name a gayer event in history.
The industrial revolution
>>18721016yep. that and also the enlightenment you can't go wrong with.
>>18720988Catholics speak a good game online. But in reality the church as an institution is decadent and rotten. So many of the clergy are raging homosexuals. Many Catholics are very proud of their catholic identity but have no genuine faith or understanding of the doctrines. It's a cultural identity mostly Irish American in my area, feels very ethnic. Catholics criticize Orthodox Christianity for being ethic but Catholics are just the same. Full of old woman pretentiously genuflecting and crossing themselves with their diamond rings on.The church is full of idols. I once visited a catholic church to attend a mass. At the front of the church at the left hand side, was a magnificent white marble shrine to Mary. A young mother and her daughter were praying to it and then throwing coins into a metal pot at the foot of the shrine.Felt very uncomfortable and walked out before it started. The reformers were right. Why would I want to confess my sins to a priest?
>>18720988The Christianisation of the Roman Empire
>500+ years of nonstop seething
>>18720988the invention of dispensationalism by jews in the 1830s
the implicit catholic understanding is their own priesthood is just a refuge for closet cases that don't want to embarrass their nonna/abuela by coming out publicly
>>18720988>name a gayer event in history.The creation of Christianity in Jerusalem. It was the end of Jews having the ability to keep their bullshit to themselves.
>>18720988Why meds are coping about this still
>>18721028>>18721325That’s why they molest little boys. All gays are pedophiles, Rome has a sodomite problem.0
>>18721341>bestialitygross
The many times in the late 19th to early 20th century when Europe had the opportunity to unite and create a global ethnostate
>>18720988OP's birth
>>18721028None of this is an argument against Catholicism though. Jesus told people to obey the Pharisees in spite of their rampant corruption, so how can you justify the Protestant rebellion against the Church? Protestants exist in this symbiotic relationship with Catholicism; they need it to maintain their faith. After all, if they couldn't just blame all of their problems on the Catholic clergy, they'd have to actually contend with the abysmal state of their own churches.
>>18722112>Jesus told people to obey the Pharisees in spite of their rampant corruptionThat is not what Jesus said Jesus said your righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. Which is both a diss on the Pharisees by stating they won’t enter heaven and a reminder that you must take the law even more seriously than they do
>>18722118>The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.This could just as easily apply to bad priests in any age. You're supposed to obey them, but not follow them when they do evil. But you people would've called Moses or Abraham the antichrist, because you have no respect for God's authority on earth.
>>18722112I see a lot more coping about protestantism from internet catholics than the reverse 2bh
>>18720988Your birth.
>>18722141I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Personally I think some of the measures Catholics took in the 16th century were too extreme, and I do not think Christians should be fantasizing about persecuting each other and fighting online, but I do maintain Protestantism was an absurd rebellion that can be refuted with trivial effort.
>>18722133C'mon, now. You can come up with a better argument for Catholicism than pretending the Pharisees, literally the contemporary equivalent of Rabbinic Jews, were God's authority on Earth.
>>18722112>Jesus told people to obey the Pharisees in spite of their rampant corruption, so how can you justify the Protestant rebellion against the Church?Jesus specifically warned His followers not to follow the teachings of the pharisees (Matthew 16:6-12). The seat of Moses was an authoritative office in the administration of the law. The pharisees were experts in the written law of God in the scriptures, and could be consulted for practical explanation of the law, i.e. how to keep it. Hence He says, “do what they say”. Now this was contingent on the words of the pharisees actually being the commands of Moses, or rather of God through Moses, and not of themselves. If the pharisees said they were to insult God and worship idols, were they to do so? Yet the papists would have us believe the false teachings of their corrupt prelates, and they would even have us do so if they are not the teachings of scripture. Second, there was no “rebellion against the Church”. The Church is not the pope and the prelates, but the believing people. There can be rebellion against lawful elders (which the prelates were not, being instead robbers who entered the sheepfold by means other than the door), but not against the Church. Nor was there such a rebellion, because it was not an action of laymen against clergy but of clergy against corruption, as every reformer was a lawfully ordained minister, which the papists cannot deny without denying themselves. Even if it did arise from laymen it was a righteous cause because it was done in obedience to the word of God against a general apostasy.The rest of this post doesn’t merit acknowledgment.
>>18720988Can the Amerimutts shut up about this? Europe stopped fighting this retarded war like 300 years ago already, no intelligent first worlder gives a fuck about this
>>18722133Your pope is not God’s authority on earth, God gave no authority to an office of “pope”. Your pope took his authority from the dragon as was foretold.
