my church.” Since Peter’s name means rock, and Jesus is going to build His church on a rock – it appears that Christ is linking the two together. God used Peter greatly in the foundation of the church. It was Peter who first proclaimed the Gospel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-47). Peter was also the first to take the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48). In a sense, Peter was the rock “foundation” of the church upon who it was built.

The pope has papal infallibility to change or alter changes in the Church, with the council of Catholic Bishops. That is what he was elected to do, from Peter onwards. I don't see how that's cuckery; it's tradition.

Better that than a uneducated pastor.

Get shot sandnigger.

>You cannot look at the concert hall churches, nor the mall 'churches' and try to say they are packed with culture or tradition.
lol. You're clearly young and haven't read the bible or studied early Christian history.

They're basically double rootless. American Protestant, can't think of anything more lost than that.

1 Timothy 3:1-14 King James Version (KJV)
>3 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
>2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
>3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
>4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
>5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
>6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
>7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
>8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
>9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
>10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
>11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
>12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
>13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Titus 1:6-9 King James Version (KJV)
>6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
>7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
>8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
>9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Attached: 1541285165897.png (508x762, 799K)

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

What do you mean? I play Crusader Kings 2 all the time!

On a serious note, I know about early church history, including the early heretic teachings, collapse of Rome, certain Doctors of the Church (St. Augustine primarily), the ERE emperor's influence on the pope, the HRE investiture crisis, etc.

The church has a long history, and I can't say I know it all, but I am definitely well versed.

Attached: IMG_5909.jpg (960x928, 126K)

Do you really think Christ, a man who lived in voluntary poverty and encouraged everyone else to do the same, would want temples to opulence built in his name?

The Big Mac and fries of religion. Have it your way.

the riches are in heaven, not on this earth

You might want to go tell your pope that.

Attached: Francis-Jan25-2014sm.jpg (674x360, 56K)

because riches and opulence attracts people

come for the opulence stay for the Jesus kind of thing
it's okay to have simple churches, if that serves the church well
it's okay to have opulent churches, if that serves the church well.

there's a reason opulent churches are tourist attractions. even if you don't believe, few can enter and get out without feeling the presence of God. Maybe some come back.

Eusebius of Caesarea, the first "Catholic" historian, was an open Arian and against the orthodox (ie, Biblical) bishops at the Council of Nicaea. He manufactured "history" in order to make Christians bow down to the Roman emperor Constantine, whose son, Constantius, was also openly Arian. Eusebius even tried to persecute the VERY Trinitarian Athanasius of Alexandria because Athanasius would not bow down to Constantine's Arian "adjustments" to Biblical Christian doctrines. This is all freely and easily available information, even being on Wikipedia!

Everything the Papacy (Catholic Church) has taught you that is contrary to what "Protestants" believe is objectively a lie.

Attached: 1 Thessalonians 2 - 3-4.jpg (1024x576, 97K)

ABSOLUTELY based op

Attached: 1547746347164.jpg (1080x1155, 125K)

Attached: 1547398724119.jpg (640x640, 101K)

okay. why should I even care? It's not like doctrines have changed time and time again. The bible remains the same, as time moves forward, people learn more and more from the bible as stuff is revealed. We learn and improve and build upon the past. That's why the catholic church lives and grows.

babylonbee is a parody website

>ignores the Old Testament and now reject it when God literally sanctions building impressive buildings.

I find it quite interesting when Protestants have this very Judas like attitude where they are so offended at people glorifying God in an appropriate manner.

>And being in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, as He sat at the table, a woman came having an alabaster flask of very costly oil of spikenard. Then she broke the flask and poured it on His head. But there were some who were indignant among themselves, and said, “Why was this fragrant oil wasted? For it might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor.” And they criticized her sharply.

>But Jesus said, “Let her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a good work for Me."

That woman who poured the expensive perfume on Christ was a more devoted follower than those who criticized her for not selling it and giving the proceeds to the poor. The lesson here is that glorifying God is never inappropriate and you criticize the Church for doing the same thing as this woman who Christ defended.

>sitting on a throne in a walled in temple while telling everyone else to remove their walls and borders is glorying God
Oh you Catholics. I suppose carrying around a silver crucified Jesus is also glorifying God, hmm?

Attached: pope-francis-cross-staff-e1443297505150.jpg (640x354, 39K)

the throne looks pretty cool
what's your ptobme with golden thrones? I like golden thrones.

bergolio is a hypocrite in that regard, but what does that have to do with Catholic teaching?

