|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 1, 2021 5:40:10 GMT
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Apr 1, 2021 5:56:54 GMT
And why is the Catholic Church the true church and not the Orthodox, or the Oriental Orthodox, or the Assyrian church? The problem with all of these high churches descended from the early church is that they're split into four different churches and when you ask them to justify why they alone are the true church none of them can definitively answer that question in a satisfying manner.
They are split into at least four and none have the smoking gun proving their legitimacy and there's not much difference between being split in four or more and being split into thousands like the protestants. That's why I only call myself a Christian and use the Bible put together by the early church as my primary authority. I know that they were legitimate and so I know that the Bible is legitimate. The moment one of these four or more high churches prove that they in fact are the legitimate continuation of the early church I might consider joining them but for now, niltch.
Also, I probably know far more about the Bible than this Catholic speaking in the video. I have studied a lot about the Ancient Near Eastern cultural context of the Bible (the context in which it was written) which is in fact very important for a truly deep understanding of both the Old and New Testaments. He probably knows only what his patristic fathers who were on the scene far after the fact and had no knowledge of these things handed down. The best period for Biblical interpretation and knowledge was not under the patristic fathers, Calvin, or Luther, or the Puritans, all who got things wrong on many occasions, it is right now actually because we've dug up a lot of stuff that puts the Bible in it's proper context, a context that those men in Roman robes that guide the theology of the high churches did not have.
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Apr 1, 2021 6:04:21 GMT
Older doesn't necessarily mean better. When an old religion becomes corrupt, then it is time to rebel and start a new religion. This is exactly what Jesus did with Judaism. So those Christians who rebelled against Catholicism when it became corrupt were simply doing what Jesus did.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 1, 2021 7:05:48 GMT
And why is the Catholic Church the true church and not the Orthodox, or the Oriental Orthodox, or the Assyrian church? The problem with all of these high churches descended from the early church is that they're split into four different churches and when you ask them to justify why they alone are the true church none of them can definitively answer that question in a satisfying manner. They are split into at least four and none have the smoking gun proving their legitimacy and there's not much difference between being split in four or more and being split into thousands like the protestants. That's why I only call myself a Christian and use the Bible put together by the early church as my primary authority. I know that they were legitimate and so I know that the Bible is legitimate. The moment one of these four or more high churches prove that they in fact are the legitimate continuation of the early church I might consider joining them but for now, niltch. Also, I probably know far more about the Bible than this Catholic speaking in the video. I have studied a lot about the Ancient Near Eastern cultural context of the Bible (the context in which it was written) which is in fact very important for a truly deep understanding of both the Old and New Testaments. He probably knows only what his patristic fathers who were on the scene far after the fact and had no knowledge of these things handed down. The best period for Biblical interpretation and knowledge was not under the patristic fathers, Calvin, or Luther, or the Puritans, all who got things wrong on many occasions, it is right now actually because we've dug up a lot of stuff that puts the Bible in it's proper context, a context that those men in Roman robes that guide the theology of the high churches did not have. That guy was so argumentative. But I am positive sure he wanted to cause such an effect. Anyway he's right that the Protestants went far away from Christ. They don't even pray the places Jesus lived or never protected those places. Catholics did, and it's true, even maybe some of their "crusades" were to rob the churches, not to help them.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 1, 2021 7:07:00 GMT
Older doesn't necessarily mean better. When an old religion becomes corrupt, then it is time to rebel and start a new religion. This is exactly what Jesus did with Judaism. So those Christians who rebelled against Catholicism when it became corrupt were simply doing what Jesus did. So you're trying to say "the newer is no corruptions and weirdnesses"? Don't make me laugh.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 1, 2021 8:08:25 GMT
Churches are misguided these days. You are not there to join a church...meaning the building. Nor learn from it or be taught from the people there. Christ is the real teacher. You are there to unite with Christ. Forget buildings and stuff. You must just abide in Christ alone and learn from Him. Those church buildings will burn to the ground one day and not one stone will remain. And they worry about who's greater? Sounds like the apostles asking Christ who among them is greater again. They were left disappointed by the answer on that.