>>18722170>can browns shut up about thisNo they cannot. Their brains are trapped in the 16th century
>>18722156we're in a thread with an OP seething about the reformation anon, come off it
>>18722156>I mean the church made a few missteps here and there but at the end of the day I side with a pervert in a dress who calls himself my father
>>18722162New Protestant tactic: claim a Bible verse is false when you shove it right in front of their faces. >>18722167>If the pharisees said they were to insult God and worship idols, were they to do so?I'm sorry, but what is the point of the first half of this post? You're basically just repeating what I said with more words. When a lawful authority mandates evil, you must disobey, but that doesn't mean you try to overthrow it, which is the basis of Protestantism. "Reform" isn't really an accurate name for the way the English saw it as their duty to wage war on Catholic states until the faith was destroyed completely.>because it was not an action of laymen against clergyReally? Not even when the buccaneers were plundering Spanish America in the name of Protestantism?>which the prelates were notWhy not? It's not as if every Catholic priest in the 15/16th centuries was bad.>as every reformer was a lawfully ordained minister, which the papists cannot denyI don't deny that; I'm not advocating violent attacks on Protestants, just self-defense if they strike first. The only who wants to see valid priests abused and dethroned is you.>The rest of this post doesn’t merit acknowledgment.It was a fair observation. 90% of the complaints against Catholicism online amount to "Catholics are gay" as if tolerance of heresy were entirely absent from Protestantism.
>>18722177By what logic was a priest in 1400 AD less legitimate than one in 300 BC? I really want to know, because it seems completely arbitrary and no one is explaining it.>>18722204>anyone who wears a tunic is a crossdresserPlease repent for blasphemy against God and most of His Saints.
>>18722206>Why not? It's not as if every Catholic priest in the 15/16th centuries was bad.Yeah you had the good ones like Martin Luther, Jean Calvin, Jan Hus, John Wycliffe, the list goes on and on.
>>18722206>I'm sorry, but what is the point of the first half of this post?It was to clarify the meaning of the verse you were misusing and show the disanalogy between the pharisees sitting in Moses’ seat and the authority claims of the Roman church.>When a lawful authority mandates evil, you must disobey, but that doesn't mean you try to overthrow itFirst, I do not grant at all that the authority of the Roman pontiff is lawful. Second, the thing which was being “overthrown” was innumerable iniquities and heresies, and that by men who were themselves the lawful authorities.>the English saw it as their duty to wage war on Catholic states until the faith was destroyed completelyPure ahistorical fantasy. England didn’t even enter the Thirty Years’ War, even though it began with the Elector-Palatine seeking their support. >Not even when the buccaneers were plundering Spanish America in the name of Protestantism?You think the Reformation was military actions between England and Spain in the new world?(cont.)
>>18722234If this were an earlier time period I might feel tempted to debate the original concept of Protestantism, which was "we're the real Catholics," but now that they've completely abandoned it, I really don't see why I'd waste my breath. It just doesn't feel like an argument that is important enough to bother with anymore. The whole justification for Protestantism is that a priest can be overthrown in violent revolution if he's bad at his job, and that's just not Biblical. You can see how Protestant monarchs really set up their own downfall by playing into that narrative.
>>18722206>Why not? It's not as if every Catholic priest in the 15/16th centuries was bad.I did not say “priests”, I said prelates. Their authority was not lawful because it was not established by God, who gave the Church only two ordinary offices, elders and deacons. Originally prelacy developed as a mere organizational structure, which could be tolerated, and presbyters and bishops had the same authority from God, but by the Reformation it had devolved into Antichristian tyranny, most egregiously in the form of the papacy. Christ said the apostles were not to be lords over each other, yet this is precisely what the prelates made themselves. Consequently they made the argument that our Reformation was not legitimate because it was against the authority of the prelates, and that the reformers did not have authority to reform the Church because they were not prelates. But the authority of prelates was at most equal with any other presbyter, and certainly not greater than God’s, and the reformers were fully authorized to reform the Church, because they had the only authority to govern the Church which Christ had ever given to men. >I don't deny thatThen why do you term their lawful reformation a “rebellion”?>>18722218>By what logic was a priest in 1400 AD less legitimate than one in 300 BC?The pope is more than a priest, and there never was a pope at any time. However, there is no special priesthood among Christians because Christ’s priesthood and priestly work is so perfect that nothing can be added to it, nor would the addition of other priests have any benefit (see Hebrews 7).
Reminder the Catholic solution to the Dutch reformation was literally to kill all the protestants, millions of people. Fortunately Moorberians are shit at war and God was with the Dutch so this vile evil plot never came to fruition.
>>18722243Strawman fallacy>the original concept of Protestantism, which was "we're the real Catholics," but now that they've completely abandoned itYou’re talking about Neo-Anabaptists like Steven Anderson. Real Protestants (i.e. Lutherans and Calvinists) continue to claim to be the true Catholic Church.
>>18722243All the named individuals were literally Catholic clergymen. A joke, obviously, that the good 15th/16th century Catholic priests were the ones that became reformers.However as we know from the Bible, we're all priests.
>>18722250Technically Calvin was never a priest in the church of Rome, but he was ordained by William Farel who was.
>>18720988OP's skin is brown.
>>18721016would have been good without Calvinists around to ruin it by inventing capitalism.
>>18722241>Pure ahistorical fantasyNope. Perpetual war against half of Europe was most explicitly the state agenda under the Commonwealth, but it was hardly the only time Protestants ever thought like that and acted on the vision.>>18722244>Christ said the apostles were not to be lords over each otherNot really the point of that passage. He was illustrating the principle that it is in fact the greater who serves the lesser; just as God serves everyone, but is in fact our Lord. It doesn't mean the Pope should literally become a slave and do menial farm work.>because Christ’s priesthood and priestly work is so perfect that nothing can be added to itCan you provide another argument? Because this one makes no sense. No one has claimed that the authorities that God sets up are adding anything to His work, just that He empowers certain mortals whom He works through. This anti-hierarchical view is designed to make moderns more comfortable with the Bible, but it has no presence in Scripture, which repeatedly tells the governed to be obedient to their governors.>>18722250>However as we know from the Bible, we're all priests.No real substance to this rhetoric; it doesn't erase the fact that God endows some men with special authority. The king over his subjects, the priest over his flock, and the father over his sons. No you could not rebel against David just because he did some bad stuff, and yes you will have to repent for all the times you failed to be a good son.
>Render unto Caesar's the things that are Caesar's.>Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.If you want to be a Christian, you need to reckon with the fact that the Bible is completely incompatible with the ideas of the Enlightenment. With the kind of hardline stance against temporal authority I'm reading ITT, I don't even see how you could argue that fathers have God-given primacy within their households, and surely we can at least agree on that much?
Your birth
>>187222871 Peter 2:99 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.> and the father over his sonsCall no man father for one is your Father in heaven.
>>18720988The prots are right.t. orthodox
>>18721028every big religious tradition has plenty of people who inherit the label before they understand the theology
>>18720988I legit can't.
>>18720988The Counter-Reformation.
>>18722193>Their brains are trapped in the 16th centuryconsidering what the 21st century is like that's probably a good thing.
>>187223081 Peter is addressed to the Exiled Israelites and not to pagans. Paul's letters are the only epistles addressed to gentiles.That's why he calls them God's special possession which is how God refers to Israel many times in the original testament.
>>18720988When christcuck separated form the other jews.
>>18722848There is no Jew or gentile, all are one in Jesus Christ
>>18722287>Not really the point of that passage. He was illustrating the principle that it is in fact the greater who serves the lesser; just as God serves everyone, but is in fact our Lord. It doesn't mean the Pope should literally become a slave and do menial farm work.It is as though you said, “that verse doesn’t matter”. The Lord said to the disciples “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you.“ This was His answer to the disciples trying to assert their personal superiority over each other. Clearly that is the point of the verse, and you nullify the word of God by your traditions of men.>Can you provide another argument? Because this one makes no senseSir, you are spiritually blind, your soul is lost in darkness. You should tremble, repent and pray because you do not have eyes to see. >No one has claimed that the authorities that God sets up are adding anything to His work, just that He empowers certain mortals whom He works throughWe are addressing the priesthood of your church, not the concept of authority. Your priests are called “alter Christus”, that is, another Christ, because they are supposed to offer Christ in sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead without which none would be saved. This is clearly incompatible with the perfection of Christ’s priestly ministry, whose work was finished once for all time on behalf of every believer, so that no further priestly ministry could be added to it, nor could any benefit come from another priest. This is the very argument the author offers at Hebrews 7:23-25. Therefore your priests are not another Christ but Antichrist.Nothing else you said merits acknowledgement.
