Protestantism is logically indefensible because it's result is thousands of different denominations that can't agree on any basic tenets of belief, but arbitrarily throw out parts of Christian Tradition they dislike. The various Protestant branches have no legitimate claim to authority, and rely on claims of a Great Apostasy that, if logically followed, would render Christianity an almost abject failure.

I don't think they are trying to seek authority mate

I think they are just following God in their own way

Which i dont see anything wrong with until it borders with homosexuality or other degenerate shit

Following God in your own way almost always leads to that. That's why most mainline Prot denominations accept those things.

The others just create God in their own image, to suit their own needs/emotions

God is vauge to us and you cant really think you know exactly what he 'is' in an image of sorts.

Knowledge of God can be achieved through reason.

I agree

Obviously not totally, but God isn't a vague concept. The point of Christianity is to know God.

But even close to the knowledge needed to define him? No.

You're acting like God is a vague concept, incomprehensible to humans, which is antithetical to the point of Christianity (ie the Incarnation).

The main issue i have with catholics is their egotistical behavior and the whole Marry issue

God is so absolute we cannot understand him, he is infinitely incomprehensible.

Jesus was a way for us to try to grapple with this issue [a secondary thing, the primary is obv to save]

Veneration of Mary is intrinsic to historic Christianity, so that should not be an issue. And the behavior of individual Catholics shouldn't interfere with how you view the actual beliefs.

God is incomprehensible in many ways and absolute. But you have to be careful not to reduce the personal nature of God just to emphasize other aspects of God.

Believe it or not traditional protestant churches exist, i go to one.

Literally all of the Church Fathers (who were directly taught by the apostles and their succesors) wrote about the values/virtues of Mary. And some of the Prot "Reformers" held very "Catholic" views of Mary.

Protestantism is antithetical to Tradition though. The moment a significant portion disagrees with an element of a tradition, they will just start their own church.

Praying to marry is something i'd strongly opposed to, i view it as a sin.

Protestantism was originally about pointing out the flaws in the catholic church, but they refused to fix them, and many faults still exist in the Catholic Church.

"Praying to Mary" is literally just asking Mary to pray for you though. That shouldn't be a problem, unless you view asking other Christians to pray for you as sinful.

The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone. In the primitive church never were prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church.

(Matthew 11:28; Luke 1:46; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-18)

There's also kissing of the popes feet

Which the bible forbids

It started as a pagan custom

The Temporal power of the Popes is also sinful

Jesus expressly forbade such a thing, and He himself refused worldly kingship. (Read Matthew 4:8-9; 20:25-26; John 18:38).

wth

There's also the canonization of saints @ccalvaru

Which is utter nonsense

Since the bible teaches ALL believes are saints

(Read Romans 1:7; 1st Colossians 1:2)

There are many instances of people bowing/kneeling before people in the Bible - that act is not worship. And the kissing of feet is a sign of respect, not pagan worship.

What do you define as primitive Church? The apostolic and early Church fathers wrote of asking saints/angels to pray for them as early as 80 AD.

Theres also the celibacy of priests

The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII, not by God.

Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. On the contrary, St. Peter was a married man, and St. Paul says that bishops were to have wife and children.

The temporal power of Popes cannot be sinful either, unless you view the temporal power of kings as sinful, which the Bible advocates.

St. Paul advocates celibacy, and Christ Himself was celibate, so it obviously has virtue.

The sale of Indulgences, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin.

Christianity, as taught in the Bible, condemns such a traffic and it was the protest against this traffic that brought on the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.

St. Peter isn't declaring that bishops must be married either, just that they cannot be divorced/remarried.

The church enforces celibacy though to become a priest

Also, the Pope *is* a king.

So yes

Actually not true, many Eastern rite priests are married. It's just a discipline, not a dogma.

Confession of sin to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III., in the Lateran Council. The Bible commands us to confess our sins direct to God. (Read Psalm 51:1-10; Luke 7:48; 15:21; 1st John 1:8-9).

Selling of indulgences were historically distorted and overemphasized.

It still happen

From and by the Catholic Church

Jesus literally gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins.

