Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by Snsoc

1.) According to Scripture, when believers were saved, they were baptized, as well as their entire household. (Acts 16:33, 1 Cor 1:16) Infant baptism is a Christian tradition that dates back to the second century AD. The purpose of it is to cleanse the child from original sin.

Infant baptism dates to LONG before that. The practice originated in Babylon.

reply to post by wildtimes


I honestly thought that I made it crystal clear that I do NOT ascribe to the belief that Catholics are not Christians. Apparently, I was mistaken.

And further, I would still argue that the majority of Protestant sects use scripture only as the basis of doctrine

I'm not a Catholic nor do I consider myself a Christian. When I was a child, there were very few protestants in town, my mom considered herself one and so I, never having gone to any other church except for funerals, was told by my classmates that I was going to hell because I wasn't a part of "The one true church.", never did I believe them, for even a child is known by it's actions and words. There was a period during school where all of my classmates were going to catechism and I wanted to go too, but I was rejected, by the adults, which I got over quickly, knowing that I didn't want to be where I'm not welcome.
When I was a kid I went to kids church one day a week, didn't really learn much at all, guess I wasn't too interested or the teacher made it seem like a fairy tale, but I remember that I kept on asking Jesus to save me, and the teacher told me not to keep asking, to just ask once and be satisfied that God heard me, well, last year we had a preacher come and say a few words, in that message he told us not to give up, reminding us of the parable of the unjust judge. And I remembered my teacher, and what she said, and she was of all things nodding in agreement with the guy. I didn't listen to her, I knew if I had an emptiness in me, that if I was without peace inside, then I needed something, and that she couldn't give it to me.
I have never liked listening to "Hail marys" on the radio or in person, any time, it gives me the creeps.
Personally, I don't believe that she should be venorated and I definitely don't believe that she nor any other "saint" should be prayed to. Jesus taught us how to pray, it starts with "Our Father.."
Also I believe that I should share this bit of scripture to help others understand a bit of why I find Mary to be a mere human, saying nothing of necromancy, of course.

Luke 11:27-28 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you." Jesus replied, "But even more blessed are all who hear the word of God and put it into practice."

When I think of the Christian church I tend to be reminded that the bible says not to sit in the seat of mockers or stand in the way of sinners.

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by wildtimes

 

I honestly thought that I made it crystal clear that I do NOT ascribe to the belief that Catholics are not Christians. Apparently, I was mistaken.

And further, I would still argue that the majority of Protestant sects use scripture only as the basis of doctrine

Nothing wrong with that.

Nice list, unfortunately you missed what disqualifies members of the roman faith from the ranks of Christianity.

During the council of Trent 1546, the RCC declared that anyone that believes that they are saved by their faith alone by God's grace is damned. The very reason for Jesus' substitutionary death on the cross was to pay the price for our sins. If you don't feel that was enough, you are no longer following the God of the Bible. Feel free to read Matthew 7:21, there will be a lot of angry persons who thought they were serving God, when in fact, he never knew them. RCC likes to boast of her numbers, again Jesus said that narrow is the way, and few find it.

Originally posted by kingofmd
Nice list, unfortunately you missed what disqualifies members of the roman faith from the ranks of Christianity.

Before continuing down your misguided path of bigotry and hubris -- and it is nothing but pathetic, fallacious, human hubris to think you have the right to tell people what they believe in, or to exclude them from the teachings of Jesus -- maybe you should take another look at your own signature:

signature:
A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.
Proverbs 18:2

reply to post by micmerci

I honestly thought that I made it crystal clear that I do NOT ascribe to the belief that Catholics are not Christians. Apparently, I was mistaken.

You did, micmerci, and I agreed with you.

And further, I would still argue that the majority of Protestant sects use scripture only as the basis of doctrine

Well, then, you would still be mistaken. I'm trying to discuss this with you (or whoever is paying attention) and bringing attention to the fact that the Evangelical/Pentecostal 'bring on Armageddon' people are NOT the majority of Protestants.

I was pointing out that 'mainstream' Protestants don't use 'scripture only.' I have no argument with you except that misunderstanding.That's all.

reply to post by bbracken677

Fact is: they came here for religious freedom. The witch hunts occurred much later for reasons that had nothing to do with their "religious freedom". Period.

Incorrect. F. The witch hunts occurred during the time that Boston and Rhode Island were first established in early 1600s. And it had 'everything' to do with their religious freedom to be Puritans.
reply to post by NOTurTypical

Nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with 'what', please?

You know, for someone whose signature says 'do you hate religion as much as I do?' (with a handy link attached), you sure as hell talk a lot of born-again religious stuff. Fact is, NuT, that you are quite 'religious'. But you don't even know it. And you also are mistaken in your knowledge of history. Dude, I studied this stuff for two years, and wrote a freaking book about it. You're wrong. Try reading something that doesn't shore up your limited understanding of things.

I thought I'd already asked, but now I don't see where, so I'll ask you again.......maybe I deleted that part......
Have you seen 'The Scarlet Letter'? Or read the book????

reply to post by wildtimes


No, the Salem witch trials were not in the early 1600s. It began in February 1692 and ended in May 1693.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Witch hunts may not have hit 'Salem' as early, but witch hunts and witch burnings had been going on for a LONG TIME. A long time.

Again, have you read 'The Scarlet Letter'? Do you know about the Boston witch-hunts? I didn't think so. Witch trials in the early modern period

The witch trials in the early modern period were a period of witch hunts between the 15th and 18th centuries,[1] when across early modern Europe [2] and to some extent in the European colonies in North America, there was a widespread hysteria that malevolent Satanic witches were operating as an organized threat to Christendom.

Those accused of witchcraft were portrayed as being worshippers of the Devil, who engaged in such acts as malevolent sorcery, and orgies at meetings known as Witches' Sabbaths. Many people were subsequently accused of being witches, and were put on trial for the crime, with varying punishments being applicable in different regions and at different times.

While early trials fall still within the Late Medieval period, the peak of the witch hunt was during the period of the European wars of religion, peaking between about 1580 and 1630.

Did you get that last sentence, NuT? I highlighted it just for you. And some early bits, too.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Witch hunts may not have hit 'Salem' as early, but witch hunts and witch burnings had been going on for a LONG TIME. A long time.

Again, have you read 'The Scarlet Letter'? Do you know about the Boston witch-hunts? I didn't think so.

The other member brought up the specific trials in Salem.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Have you read the book or seen the movie?

Jeez, do you really not even see the way you do your 'apologetics'? You fling around 'debate terms', and fixate on what 'another member says' (really? Who cares who said it! The point is that witches were being hunted and executed before Salem!!).....and totally ignore the substance of the arguments that by any reasonable standard ought to be making you think.
Why is that???

reply to post by wildtimes


Let's backtrack a bit. I said the pilgrims came here for religious freedom, another member brought up the people killed during the Salem witch hunts. I then stated that 28 dead people is the rare exception. And it would be among tens of thousands of pilgrims. And Salem really doesn't have much to do with why the pilgrims settled here, which was to practice religion freely. I really don't need a lecture from you, you're not paying attention to the previous back and forth between myself and the other posters.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Yes, I am paying attention. You are deflecting and refusing to see the point.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by wildtimes

 

And further, I would still argue that the majority of Protestant sects use scripture only as the basis of doctrine

Nothing wrong with that.

See that? "Nothing wrong with that?"
Yes, there is "something wrong with that." Whether you like it or not. She's wrong about that, and so are you.

The OP provided eight examples of conflict between the theology of Catholicism and Protestantism (Some Protestant theology?) I was hoping to look into those controversial areas and discuss them. Of course, if the majority of posters want to talk about something else, I bow to their will.

The first two points mentioned were Infant Baptism and Confession to Priests. Micmerci presented the following objections:

1 The scripture reference that you gave does not infer that the household included infant children. It is much more likely and accepted that the household included servants and adult friends and relatives.

2 The scripture reference you cited states that we are compelled to confess our faults to one another, not our sins.

I know I get wordy, so I'll present the briefest summary of my thoughts.

Infant Baptism? Why not? The paralytic lowered through the roof was healed based on the faith of his friends, why not an infant healed based on the faith of his parents and family?

Confession to Priests? I don't see that the distinction of faults and sins is critical. Also the verse concerning what you loose on earth is loosed in Heaven seems to apply. Jesus could forgive sins. He delegated that to Peter. Either Jesus also delegated that to the Apostles or Peter did. There is no indication that forgiveness of sins was delegated to each believer.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Yes, I am paying attention. You are deflecting and refusing to see the point.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by wildtimes

 

And further, I would still argue that the majority of Protestant sects use scripture only as the basis of doctrine

Nothing wrong with that.

See that? "Nothing wrong with that?"
Yes, there is "something wrong with that." Whether you like it or not. She's wrong about that, and so are you.

edit on 7-4-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

So tell us all why there is something wrong with using the scripture alone for Christian doctrine.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

OMG, man.

First of all, I want to point out that I have reviewed the entire thread again, and the 'other member' never even mentioned "Salem". It was YOU who brought up Salem. No one else. So no good trying to blame another member, because that is not true.

The 'scripture only' stuff ignores the centuries of mysticism and philosophy that underscore the whole thing. The Bible on its own does NOT TEACH the whole thing. There is education and training that needs to take place before a person can - at a semi-mature age - understand what Jesus was really saying.

So much of that has to do with understanding the symbolism, the connection between 'scripture' and 'works'!! The people who come on here day after day saying, "All you have to do is say 'Jesus is Lord' and it's a done deal" are just as wrong as you are.

The thing is that people who do that are scared, traumatized and damaged.... and as another member said recently, "What about those people who were floundering and failing to function UNTIL they found [your Evangelical born-again religion]?" (And then proceed to scare/beat the crap out of their kids and send them to Jesus Camp and want "War with Iran" and Armageddon and then teach their children this and think it's 'good'....)
The answer is -- those people were damaged to begin with, before they ever found the Jesus Freak Cult thing.

reply to post by wildtimes


Ignoring most all your post as non sequitur, I'll post this passage and again tell me why there is a problem with Christians using the scripture alone for Christian doctrine:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

2 Timothy 3:16

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Forgive me for butting in to your discussion with wildtimes. May I suggest an answer to your question?

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Everybody, Catholic or not, agrees with that. (Although sometimes I wonder about the "begats.")

The difficulty with your verse is that it doesn't say "Only scripture is given by God . . . " Catholics will say, "Yes, scripture is given by God, so is Tradition."

reply to post by wildtimes

First of all, I want to point out that I have reviewed the entire thread again, and the 'other member' never even mentioned "Salem". It was YOU who brought up Salem. No one else. So no good trying to blame another member, because that is not true.

Why don't you try looking in the other thread considering the post you quoted from and the "other member" I'm speaking of is in the "North Carolina" thread, not this one.

Why did you quote from another thread an comment on it here in this one anyways??