- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Catholic/Protestant Debate
Posted on 4/8/24 at 6:03 am to Prodigal Son
Posted on 4/8/24 at 6:03 am to Prodigal Son
I am a member of a family with both Catholics and Protestants. We are all Christians who love the Lord.
1
Posted on 4/8/24 at 6:35 am to PowerTool
quote:
You still following the very specific instructions found in Exodus and Leviticus? You making the burnt offering of a one year old lamb every morning and every evening?
Seriously? God was very specific in the Old Testament. He had a covenant with the Jewish people at that time. Christ represents the new covenant and He, being God, gave us the sacraments, which are very specific ways to worship God.
There is no longer a need for burnt offerings or sin offerings, because Jesus took that all on Himself, for all time.
Posted on 4/8/24 at 6:38 am to Redbone
quote:
If James White is a Baptist then he has no business Representing protestants. Baptist church came from the Church of England.
This got two upvotes.
Posted on 4/8/24 at 6:39 am to Furious
Why is it that some protestant churches have no kneelers? 
Posted on 4/8/24 at 6:42 am to Prodigal Son
quote:Yep - that ought to settle it. Question - from which of the hundreds of Protestant denominations does one take their queues? We are probably the newest Protestant denomination so let us do it. We are as pure as the driven snow (Global Methodist Church).
Catholic/Protestant Debate
Posted on 4/8/24 at 6:46 am to LRB1967
Personally I appreciate when Foo Man Choo weighs in on theological issues. I don't necessarily always agree with his takes, but they are insightful and gets you thinking especially as a Catholic and he is Presbyterian (I think) but if you have a reasoned and thoughtful discussion I don't have a problem with it. Same for Revelator and Champagne.
The discussion we had after Shia LaBeouf announced his conversion to Catholicism was epically good as we discussed differences in a very civil way between Catholics and Protestants.
The discussion we had after Shia LaBeouf announced his conversion to Catholicism was epically good as we discussed differences in a very civil way between Catholics and Protestants.
Posted on 4/8/24 at 7:15 am to tigerpawl
quote:I think Episcopal Churches do but I've only been to weddings at an Episcopal Church so can't say for sure.
Why is it that some protestant churches have no kneelers?
Posted on 4/8/24 at 7:32 am to Diamondawg
The Church of England has kneelers because its schism from Rome was mostly political (as the means of allowing Henry VIII to divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn). The English clergy wasn’t really on board but had a gun to their head. Now, that said, the Anglican Church is, in fact, Protestant. They bought into iconoclasm pretty quickly after that. The line of apostolic succession was broken, and in the centuries following, the Anglican/Episcopal church has gone off on its own, sometimes weird, course.
The best example of more militant Protestantism in Britain would have been the Presbyterians in Scotland led by John Knox.
The best example of more militant Protestantism in Britain would have been the Presbyterians in Scotland led by John Knox.
Posted on 4/8/24 at 8:32 am to MemphisGuy
quote:
Squirrelmeister telling us we are all stupid for believing any of it
Thanks for the recognition, though “stupid” generally wouldn’t be my first choice of descriptors because I think many of you are quite intelligent. Many of you use your intelligence to delude yourselves - to trick the logic and reasoning part of your brain. “Uneducated” might be a better choice.
quote:
David didn't kill goliath
Don’t take my word for it. 2 Samuel 21:19
quote:
And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
And in the same chapter immediately preceding that verse, it says David is too old to go out into battle anymore. He’s not a young boy, but rather an old man, when Goliath is slain.
quote:
17But Abishai the son of Zeruiah came to his aid and attacked the Philistine and killed him. Then David’s men swore to him, “You shall no longer go out with us to battle, lest you quench the lamp of Israel.” 18After this there was again war with the Philistines at Gob. Then Sibbecai the Hushathite struck down Saph, who was one of the descendants of the giants.