The doctrine of Purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Council of Florence
There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins. (Read 1st John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Romans 8:1).

And that apostolic authority is handed down to priests. So Catholics confess their sins to God, through the presence of the priest, as a representative of God.

I dont believe that bishops, or the pope is a representative of God

You literally don't address anything I say. You just continue to list distortions of historical events and blatantly misinterpret Catholic teachings. Are you copying and pasting this from somewhere?

Also im not in favor that "tradition is on equal authority with the bible"

I did address some

Pope *is* a king

John 20:21 is literally Jesus telling the apostles they are representatives of Him. Priests/bishops are the successors of the apostles.

The apostles are no longer around

Currently i disagree, show me where it says Bishops are successors of the apostles

What is wrong with the idea of a king? The Bible advocates for the authority of kings as derived by God. The Pope's temporal and spiritual authority is thus derived by God.

The church is more politics than it is religion

its deluded

Its spirituality is not valid i'd argue

If so, a bunch of faggot molestors are successors of the Apostles? (to the apostle issue)

https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-biblical-support-for-apostolic-succession

>catholic.com

If you're actually interested

ill read

"VICARIVS FILII DEI." -- V-5, I-1; C-100, I-1; V-S, I-1; L-50, I-1; I-1; D-500, I-l — Total, 666.

Do you condemn the apostles because of the actions of Judas?

"2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him." How this have to do anything with apostle succession

◄ 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ►
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

You shouldn't condemn the entirety of Catholicism because of the actions of evil people within the religions.

again these 2 have nothing to do with apostle succession

Thats the evidence your link gives

"We passed onto you"
"Brothers and sisters"

It addresses everyone

Not one person to keep passing it

As far as i see, so far, the apostle succession theory is still invalid

Acts 1:21-26 New International Version (NIV)

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us,22 beginning from John’s baptismA)" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; vertical-align: top;"> to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witnessB)" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; vertical-align: top;"> with us of his resurrection.”

23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed,C)" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; vertical-align: top;"> “Lord, you know everyone’s heart.D)" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; vertical-align: top;"> Show usE)" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; vertical-align: top;"> which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
This is Acts 1:21-26

reading

Thessalonians is just confirming the importance of Tradition, which apostolic succession is.

The apostles were given very clear offices/positions, by Christ Himself. When there was a vacancy left by Judas, the apostles immediately appointed his successor.

"Apostolic ministry" is pretty clear and unambigous.

It makes it out to keep the 12, 12, until their death, is their any indication, which i am currently unaware of, that they continued this replacing beyond this?

The replacing was simply to keep the 12, until they all died, but i see no current evidence of this going on (in the bible) beyond.

[different topic, but still relevent -----> In 1870 Pope Pius IX proclaimed the principial of Papal Infallibility, This is a blasphemy and the sign of the antichrist predicted by St. Paul]

@ccalvaru

There's also the number of the beast, 666.

Which, if you take the Pope's title

"VICARIVS FILII DEI."
V-5,
I-1;
C-100,
I-1;
V-S,
I-1;
L-50,
I-1;
I-1
; D-500,
I-l
— Total, 666.

Okay so onto apostolic succession, yes there is historical evidence of this practice written about in the Early Church.

I said mentioned in the bible.

Historical Events are not automatically christian doctrine

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" 
This is St. Iraneus writing in AD 189

reading

Again, tradition is *not* on equal authority to the bible

And the fact this writing is made by a catholic member, and is extremely egotistical, i consider dangerous behavior.

Please address the papal infallibility and the pope's title "coincidence"

Vicarius Filii Dei is not a title of the Pope, and even if it was, you are just playing games with numbers, many names can add up to 666. Likely 666 was Nero.

(reminder that 75% of roman catholic rituals and traditions are of pagan origin)

papal infallibility

Cardinal Newman, in his book, “The Development of the Christian Religion,” admits that ... “Temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, holidays and season of devotions, processions, blessing of fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests and monks and nuns), images ... are all of pagan origin...”

Papal infallibility is only invoked when speaking from the Chair of Peter, which connects to the Seat of Moses from the Old Testament. It basically just a guarantee that the Holy Ghost prevents the Church from formally teaching error.

Which i call falsehood on

Lol Cardinal Newman converted to Catholicism and renounced those claims!!!!!

Of course he did

I'm just saying, you should check your source. If even the person who originally wrote it denounced it, would you say it's still credible?

I suppose not

I retrack that claim

The thing is

The Catholic Church is no more

Both Peter and Paul predicted and warned that in the later times "false teachers" would rise within the Church and bring in "damnable heresies" and "doctrines of devils". (Read 2nd Peter 2:1-3, and 1st Timothy 3:2-5)

Christ promised to be with the Church until the end of time though, and to send the Holy Ghost upon the Church (ie Pentecost) though. So yes, there are clearly going to be false teachers/bad leaders in the Church, because of human nature/sin. This doesn't equate to a Great Apostasy.

You cant seriously believe the current Catholic Church is actually 'pure'

Matthew 16:18 - the gates of Hell will not prevail against Christ's Church

The Catholic Church is not Christ's Church though

The leaders of the Church? Some no. The Church as an institution though is different.

Christ's Church is not a physical church in the mortal plain

The Catholic Church is the only Church that can be traced back to the apostles.

And yes, obviously it's not a physical/material location, but it is the Church that can most accurately be traced back to the Apostles and the teachings of Early Christians.

The Apostolic Church <:unequal:473954748517842954> the catholic church

Which branch of Baptist belief is the Apostolic Church? Please tell me.

None

The apostolic church is irrelevant

Do you believe that the Apostolic Church just began in 1609 with the beginning of the Baptist movement?

It's beliefs maybe not so, but it is not relevant to today, because there is nothing of it today

There are no middle men to mediate between God and Men besides one entity, which is no pope or bishop

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

The Bible literally commands us to hold to apostolic tradition that is handed down. The Catholic Church is the only Church that maintains this.

The Catholic Church does not maintain this

It is plagued with heresy and devilish practices

There is one mediator of the New Covenant!! This doesn't mean that we can't ask others to pray for us because that would be "mediating" or that Jesus didn't give the apostles the authority to forgive sin.

The Catholic Church is *far* into the great apostasy

The Catholic Church is the fallen church

Not the apostolic church

And even if you deny the great apostasy has happened

So you literally think the apostles failed and no Church maintains their tradition even though Christ sent the Holy Ghost upon His Church and actively promised that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against it?

It *will* happen

The Church is in heaven with the apostles, what remains are their teachings

The Catholic Church is mortal not divine

And it subject to mortal flaws

The Catholic Church as an institution is divine because Christ established it. The members are flawed and mortal.

Christ did not establish the Catholic Church

Christ established the Apostolic Church

They are not the same entity

There is no direct link

The the great apostasy has been happening ever since the papacy

in the early church

The papacy literally started with St. Peter though.

In the Bible. Like he was the first pope.

It dosent mention he was "pope"

Not that im aware of anyways

It's implicit in Christ giving him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. As much as I would like to continue this discussion, I haven't even finished praying my night prayers and it's almost 6 a.m. so I am going to get back to that, until I have to be awake in two and a half hours.

Good conversation, no ad hom.

If you're actually seriously interested in some of the claims you've made, I have no issue addressing them.

Pleasure talking with you

Same here.

Sedevacantism is retarded

so is V2 catholicism

but at least sede's aren't hypocrites

Sedevacantism denies the indefectibility of the Church.

https://youtu.be/gtI4wcA3B94

Oh I already watched it

I remember that chat of crime rate among legal and illegal immigrants used to say "hey,but migrants do less crime than natives" but completely forgetting the illegal one surpassed both of them

Protfags defending their nebulous inbred "religion".

Good stuff.

Salve.

Double U nigi

big sad

why no one speak

big sad

Capitalism looked good on paper, but then human nature meant that the workers were exploited while the boss worked less than them and claimed 100 times the wage

Haha yes

@Mahojo except that doesn't happen if your IQ is over 110

Going against capitalism is literally refuting genetic disparities

it's not as bad, but it's the same idea as socialists that believe all inequality among whites/blacks is environmental

a 90 IQ white is inferior to a white with an IQ of 120

and capitalism generally reflects this (past 120 you get diminishing returns though)

@Deleted User I very much know someone with a higher IQ has a much better chance. For some reason you assumed I ignore genetic disparities between people. So yeh someone who is smarter doesn't deserve 100 times the wage of someone who worked harder than them.

My point still stands.

I mean people with an IQ of 70 really do deserve 1/100th the wage of people with an iq of 120

for anything expect physical labor

they're far less efficient

IK they're less efficient. But in the workplace people should get what they put in in terms of risk and effort

The workers should own the bussiness and vote on important decisions, and importantly, on everyone's wage @Deleted User

then start your own business

there are a lot of coop businesses

You're literally saying you want to use government violence and men with guns to make me conform to your personal moral system, when I just want to be alone and run my own company

Well yeah you just expect me to not follow my core morals? What if I expected you to let me have sex with young children?

And surely it's more a fact of misunderstanding. Most people don't understand socialism, it's not that they actually have different morals

So you're actually against people getting paid according to how hard they work? Not whether socialism achieves this or not, just forget all of this for a second. Just answer that question straight, just as it is.

@Deleted User

I got massive deja vu from this coversation lmao

Cool it down with the samenesss reeeee

I'm bored guys... What could I do?

read

seize the means of production

work out

Meh...

BOOOOOM! http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/REDACTED_In_re_GJ_18-gj-34_MEM_OP_20180802_FINAL.pdf FEDERAL Judge ANNIHILATES Trump's FAKE NEWS claim's that the Special Counsel is unconstitutional

I dont know if he really even said it

But for sure it was started by a russian made dossier it had a bad and false start

Remember that whole golden shower thing kek

BEHOLD THE PATRIARCH OF PAKISTAN https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/tribune.com.pk/story/1736644/1-imran-khans-remarks-feminism-draw-social-media-ire/%3famp=1

W O K E D

https://twitter.com/FiredFBIBoss/status/1025097837225406470

Anyone who likes Polk and Jackson are Democrats

haven't the democrats been the racist ones

since like

forever

"Those who have no understanding of the political world around them have no right to criticize or complain."

Democrats have always been the racist ones so I feel bad for disliking them.

yee

jackson was a good president

Excuse me

@Mahojo capitalism doesn't require literal violence to function like socialism

@Deleted User What are you referencing? Is this just out of the blue?

I'll respond

Both capitalism and socialism require some form of violence to operate. If you try and destroy the factory you work at to get a better wage, you'll obviously get imprisoned. If you try and take money from your boss to get what you deserve, you'll obviously get imprisoned. And in socialism, if you take money from the workers because you want a better wage, you'll get imprisoned. I'm talking about basic socialism here BTW, commonly called democratic socialism. I'm not a communist or anything.

Chup chup chup

k k k

Wrong

No one expects the Christian crusades

<:Dude:459545653031469068>

lol what the fuck

was someone actually arguing about iq

i dont fucking even

that's small brained as fuck

imagine unironically thinking the iq has a major effect on how intelligent you can become

if someone with an iq of 70 earns 1/100th of the wage someone with an iq of 120 does, what about someone with an iq of 119?

i'd love for you to walk me through your logic here

@Mahojo choosing to work at a factory then attacking the owner

vs

choosing to work for yourself and being forced to give money to others

hm

@Mrz65 people with an iq of 70 are legitimate fucking retards

and having an average IQ below like 90 makes your entire society shit

Subsaharan african average IQ is like 70, mexico 85

ty for calling me superior race

Well there's diminishing returns at points

like at 70 you're fucking stupid and taking a few points lower won't effect much

at 120 you're smart and adding a few points won't effect much

it's more like if you score 120 you're definitely intellectually capable

if you score 70 you're definitely fucking stupid

not that someone at 100 is inferior to someone at 110

IQ doesn't equal efficiency