Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
catholics, if you know about reformation why stay same?
if you know luther etc. bring proofs from bible why do you stay same as childhood and prefer human priests and baseless traditions over your own holy book?
This is making me chuckle. The real question is, why should I follow human traditions that counteract what God instituted? Why follow the partial truth when I have access to the whole truth?
because they had proofs.
Ground 21... explain this one...
Luke 11:27-28
And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
Jesus is God and knows the future. He knew his words were in the bible and knew people would read it in the future. he's talking directly to the catholic church.
"YEAH RATHER blessed are they that hear the word and keep it" because he knew people would be engaging in Mary worship instead of keeping God's laws.
Then there's this also...
King James Version John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Does that verse say
... unto the father, but by mary?
Yes, Jesus absolutely knew the Bible and knew how everyone would take it. Including you and I right now.
I don't know what you mean by saying he is talking directly to the Catholic church.
Anyone who worships Mary is condemned, including by the Catholic church. Very explicitly so. We are still in agreement.
No it doesn't say unto the father but by Mary. Obviously. Nor do we disagree in any way with Jesus. Mary followed Him perfectly, and so do we strive to.
I encourage you to not put up straw men as the truth. It isn't productive.
Every time I click through radio stations this same one... Hail Mary full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed are thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus... over and over and over and over.
There are so many things wrong with that and the rest of it.
Then there are the countless statues and pictures of her everywhere holding a baby Jesus. In some countries its a lady Guadalupe, same thing.
The blaspheme of it. Don't know where to start.
@Grond21 for example the church leader needs one wife in book timothy. but catholic leaders not one wife so not real preist. not real cardinal to appoint pope so pope also not wife sonot leader and even was not really appointed either.
and peter was a pope but he was married if so pope must marry like peter.
peter was the pope... see mat. 8,14 to 15, so pope needs to be like peter.
also 1 tim. 3,2.
"And when Jesus entered Peter's house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever; he touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and served him." Matthew 8:14-15. This has nothing to do with Jesus making him a pope, nor does it define what a pope is or does. So to say Peter's successors have to be married like he was seems to be adding something to the Scriptures, not relying on them.
"Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher," 1 Timothy 3:2. Obviously this is a list against bad behavior and vice. So Timothy is warning bishops not to marry multiply women, he is not prescribing marriage as a necessity for the office. Not only would that not make sense of this passage, it would contradict Paul in 1st Corinthians when he wishes all men were single like him so as to better worship God.
Peter was the what?
Word:
pope (n.)
Meaning:
Old English papa (9c.), from Church Latin papa "bishop, pope" (in classical Latin, "tutor"), from Greek papas "patriarch, bishop," originally
"father." 😮🫢😲🙀
Applied to bishops of Asia Minor and taken as a title by the Bishop of Alexandria c.250. In Western Church, applied especially to the Bishop of Rome since the time of Leo the Great (440-461) and claimed exclusively by them from 1073 (usually in English with a capital P-). Popemobile, his car, is from 1979. Papal, papacy, later acquisitions in English, preserve the original vowel.
-God is the Father, not Peter. THIS is one of the main reasons why the catholic church is the beast and the pope of Rome is the Antichrist.
Can't claim no goat on moon, lol😂
Whoops, didn't mean to say that here🫢.
Tradition is Sunday Sabbath, not in bible, tradition is Mary worship, not in bible. Tradition is worshipping graven images... an OLD tradition. Then there's,... let's just say God has no mother that is holy... that's another stupid Tradition that IS NOT in the bible.
i understood, no problem.
Opinion
3Opinion
They didn’t. I am a Protestant and we study the reformation. The Catholic Church at that time was extremely corrupt It was common practice for priests to demand gold payment to get people into heaven, (there’s a little more to it than that) Most of a church service was Latin and the people, Gods children were kept from the word. HOW EVIL! This allowed the church to have no accountability. Since then the Catholic Church has given up a lot of bogus practices that they use to do, and even have Bibles in English. They still have a long way to go but they have made some progress.
u Because I don't believe Luther's claims. And I don't believe them because they are...
very general, you didn't find even one error to his proofs.
What proofs?
He learned the truth when he started reading God's word and realized his own church was lying to the people. You do realize no one had a bible to read back then? Only the super duper rich. Luther realized that and started preaching what the bible actually said and got retaliation, death threats from the catholic church... the reformation was born.
Perhaps he preached this verse...
King James Version Luke 11:27-28 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
1599 Geneva Bible Luke 11:27-28 ¶ And it came to pass as he said these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
Holy Bibe WYC Luke 11:27-28 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
John Wycliffe organized the first complete translation of the Bible into Middle English in the 1380s. The translation from the Vulgate was a collaborative effort, and it is not clear which portions are actually Wycliffe's work. Church authorities officially condemned the translators of the Bible into vernacular languages and called these heretics Lollards.
Yes, got him mistaken for another...
en.m.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_Protestant_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation
Strateguy, why do you persist in believing in a religion with no evidence to support it?
explain your claim. which religion has no evidence? how are you certain no evidence?
you are simply "ignorant" that proofs exist you can't claim "no evidence" unless you SEARCHED for it.
i can't claim "no goat on the moon" unless i check the moon!
so instead of lazily and baselessly DECIDED "no evidence" start investigation.
also you hinted two hints: "old books" how do you think HISTORY knows ANYTHING about ancient Assyria or ancient anything! unless they trust old books!
for everything else we trust old books! hypocrits!