So about the other story in 1 Samuel 17 where David is a young boy, where Goliath is dressed exactly like Achilles in the Iliad, and where he challenges an opposing side’s hero to one-on-one combat (also like Achilles challenging Hector in the Iliad)… and like in the Iliad Goliath / Achilles is killed by a projectile guided by God (Apollo). And then the winner, David, takes Achilles’ - I mean Goliath’s armor (just like Hector took Achilles’ armor off Achilles’ dead buddy Patroclus) back to his tent. Ask yourself- why would David, a young sheep herder, not even big enough himself to wear armor, have a tent like a soldier would have?
The two stories both cannot be true. They are contradictory. Ask yourself though which one is most likely the original. In David’s old age, one of his soldiers, the otherwise unknown Elhanan, kills a giant Peleset warrior dressed like Achilles holding a huge Greek thrusting spear? Or a story 10 times longer with many more details taken straight out of Homer’s epic where the winning hero is the divinely annointed (messiah) king of Israel?
quote:
Jesus wasn't even a real person
Now you are starting to get it! It was the Rulers (Archons) that killed Jesus according to Paul. Where do the Rulers reside? In the heavenly places. Paul had no knowledge of Jesus working miracles in Galilee and of the Romans crucifying Jesus of the later historicized gospels (perhaps the first written by Marcion or Papias) because those stories hadn’t been invented yet.
1 Corinthians 2:8
quote:
None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Ephesians 6:12
quote:
12For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
Great topics. Thanks for bringing them up.
Posted on 4/8/24 at 8:43 am to JimNat
quote:
I am a Protestant, but I wish we would come together because we face a common and demonic enemy today
Is God not strong enough, not omnipotent enough, to overcome the demonic enemies? Or is he capable, but would rather the demons keep doing their evil deeds? How can God be both omnipotent and benevolent at the same time? In Isaiah 45 God specifically says he creates evil. Why?
Posted on 4/8/24 at 8:56 am to Prodigal Son
I doubt any of the participants know
much about The Reformation or Martin Luther. Or the later iterations
of the split from Rome. Some so called “Protestant” denominations
maintained the teachings of the original Church, but simply rejected
Rome as their goyerning authority.
much about The Reformation or Martin Luther. Or the later iterations
of the split from Rome. Some so called “Protestant” denominations
maintained the teachings of the original Church, but simply rejected
Rome as their goyerning authority.
Posted on 4/8/24 at 9:13 am to Squirrelmeister
How can God be both omnipotent and benevolent at the same time? In Isaiah 45 God specifically says he creates evil. Why?
A great question…
For one thing, there can’t be good without evil. The main thing is love. God is pure perfect Love. His desire for us, human beings, to love Him in return. That requires our choosing to love Him, which takes free will.
If evil (the antithesis of love) didn’t exist, it would not be possible for us to choose to love God. Frankly, there would be no choice at all.
A great question…
For one thing, there can’t be good without evil. The main thing is love. God is pure perfect Love. His desire for us, human beings, to love Him in return. That requires our choosing to love Him, which takes free will.
If evil (the antithesis of love) didn’t exist, it would not be possible for us to choose to love God. Frankly, there would be no choice at all.
This post was edited on 4/8/24 at 9:15 am
Posted on 4/8/24 at 9:35 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Is God not strong enough, not omnipotent enough, to overcome the demonic enemies? Or is he capable, but would rather the demons keep doing their evil deeds? How can God be both omnipotent and benevolent at the same time? In Isaiah 45 God specifically says he creates evil. Why?
Even with your Goliath expose, you are using different translations of the Bible to satisfy the end goal of pushing some level of inauthenticity or inaccuracy, not understanding that certain words in the Bible are extremely contextual to time, place, translation, etc.
ASV has "evil" in Isaiah 45 but in a wildly different translation from many others that use either "disaster" or "calamity." Which is in reference to talking about the nations that would reject him.
It's not about "creating evil," in the sense that God created evil as a "thing." That's a completely different although relevant topic. That particular passage is not pointing to that.