>Protestants: God hates beauty! He's purely utilitarian

>God: Put my commandments in a box of pure gold and decorate it to show my glory

Do you guys ever get sick of being wrong?

nowhere in the Bible does it say the church is a building where some old dudes tell you what to believe

[2 Thessalonians 2:15]
>"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."
who is "us"?

[2 Thess 3:6]
>“And we charge you, brethren, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the Tradition which they have received of us”

those Traditions came from Jesus Christ. Those Traditions are what is taught in the New Testament. Back then, people were illiterate and Churches were necessary. That's not the case anymore. What matters is spreading Jesus Christ's Teachings, the rest is just headcanon by old dudes who abused Christianity in the name of power and authority.

oh so you admit sola scriptura is nonsense then, and only applied in the 1500 century with the printing press and therefor cannot be a sound doctrine?

what? no I'm specifically saying Sola Scriptura is right

>Back then

wew calm down there, are you telling me Jesus would pass teachings according to time and place, bending himself over to the situation instead of making the situation, time and place bend to him?

It's not like he was murdered for not giving a fuck about time and place.

I can take muslims saying mohamed just raped and murdered because "back then", but not Christians.

what the fuck are you talking about retard, I wasn't talking about Christ's teachings. I was saying that Churches were a necessary part of spreading His message.

how can it be sound if it did not apply always? Tradition was binding because not everyone could read, and had to be told by word of mouth, not through private study and private interpretation, which is sola scriptura, but through the public interpretation, that is to say what the Church had received in it's tradition.

Sola Scriptura means the New Testament is infallible. It doesn't mean it has to be privately studied. Look at all the Protestant preachers. I don't think you understand the things you talk about.
>Tradition was binding because not everyone could read
the only thing that is binding is Christ's Teachings, nothing else

not really.
he spread his message everywere.

It’s Catholicism or nothing, lads

Attached: 653BABB2-550B-4CD2-ADAD-7A727C1C5DF4.jpg (750x426, 345K)

>I redefine what solascriptura is to suit me

sola scriptura really is just a way for heretics to ignore the councils of the popes and bishops, that's all. You don't believe in the papacy, so of course you can't believe that his teachings are binding; you also don't believe in the catholic church as all councils have never affirmed sola fide, so you must ignore the councils.

If there was a rightfully appointed pope by Christ, or even just a rightfully appointed authority in general like the orthodox, then we as Christians have a duty under God to respect and listen to that authority.

Obviously we believe in what scripture teaches, we just also believe in the traditions that were handed to us by the legitimate authority of the Pope, who was appointed directly by Jesus Christ himself.

neither God nor Jesus appointed the Pope, the Cardinals did.
No man can tell me the truth of the spiritual, only God or His prophets

True the first pope didn't emerge until 300 years after Christ died. And guess what the first order of the first pope was... to start killing Christians.

then neither can yourself, as you are just a man - and your own reason therefor would not be able to lead yourself to God.

Think. How can you find God unless man is able to find the truth? God is the truth, and the truth is good. How can a man be good unless he is able to know the truth?

Actually that was a bit enlightening, no wonder Luther condemned reason and emphasized faith so much.

There are 24 different denominations under the Roman Catholic church... Protestants difference in denomination is in name only. Baptists believe the same thing as Methodists and Calvinists. All Protestants say is the Pope isn't divine and the Bible matters more than the heretical, satanic words of the Pope.

>he doesnt led the holy spirit guide him to understanding
Lmao

Religion is stupid. Why the fuck do I have to go to a building for an hour every week and give them 20 bucks to listen to a guy read out of a book just because a distant ancestor ate some fruit off a tree?

And why the fuck does the house of a desert carpender need stained glass and golden candlesticks and fine art? Fucking hell they guy couldn't even afford booze, fish and bread so he had to make his own with his god powers.

Attached: pic-7-jesus-fucking-christ-111021.jpg (500x371, 52K)

>then neither can yourself, as you are just a man
yeah, that's why I read the Bible and pray to God
were you dropped as a child?

also originally there weren't any cardinals, I don't think. Rather they were elected by all Christians. The system developed over time.

Are you retarded? How can you believe anything you're even reading if you can't know the truth. Logically the truth must be attainable by man for even the bible or God to give you said truth. If man cannot know truth, then logically speaking you shouldn't trust anything you think.

the only protestants i respect are the Amish

>If man cannot know truth, then logically speaking you shouldn't trust anything you think.
i don't see the problem
I completely accept the possibility that i'm wrong

Protestantism didnt even exist before the printing press
The church and ornentation harken back to time when most people were illiterate and had never read a bible themself

The Protestant understanding of that verse (and the Orthodox understanding, and the Roman understanding for several centuries) is that “the rock” is not Peter himself, but rather his statement :

“And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”
Matthew 16:14-17 ESV

As a presbyterian i sometimes despair at the scum that i get grouped in with because of americans and african protestants

If you reject the idea that man can know things, you have a defeater for believing anything, then that applies even what you find in the bible then, or even what God shows you. That's so silly. Why not just trust that God made your mind able to seek him, and seeing as God is the truth, this means God made your mind to equipt to be able to seek the truth. You can know God. No more defeater for thinking you know anything.

Kind of a silly argument we're having here. To say "there is no truth" (which is essentially what you're saying) is self defeating - is that statement true?

Now if you're saying that only God can tell you things, and imposing upon God that somehow he cannot use the reasoning of men to tell you things, or that men cannot know God (again ridiculous, tantamount to saying we cannot know truth, or God did not make us to seek him intellectually).

Your standards are silly and unrealistic - and not even found in the gospel. You're like the doubting thomas who refuses to believe unless he sees. If you have good reason to believe (as thomas was surrounded by witnesses who claimed to see Christ), you shouldn't say "well show me too or else I refuse to believe".

are you new to the concept of Faith?

this is not faith, this is making no sense at all. Why do you even believe this? I believe what I believe and I can make sense of it, there is nothing wrong with making sense, it is a good thing in fact, because it is closer to the truth.

>If you reject the idea that man can know things, you have a defeater for believing anything
I have faith in God, but I wholly accept that I'm a mere human being and could be hallucinating everything.

>Kind of a silly argument we're having here. To say "there is no truth" (which is essentially what you're saying) is self defeating - is that statement true?
I didn't say there is no truth. What are you talking about?

>Now if you're saying that only God can tell you things, and imposing upon God that somehow he cannot use the reasoning of men to tell you things, or that men cannot know God (again ridiculous, tantamount to saying we cannot know truth, or God did not make us to seek him intellectually).
I never said anything like this

>Your standards are silly and unrealistic - and not even found in the gospel.
I never said they were?

>You're like the doubting thomas who refuses to believe unless he sees. If you have good reason to believe (as thomas was surrounded by witnesses who claimed to see Christ), you shouldn't say "well show me too or else I refuse to believe".
What? Quite the opposite. I have faith in Christ without having ever seen Him with my eyes

Edgy trips

Attached: hT8HZw5.jpg (1200x1101, 230K)

Some religions can't last.

I agree

Attached: 1540954475703.jpg (602x601, 74K)

>thou shalt sell indulgences
>thou shalt rape children and protecteth they that also rape children
>Call no man father except priests lol
>This bread is my body, I am literally bread, I speak in nothing but parables, but father forbid i employ a metaphor so that followers remember the price paid for their salvation

Catholics are pants on head retarded and pray to mary because they are heretical pagans. They get everything wrong.

Reminder that protestants only exist because some german princes, who didn't gave a single fuck about God, saw it as a way to gain independence from the Pope, and, at the time, people followed the belief of their lords
Also, protestants are only worshiping their ego, evangelical churches being the apex of it

oh so you've just been saying the meme phrase "well you can't know anything for certain (to say, beyond all possible doubt) lmao"
Who cares, all we care about is know things to a reasonable level, we don't need all possible certainty, just reasonable levels of certainty.

>I didn't say there is no truth. What are you talking about?
well that's what you imply when you say "No man can tell me the truth of the spiritual, only God or His prophets".

You yourself are man, which means you yourself cannot dicern for yourself the truth of the spiritual, only God or his prophets. It's a play on words, for you said No man, but that would technically speaking include yourself, and if it includes yourself, then you cannot believe anything you are saying - it is a defeater for all things you believe.

Now of course what you were really saying, is I don't trust men to tell me things, I only trust God to tell me things.

Well sure! It's still a retarded thing to say because God uses men to tell you things. Some men are pursuing the truth just as you are, and God reveals himself to them as well, just as you, why can't you trust these men?

This is why I linked it to thomas, because this was doubting thomas' problem, he couldn't trust the other apostles who told him they saw Jesus, unless he experienced it for himself.

I'm just holding you accountable for what you quite literally said.

>Call no man father
>Honor thy mother and father
Hmmmmm guess you can't keep that commandment

Attached: DtUnhitV4AEEWo9.jpg (673x658, 48K)

leavened bread > unleavened bread

Attached: FrLuke.jpg (200x300, 15K)

>You yourself are man, which means you yourself cannot dicern for yourself the truth of the spiritual, only God or his prophets. It's a play on words, for you said No man, but that would technically speaking include yourself, and if it includes yourself, then you cannot believe anything you are saying - it is a defeater for all things you believe.
Did I make up Christianity? Did I write the New Testament? No. I have faith in what Christ has said. I do not have faith in what any man has said, not even myself. I don't follow my own personal religion.

You seem to be completely misunderstanding everything I've said and I'm not interested in constantly having to explain things over and over

Not that I am defending protestants, but that website is a satire website.

That's now what I meant!

Nothing forbids a priests from having a beard

>my church looks better so i'm right
You don't wanna play this game, trust me.

Attached: detail-4cdb4541-5744-40c6-9711-ec6467017f2c.png (920x430, 444K)

Wow, it's almost as if they established a society from a wilderness and not an area occupied by Europeans for thousands of years.

sigh, I don't think you understand what I was doing. It's just a play on words. if no men can teach scripture, then you yourself cannot know scripture. If you can't know scriprute, then you can't be a christian.

It's just saying that there is technically speaking a fallacy in the statement you made, when taken literally. If all men cannot know, then neither can you. All i'm saying.

Because that is an error in thinking, then what you have said must be wrong, and men can in fact know scripture, and discern the truth. And if man can know truth, then men can teach other men, and not just God (though of course God uses men to teach).

Really we shouldn't even be getting so caught up in this, it's not that big of a deal.

In the 80s, the types of revivalists that used to bring religion to people were taken over by Moral Majority political machines, such as those led by Jerry Falwell. Imitators like Jimmy Swaggart followed that business model. Lately, we have Joel Osteen types pushing Christianity as a business scheme with Prosperity Gospel, alla the Mormons. The Catholic Church is an evil pedophile organization with a large bank attached to it. We are due for a new religious great awakening, but I fear the secular culture is too powerful to let that happen.

That's not what he said, but sure, let's play

Attached: Duomo-Florence-.jpg (1024x683, 158K)

Catholicism is like joining a country club because you want a steak dinner. Just cook your own steak, faggot.

It attracts stupid people. This is everything Portugal touched is a fucking disaster.

>sola scriptura really is just a way for heretics to ignore the councils of the popes and bishops, that's all.

Voting Trump is really is just a way for common people to repudiate the executive orders of the Obama administration, that's all.

Have you taken a look at 80% of the people attending Catholic Mass each week?

Your turn.
>inb4 ACKSHULLY it's an orthodox basilica
Finders keepers, losers weepers.

Attached: Elia-Locardi-Hagia-Sophia-Istanbul-Turkey-250h.jpg (900x250, 56K)

>muh tradition

Pic related is an actual Catholic parish.

Attached: FBF90B74-6925-4A6A-9A61-1624D5E51001.jpg (1100x765, 284K)

>>muh tradition

Nostaliga for Tradition is irrational.
Culture and Religion are tools for Survival
Morphing cultures and changing religions aren't, in any way, bad.
What is bad is opposing change
based on nostalgia for the past.

You are going down Jew

Attached: 1461076220480.jpg (513x510, 59K)

>you're going down THIS time
Yawn. Who do you think writes those articles that say Jews' days are numbered?...

We are getting closer each time

Ashkenazi Jews descend from 350 people, study finds
‘Bottleneck’ dates back 600 to 800 years, genome analysis shows; researcher says among population ‘everyone is a 30th cousin’

timesofisrael.com/ashkenazi-jews-descend-from-350-people-study-finds/

Remind me how "you're getting closer."

Until you can prove Jesus was talking about Peter being His rock instead of the truth of Jesus as the Son of God, you have no leg to stand on papist.
Besides that, your stupid pic is basically an argument from silence and fallacious.

Your probably going to get nuked ? When people finaly see your true nature its done . Instead of getting expelled you get nuked , Why else did God invent nukes and let you go back to your homeland ?

>when people see Jews' true nature
We don't hide it- we rule, instead.
Who do you think controls the nukes?
>DJT has the codes!
Who owns him?

You people are going to be crushed
Well take care of your women though..

Game on

Attached: IMG_6003.jpg (500x500, 97K)

Hey i am not saying you get nuked tomorrow . Rome did not destroy you in a day also . Lets just wait it can only turn bad for you.......

Attached: 1461093350908.jpg (222x225, 8K)

Except you have no right nor the proper knowledge to properly cook a steak, and end up boiling it.
Religion isn't a saladbar, you faggot.

You must be some kind of retard to believe that gassing is not ahead in your near future , moshe

Attached: List.jpg (928x8800, 1.78M)