2, "from nothing" hints at THERMODYNAMICS energy can't be created... so if it started existing at big bang then... must be a miracle.
but hypocrits don't care that they believe history and THERMODYNAMICS for everything else except god. @slatyb.
History? Ancient writing that chronicles ordinary events is believable -- such things happen all the time. I have no reason to doubt them, and in any case they have no effect on my life. Also there are artifacts that go along with the historical writing. That's quite a different thing from believing books proclaiming miracles. There is no corroborating evidence for any of them -- no contemporary accounts by other people reporting those miracles.
And of course you are dragging out the circular argument about creation. If a god created the universe, how was that god created? By a meta-god created by a meta-meta-god? And again, even if I grant that the Universe was created by some external entity, so what? That says
Prayer? That's because you prayed for a certain thing and have specific plans, but God has his own plans for your life.
The question is how far do peoples prayers go when they willingly break God's laws when he says not to.
As for miracles, even in the bible during the exodus, people saw the plagues of Egypt, The parting of the Red sea, the pillar of cloud by day, th pillar or fire by night, King James Version Numbers 21:8 And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
Yet MANY rejected Moses and just didn't believe when they had evidence in ther face it was from God.
It's the same with Jesus, he healed the sick, made the cripple walk and blind see yet many who saw it all didn't believe and things are NO DIFFERENT today!
Where's the evidence that carbon dating and other similar datings are accurate? Where's the evidence that humans evolved from monkeys? Humans and bananas share about 40 to 60 percent of the same DNA, mostly "housekeeping" genes that control basic cellular functions123. However, some sources claim that humans and bananas share only 1-2% of the same DNA when looking at the full DNA, not just the genes45. Humans also share DNA with other organisms, such as trees, slugs, honey bees, and daffodils3.
I guess monkeys evolved from bananas then.
Atheists might only know about the errors or crazy things of certain denominations of religion, but not the truth of Christianity.
@sean1234 Where's the evidence? In the fossil record and in the DNA. We share 99% of our genes with chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees differentiated about five million years ago.
"I guess monkeys evolved from bananas" -- Typical straw man argument. "The sky is not green, therefore evolution can't be true." Right, all the biologists are wrong and you have the answer.
The irony is the kind of science you believe in is in fact unscientific because you only want to study your viewpoint and not the other. I've done both.
SCI'ENCE, n. [L. scientia, from scio, to know.]
1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.
2. In philosophy, a collection of the general principles or leading truths relating to any subject. Pure science, as the mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on generally acknowledged truths, as metaphysics; or on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy; or even to an assemblage of the general principles of an art, as the science of agriculture; the science of navigation. Arts relate to practice, as painting and sculpture.
A principle in science is a rule in art.
3. Art derived from precepts or built on principles.
Science perfects genius.
4. Any art or species of knowledge.
No science doth make known the first principles on which it buildeth.
5. One of the seven liberal branches of knowledge, viz grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music.
[Note - Authors have not always been careful to use the terms art and science with due discrimination and precision. Music is an art as well as a science. In general, an art is that which depends on practice or performance, and science that which depends on abstract or speculative principles. The theory of music is a science; the practice of it an art.]
From what I've been seeing, people like yourself don't even look at the evidence that people give you, the preconceived ideas start kicking and there it goes.
It reminds me of voting for the president. In the past it was, vote vote Democrat or republican? Then it was which republican? Then it was later on it doesn't seem to matter which republican, those trump delegates are acting awfully similar to Democrats?
Most people have years of evidence thrown in their face and they can't see the truth no matter what. I no longer vote. Did the research and found that all US presidents are related by "Royal" blood, some very closely related.
It's the same with voting, it's the same with smoking cigarettes, the carton even says they'll die from it and somehow don't see anyone die from it and just don't believe it. Maybe they can't read.
Not only have people found blood cells in Dino fossils which is impossible after millions of years, but people have found fossils that usually date apart in the same layer of sediment. So many different subjects to prove God exists, not just God, but satan. This world falling apart, just as the bible says is proof enough for me.
What happened in France in the late 1700s is also proof of what happens when God, the church (church building, places to go) and the bible is outlawed. There was death and destruction, total and complete chaos until the people wanted God back.
@sean1234 No one has ever provided anything an objective person would consider evidence. All I get are silly questions like "How do you thing this all got here?" I don't know, and neither does anyone else. That's not a reason to believe, certainly not a reason to attend religious services.
You keep asserting that there's evidence but you don't provide any.
France in the late 1700s? What about Scandinavia in the 21st century? Highly secular, with a high standard of living, doing better than the United States by every measure of social welfare.
Science only discusses observable events?
Observable guesses made into facts is what I've been seeing. Reminds me of the Bill Nye and Ken ham debate...
www.youtube.com/.../z6kgvhG3AkI
Be the first girl to share an opinion
and earn 3 more Xper points!
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions