A lot of people think Christianity is stupid.
These people also think protestantism is Christianity.
They think that the vast majority of Christians are protestants of one sort or another.
They don't realize how big the Catholic church actually is.
Here's the key to understanding: Protestants are just plain stupid. They are the sort of stupid that it's hard to explain how stupid they are.
When the reformers started their movement, they were hyper-educated autistic types. They wanted to throw everything away and start from scratch, but since they had no revelation from God telling them to do that, they had to pick and choose their foundation.
They chose things that were literally retarded. They ignored pretty much what everyone had been saying up until then. When things couldn't be ignored, they just changed what people said to match their narrative.
It doesn't take long to sit down with a protestant and see how wrong they are about everything.
Take, for instance, this idea of "Sola Scriptura". The idea sounds nice, but it is terribly misguided. They claim that the Bible is God's word. Ok, I think most people can agree with that. They claim that God wrote the Bible. Ok. That's absurd, but let's run with that. Then they claim that everything we need to know is in the Bible. That's ridiculous.
For starters, where does God say in the Bible that the Bible even exists? He doesn't. In the New Testament, when the writers reference "scriptures" and such, they are talking about the books that compose the Old Testament, including books that we no longer consider as part of the canon, and books that we likely don't even have a faithful copy of. So you can't use anything from the New Testament to justify the New Testament as part of the canon. In fact, it would be silly to think a statement such as "Only these books that have been written and these books *yet to be written* are part of the canon" could even exist in the Bible.
Then we have the problem of whether God is allowed to speak or not. If there ever was a scripture that says "OK, I am God and I'm done talking now and I'll never talk again" it would be a contradiction, because anything said after that statement would not be allowed. But we don't even know which books were written when because they are so old. Certainly, after the books were written, people were looking forward to more writings. They had no idea that those would be the last words. And what about all the writings we lost? What if someone found them? Suppose we found another epistle from Paul buried in some ancient church, or if some Egyptian tomb contained an older copy of a gospel with more content? Would that be scripture?
Anyway, any honest reader of the Bible will be confused because the Bible contains information that is just plain wrong and even contradictory. It's really hard to get a solid statement out of the Bible because that was never the intention of the writers of the Bible. It's clear that most of the passages are allegory or poetic in nature, and that the historical parts are more a form of writing where the bias is intentional and moral judgment the main point of the work. Even when Jesus spoke, it's hard to tell when he is being directly literal or when he is being metaphoric or employing parables or even references to other scriptures. For instance, he once said "You can't get into heaven unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood" (according to John). How are we supposed to interpret that?
Protestants claim that the meaning of the Bible is clear but it is clearly not clear. The fact that they are still arguing with themselves and others about even the most plain passages of the Bible tells you all you need to know.
At least the Catholics and Orthodox realize the absurdity of Sola Scriptura. They appeal to tradition as an ultimate authority.
The problem with protestantism is that it is a horrible idea by people who should've known better but didn't. Most of the problems in modern society can be traced to bad ideas from protestantism. In fact, atheism probably wouldn't even be a thing unless the protestants were out there making obviously false statements and pretending you have to believe those things in order to accept the reality of God. Is it any wonder when people investigate those claims, find them almost unintelligible, and then decide that maybe God can't exist?
You who adhere to protestantism need to investigate your faith and seriously look into what it is you assume to be true and what you tell each other. It's some very horrible stuff with horrible consequences.
There needs to be a reformation of the reformation, so to speak.
The catholics are not entirely wrong. I'm saying this as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you're lost, go ask a Catholic scholar to get you back on the right path.
If I had to choose between everyone being a protestant or everyone being atheist... that's a hard choice.
These people also think protestantism is Christianity.
They think that the vast majority of Christians are protestants of one sort or another.
They don't realize how big the Catholic church actually is.
Here's the key to understanding: Protestants are just plain stupid. They are the sort of stupid that it's hard to explain how stupid they are.
When the reformers started their movement, they were hyper-educated autistic types. They wanted to throw everything away and start from scratch, but since they had no revelation from God telling them to do that, they had to pick and choose their foundation.
They chose things that were literally retarded. They ignored pretty much what everyone had been saying up until then. When things couldn't be ignored, they just changed what people said to match their narrative.
It doesn't take long to sit down with a protestant and see how wrong they are about everything.
Take, for instance, this idea of "Sola Scriptura". The idea sounds nice, but it is terribly misguided. They claim that the Bible is God's word. Ok, I think most people can agree with that. They claim that God wrote the Bible. Ok. That's absurd, but let's run with that. Then they claim that everything we need to know is in the Bible. That's ridiculous.
For starters, where does God say in the Bible that the Bible even exists? He doesn't. In the New Testament, when the writers reference "scriptures" and such, they are talking about the books that compose the Old Testament, including books that we no longer consider as part of the canon, and books that we likely don't even have a faithful copy of. So you can't use anything from the New Testament to justify the New Testament as part of the canon. In fact, it would be silly to think a statement such as "Only these books that have been written and these books *yet to be written* are part of the canon" could even exist in the Bible.
Then we have the problem of whether God is allowed to speak or not. If there ever was a scripture that says "OK, I am God and I'm done talking now and I'll never talk again" it would be a contradiction, because anything said after that statement would not be allowed. But we don't even know which books were written when because they are so old. Certainly, after the books were written, people were looking forward to more writings. They had no idea that those would be the last words. And what about all the writings we lost? What if someone found them? Suppose we found another epistle from Paul buried in some ancient church, or if some Egyptian tomb contained an older copy of a gospel with more content? Would that be scripture?
Anyway, any honest reader of the Bible will be confused because the Bible contains information that is just plain wrong and even contradictory. It's really hard to get a solid statement out of the Bible because that was never the intention of the writers of the Bible. It's clear that most of the passages are allegory or poetic in nature, and that the historical parts are more a form of writing where the bias is intentional and moral judgment the main point of the work. Even when Jesus spoke, it's hard to tell when he is being directly literal or when he is being metaphoric or employing parables or even references to other scriptures. For instance, he once said "You can't get into heaven unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood" (according to John). How are we supposed to interpret that?
Protestants claim that the meaning of the Bible is clear but it is clearly not clear. The fact that they are still arguing with themselves and others about even the most plain passages of the Bible tells you all you need to know.
At least the Catholics and Orthodox realize the absurdity of Sola Scriptura. They appeal to tradition as an ultimate authority.
The problem with protestantism is that it is a horrible idea by people who should've known better but didn't. Most of the problems in modern society can be traced to bad ideas from protestantism. In fact, atheism probably wouldn't even be a thing unless the protestants were out there making obviously false statements and pretending you have to believe those things in order to accept the reality of God. Is it any wonder when people investigate those claims, find them almost unintelligible, and then decide that maybe God can't exist?
You who adhere to protestantism need to investigate your faith and seriously look into what it is you assume to be true and what you tell each other. It's some very horrible stuff with horrible consequences.
There needs to be a reformation of the reformation, so to speak.
The catholics are not entirely wrong. I'm saying this as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you're lost, go ask a Catholic scholar to get you back on the right path.
If I had to choose between everyone being a protestant or everyone being atheist... that's a hard choice.
> [citation needed]
The Bible.
> > The problem with protestantism is that it is a horrible idea by people who should've known better but didn’t.
> [citation needed]
The early reformers were scholars. They should've known better because they were the only people who could've known.
> > atheism probably wouldn't even be a thing unless the protestants were out there making obviously false statements and pretending you have to believe those things in order to accept the reality of God.
> [citation needed]
Atheism wasn't even a thing until after the reformation. The Catholics did a really good job telling the truth about what really happened in the past. They were the ones actually funding research and science and such.
When the protestants came around, they showed up at the wrong time just when people started to realize that Aristotle was not right about everything. The reaction to the discovery that the earth revolves around the sun, for instance, was biased by the fact that the Catholics where literally fighting protestants in the streets. Had there been no reformation, I am sure that Galileo would've been much more free to say what he thought. In fact, after the reformation murders stopped and there was relative peace, the Catholics went back to their original stance on science and education: Be honest about what things actually say.
> protestants vs. atheists
The issue is this: The protestants are so horribly wrong about so much, and they are so certain that they are right about what they are so, so wrong about, that it's almost impossible to have a rational discussion with one. At least atheists are at least somewhat academically honest. (Up until the early 2ks, when people like Richard Dawkins found that being dishonest was much easier than being honest.)
Protestants are just plain wrong about so much about what the Bible actually says, about the nature of God, etc... People raised as a protestant come to the realization, if they ever seriously study what their churches teach, that their churches are just plain wrong. When they are faced with this conundrum, a good chunk of them just decide to throw everything out, Jesus included. And then they become atheists.
It's well-known that protestant America is an atheist factory. These kids growing up to become atheists were raised as a protestant. It simply doesn't work.
Thank you for admitting you have no citations.
>The early reformers were scholars. They should've known better because they were the only people who could've known.
“Those who were the only ones who could have known the information they did acted in a certain way. SURELY that means they were wrong in their actions!” ~ someone who admits not knowing the information
Great argument.
>Atheism wasn't even a thing until after the reformation.
lol
>The Catholics did a really good job telling the truth about what really happened in the past.
lol
>They were the ones actually funding research and science and such.
Why did the Renaissance not happen until the Reformation, then.
>the Catholics went back to their original stance on science and education: Be honest about what things actually say.
They’re not honest now, nor have they been honest about the contents of the Bible for nearly 15 centuries.
>The protestants are so horribly wrong about so much
Things aren’t true simply because you say they are.
>At least atheists are at least somewhat academically honest.
“You can’t create matter or energy out of nothing… except all matter and energy was created out of nothing!” ~ “academically honest” people
>Protestants are just plain wrong about so much about what the Bible actually says, about the nature of God, etc…
Things aren’t true simply because you say they are.
>People raised as a protestant come to the realization, if they ever seriously study what their churches teach, that their churches are just plain wrong.
lol, “forbid priests to marry,” “worship a sinful, non-virgin human woman,” “engage in vain repetitions,” “call anyone other than God ‘father’,” “humans can absolve sin”…
>It's well-known that protestant America is an atheist factory.
Most atheists come from Catholic schools.
>It simply doesn't work.
Your utter lack of argument, that is.
> Thank you for admitting you have no citations.
No, literally, practically everything in the Bible is a massive contradiction.
Start with Genesis 1 and 2. They are two different creation accounts. There is no explanation why they are there or why they are different. Then go on to Noah's flood. Again, two different accounts pasted together.
Scholars believe that Genesis is actually a composition of two source materials that were jammed together to try and reconcile them.
That's just Genesis. Take the gospels as well. They are full of contradictions. They can't even agree on what day Jesus was crucified. And we have the gospel of John calling Jesus "of Nazareth" but I thought he was born in Bethlehem? Wasn't that common knowledge? Apparently not! Then look into John. Apparently John was present when Jesus was alone? How did that work out?
Paul's epistle are so full of contradictions that the current scholarly consensus is that some of them weren't even written by him.
Then you can look at Kings vs. Chronicles, for instance, where lots of the details are just opposite each other and such.
It's really hard to find anything in the Bible that is consistent with itself let alone the other books too. Apparently the people who wrote these things down, or the people who copied or compiled it, weren't very careful or just simply mis-remembered certain facts.
The fact that we have to have this discussion at all means that you never even once considered the reality of the Bible, but instead you live by the fairy tale you were told as a kid and you try to superimpose that paradigm as an adult when it clearly doesn't fit. The end result -- you get atheists who say that since the Bible clearly isn't inerrant and infallible and that it clearly isn't written by the hand of God then the Christians must be lying about everything else.
Really, the only people who have a somewhat consistent version of history and such are the Latter-day Saints and the Catholics. I can't think of any other branch of Christianity that has put scholarship as a priority. Everyone else is just like "You gots to believe!" and here we are saying, "Actually, there's some evidence you should look at and you have to be careful not to believe nonsense because that's certainly not what the authors of the Bible believed..."
Sure thing, yid.
>The fact that we have to have this discussion at all means that you never even once considered the reality of the Bible
The jew cries out in pain as it strikes you.
>Really, the only people who have a somewhat consistent version of history and such are the Latter-day Saints and the Catholics.
Yes, the people who ignore the Bible are definitely the consistent ones. Neck yourself, moishe.
No protestant can stand up even to rudimentary examination and argument, and instead must lash out with violent mouth-breathings.
No wonder you killed Joseph Smith. The enemy in a world of lies is the truth.
>the Bible is wrong because I say it is wrong
>you failed because I say you failed
Neat, thanks. Commit suicide, jew. You win. We definitely believe you now. No one is Christian anymore. We worship your conquering of the world. Run along now.
Renaissance started in the 1300s
Reformation started in the 1500s
Seriously, if you can't even get those kinds of facts right...
According to no source anywhere. Fuck off and die, jew.
You know this right?
Go look up any article on the Renaissance. It started in the 1300s. Some people call the early stage the "proto-Renaissance" but it was obviously starting in the 1300s.
I'm sorry that you got offended that you got your facts wrong.
You are right. Big Bang was invented by Christian scholars trying to superimpose Creatio Ex Nihilo, a PAGAN philosophy taught by Greek platonic scholars, perfectly unknown to the authors of the Bible and christianity until about 100 years after the apostles were all dead.
The text of the Bible itself uses terms and words that reflecting "making" or I like to use the word "organizing". The same words you use when you say "I made a pot (from clay)." Genesis 1:1 is properly translated as "When God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning, (this is how he did it)" and Genesis 1:2 explains that the earth or something physical (the waters of the great deep) ALREADY existed when creation began.
The philosophy of Creatio Ex Nihilo is based on the platonic idea that physical matter is sinful or dirty, while "spiritual" matter or the ideas of the platonic ideal were superior in every way. It is not found in the Bible itself. Greek philosophers had a very difficult time accepting that Jesus could've risen from the dead with a physical body, since physical matter is sinful. Furthermore, jewish people were surprised that he took up the body that died when he rose again, surprising them just as much, since they thought that if resurrection was real it would be with a different body made of different substance. The fact that the tomb is empty shows that God doesn't create out of nothing, but takes pre-existing material and reorganizes it into perfection, as he did with Jesus' body.
The basic theory of Creatio Ex Nihilo also violates the first law of thermodynamics, which states that the energy must stay the same before and after every moment in time. It is thus non-scientific, just like the Big Bang theory is non-scientific.
Of course, there is a problem in physics because the laws of physics clearly state that the universe has always existed and that entropy should be at a maximum. EITHER something can reverse entropy (which makes no sense) or something can create something out of nothing (which makes no sense either.)
Sure, just ignore all visible evidence of all objects in the Universe.
>(the waters of the great deep)
You mean outer space? Which existed after the creation of the Universe? In which the disorganized matter which would form the Solar System floated until its organization? You mean the verbiage we use *to this day* in reference to spacefaring (seafaring) ships (ships) and the people (astro**nauts**) who go out there? The analogy used to describe to Bronze Age people what outer space is? Is that what you mean?
>God doesn't create out of nothing
Except when He does.
>the laws of physics clearly state that the universe has always existed
Other than, you know, all the observable evidence.
>EITHER something can reverse entropy (which makes no sense) or something can create something out of nothing (which makes no sense either.)
Or God, being omnipotent, could do both if He so chose. Self-evidently the Universe isn’t infinite in age, otherwise entropy would already be maximal and nothing would exist–nor have existed–for infinity. But it does. And all observable evidence shows it had a measurable beginning. The easiest and most logical explanation is that He created it at that point.
What evidence?
Keep in mind, I got my BS in physics, I studied astrophysics (and we all had a good laugh at their expense)
So I'm a big boy. Go ahead, point me to the evidence of the Big Bang. I've pretty much seen almost all of what people who claim the Big Bang is real as evidence and none of it is compelling, and some of it is cherry-picked and just plain wrong. So try to find something that isn't published wide and broad.
Or maybe take your time to try and understand the actual evidence of the Big Bang by explaining it to me slowly as if I were a child. Then you will begin to understand why I asked you this question.
Sometimes scientists lie about things, especially smart black man on the TV.
> > waters of the great deep
> You mean outer space?
I don't think that concept even existed until modern times. The authors of the Bible couldn't have possibly meant that.
But when you look at Genesis 1:6, he separated the waters of the great deep and made a space. I would think that gap would be where outer space is. What are your thoughts? Or do you think there is an "outer space" below the sky?
> > God doesn't create out of nothing
> Except when he does
Name one time when he did.
"Water to wine" I think is pretty clear evidence.
He even needed loaves and fishes to make food that one time he made food "out of nothing".
Weird, I can't think of any instance where there was literally nothing and then God poofed something into existence. Maybe I missed a verse in Genesis?
> > the laws of physics clearly state that the universe has always existed
> Other than, you know, all the observable evidence.
Did you see the evidence? When and where was the time and place when nothing existed? How did you see it? You said it's observable. I would like to observe this "universe not existing" thing.
> Reversing entropy
The problem with discussing something like "reversing entropy" with people who don't even know what it is is that they say something like "God can do anything!" and they don't even understand what it is you're asking God to do. Can God divide by zero?
The question of "reversing entropy" doesn't even make sense. If you don't know what entropy is, you think it should make sense, but just like someone who doesn't understand what "zero" and "divide" means thinks that "divide by zero" can make sense--it doesn't mean it makes sense.
[Yawn.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law)
>I got my BS
Sure do.
>I don't think that concept even existed until modern times.
*“Space was totally fake and gay until the 1950s.”* ~ not sane people
Or maybe you mean the 1600s were “modern times.”
>he separated the waters of the great deep and made a space
[Looks like a space to me.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/HL_Tau_protoplanetary_disk.jpg)
>Name one time when he did.
[Yawn.](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%201%3A1&version=KJV)
>"Water to wine" I think is pretty clear evidence.
Sure, elemental transmutation is possible with sufficient energy.
>He even needed loaves and fishes to make food that one time
[Easy peasy.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach–Tarski_paradox)
>I can't think of any instance where there was literally nothing and then God poofed something into existence. Maybe I missed a verse in Genesis?
Yep, the first one. Run along, fuckstick. You’re not fooling anyone.