Light and darkness is closer - but even that is a completely different concept.
quote:
Is God not strong enough, not omnipotent enough, to overcome the demonic enemies? Or is he capable, but would rather the demons keep doing their evil deeds? How can God be both omnipotent and benevolent at the same time?
All different kinds of questions that are good to ask, and do have good answers. But you can't pull a single passage out, interpret it on our own erroneously and then extrapolate a whole bunch of inaccurate ideas from that. Although I suspect you've dug in and never found a sufficient answer?
Posted on 4/8/24 at 9:59 am to Squirrelmeister
It's interesting at times to see some of the parallels between Christianity and some of the polytheistic myths of the Greeks and the Egyptians. Not necessarily in message, but in some of the details .
Posted on 4/8/24 at 10:47 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Even with your Goliath expose, you are using different translations of the Bible to satisfy the end goal of pushing some level of inauthenticity or inaccuracy
Nope, I copied and pasted straight from the ESV for all the Goliath stories. The contradictions are simply and plainly made evident by the text of the Bible.
quote:
not understanding that certain words in the Bible are extremely contextual to time, place, translation
Seriously can you read? In one story David is a young boy who killed Goliath. In on story David is an old man and his solider Elhanan killed Goliath.
quote:
ASV has "evil" in Isaiah 45 but in a wildly different translation from many others that use either "disaster" or "calamity." Which is in reference to talking about the nations that would reject him.
It’s the Hebrew word “rah” which just literally and simply means “bad”. In Genesis 2, it is the tree of knowledge of good and “rah”. In Genesis 6 man and his thoughts were “rah” so God had to flood the earth and kill everyone. The people of Sodom were “rah” and sinful so they had to be destroyed. The same exact Hebrew word is used in Isaiah 45. Disaster and calamity are just some English words chosen in some translations that, in my opinion, show they are uncomfortable using “evil” in Isaiah 45 (common in earlier translations) because they don’t feel their loving god is supposed to create evil.
quote:
But you can't pull a single passage out, interpret it on our own erroneously
Where is my error, specifically?
quote:
then extrapolate a whole bunch of inaccurate ideas from that
I don’t know to what you are referring.
quote:
Although I suspect you've dug in and never found a sufficient answer?
I’ve dug in and found a sufficient answer.
Posted on 4/8/24 at 11:06 am to KiwiHead
quote:It's also interesting to see the parallels between these stories and "myths" and talk of aliens coming to earth at times.
It's interesting at times to see some of the parallels between Christianity and some of the polytheistic myths of the Greeks and the Egyptians
We look to the sky when talking about heavenly things. God is not of this world. Since God is not of this world He is by definition, an alien. Christ is the son of Mary and God making Him 1/2 alien.
In this overview of mine it should be noted Jesus went somewhere else to prepare a place for us. I can only think of 2 possibilities. 1. a parallel universe and 2. another planet.
ALL of these religions refers to deities not of this earth. That makes every worshipper a believer in either parallel universes or life on other planet(s).
Posted on 4/8/24 at 11:08 am to Prodigal Son
The sola scriptura debates are always the best and most necessary ones, IMO, as all other differences between RCs and Protestants stem from the matter of the Christian's ultimate authority; is it the Bible alone or the Bible along with the other teachings of the Church?
Posted on 4/8/24 at 11:11 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:You don't come across as being very astute.
In on story David is an old man and his solider Elhanan killed Goliath.
Posted on 4/8/24 at 11:16 am to KiwiHead
quote:Something else that is interesting is the belief in angels. It's common to think of them as good and loving when the bible clearly refers to them as workers for God and having no feelings.
It's interesting at times to see some of the parallels between Christianity and some of the polytheistic myths of the Greeks and the Egyptians.
Posted on 4/8/24 at 11:39 am to Furious
quote:
If evil (the antithesis of love) didn’t exist, it would not be possible for us to choose to love God. Frankly, there would be no choice at all.
Do you have a scriptural basis for this?
quote:
For one thing, there can’t be good without evil.
Is there good in heaven? If so, there must be evil in heaven?
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News