And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1 John:2:27
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Apr 1, 2021 15:45:30 GMT
So you're trying to say "the newer is no corruptions and weirdnesses"? Don't make me laugh. I didn't say that. I just said that there is nothing wrong with newer by itself. Something new may be good or bad. In the case Protestantism, it has serious flaws but being new isn't one of those flaws.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 2, 2021 3:21:32 GMT
So you're trying to say "the newer is no corruptions and weirdnesses"? Don't make me laugh. I didn't say that. I just said that there is nothing wrong with newer by itself. Something new may be good or bad. In the case Protestantism, it has serious flaws but being new isn't one of those flaws. Why then the modern culture isn't good at some points, just because it's new?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 2, 2021 3:25:53 GMT
No religion is christian religion, because Jesus have not founded a religion, but the possibility of religion in western societies. And a true superior possibility. If you love someone, you'll probably go fight for them, won't you? And Catholics went fight when it was necessary. They proved their love, and showed their loyalty. The same is for the Christian martyrs of the first time. They don't tell nonsense, just by citing Bible, but spilled their blood for Christ. Soldiers do it when the fatherland calls them. I guess that is what really and truly show the inner intentions.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 2, 2021 3:30:29 GMT
Churches are misguided these days. You are not there to join a church...meaning the building. Nor learn from it or be taught from the people there. Christ is the real teacher. You are there to unite with Christ. Forget buildings and stuff. You must just abide in Christ alone and learn from Him. Those church buildings will burn to the ground one day and not one stone will remain. And they worry about who's greater? Sounds like the apostles asking Christ who among them is greater again. They were left disappointed by the answer on that. And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1 John:2:27 If you love someone, you'll probably go fight for them, won't you? And Catholics went fight when it was necessary. They proved their love, and showed their loyalty. The same is for the Christian martyrs of the first time. They didn't cite Bible, but spilled their blood for Christ. Soldiers do it when the fatherland calls them. I guess that is what really and truly show the inner intentions. Christ told much more than Bible described it. Because if He spoke exactly how Bible shows it, He did not even exist. He should speak more. But why not everything had been collected? Because the Gospels were made for those who needed in written form of the Christ's teachins. If nobody could read, there would be no Gospels.
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Apr 2, 2021 8:26:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 2, 2021 8:57:53 GMT
It's true, but the main reason is that Catholics at the crusades and the first Christian Martyrs spilled their blood, so they proved their loyalty to Christ. However, Protestants did nothing, but established their churches, they did not prove their love to Christ, they, perhaps, proved it to their churches, i.e. their ideals.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 2, 2021 10:18:23 GMT
If you love someone, you'll probably go fight for them, won't you? And Catholics went fight when it was necessary. They proved their love, and showed their loyalty. The same is for the Christian martyrs of the first time. They don't tell nonsense, just by citing Bible, but spilled their blood for Christ. Soldiers do it when the fatherland calls them. I guess that is what really and truly show the inner intentions. Martyrs of Christ, not of a political movement called "christianity". The pope, for my taste, is only a politician. The Pope is a politician. I don't remember the time he wasn't. As Richard Dawkins said: "The Pope must be arrested immediately!".
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 2, 2021 12:50:53 GMT
The Pope is a politician. I don't remember the time he wasn't. As Richard Dawkins said: "The Pope must be arrested immediately!". Not arrested but considered as a religious with a political function. Even lamas have political functions. So, religious people are in some sense politicians, as every citizen can be a politician and participate of the political process. The pope is a politician, also, the lamas are another kind of politician, a politician based stricly in monastic ethics. The pope was absorbed by the ethics of politics. Since Costantinopla. So, he is a politician who defends religious interests. What "lamas" is??
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 2, 2021 13:07:55 GMT
Tibetan buddhism religious master. Like Dalai Lama. Or Lama Gangchen Rinpoche, or in Brazil Lama Michel Rinpoche or Lama Padma Santem. I posted a video in dialogue box of lama gangchen rinpoche, a master of buddhism. Also, I follow the work of lama Michel Rinpoche. Aha, I see now. About "positiveness". Have you heard this song of Rammstein? Must say I like it. mvclip.ru/clip/rammstein/dalai-lama
|
|