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.
The problem with protestants u/TallestSkill -is - if I can use parable like Jesus did many times - you are wanting to learn Spanish so well you rejected native speakers as "not good enough" and... chose instead learning manual (Bible) only. "Great idea" - really ! /s
And you claim that after reading it you will for sure know the Spanish best even better than Spanish people !
You are obviously wrong as man cannot simply "understand" faith.
You could perfectly understand the word and language only with living practice - and in this case it is church tradition and ritual.Rejected by protestants from the times of Martin Luther (first inspired and paid by,next betrayed by jews - he was not so "anti-Semitic" first you know, he became such later and become too passionate somehow...)
Using only bible and interpreting it as you like is so stupid like Pharisaism and "the law" under Jesus times. It ends with most protestants being godless like jews in Jesus times. What current protestants do is treating Bible like jewish Pharisees (founding fathers of current judaism)...
PS: u/MI7BZ3EW - I call you,you might be interested to read it too.
>if I can use parable like Jesus did many times - you are wanting to learn Spanish so well you rejected native speakers as "not good enough" and... chose instead learning manual (Bible) only. "Great idea" - really ! /s
I can’t read this, sorry. It’s utterly incoherent in English. Go ahead and repost in your native tongue and I’ll run it through a translator.
>And you claim that after reading it you will for sure know the Spanish best even better than Spanish people!
I do appreciate Spanish translations for at least one thing…
> “Llamó Jehová a Moisés, y habló con él desde el tabernáculo de reunión, diciendo: Habla a los hijos de Israel y diles: Cuando alguno de entre vosotros ofrece ofrenda a Jehová, de ganado vacuno u ovejuno haréis vuestra ofrenda. **Si su ofrenda fuere holocausto vacuno**, macho sin defecto lo ofrecerá; de su voluntad lo ofrecerá a la puerta del tabernáculo de reunión delante de Jehová. **Y pondrá su mano sobre la cabeza del holocausto**, y será aceptado para expiación suya.”
> “And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock. **If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd**, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord. **And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering**; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.
But hey.
>You are obviously wrong
I’d like to understand what I’m wrong about first.
>as man cannot simply "understand" faith.
Sure.
>You could perfectly understand the word and language only with living practice - and in this case it is church tradition and ritual.
Nonsense; perfect understanding of The All is impossible, and no rite, chant, or organization can bring it to you.
>he was not so "anti-Semitic" first you know
Yeah, people get lied to. What a surprise.
>he became such later
Exposure to jews does that.
>Using only bible and interpreting it as you like is so stupid like Pharisaism
Literally describing “the traditions” of the papacy, though.
>What current protestants do is treating Bible like jewish Pharisees
***Literally*** describing “the traditions” of the papacy, though.
Try to translate from Polish:
Pozwól,że użyję przypowieści jak Jezus zrobił wiele razy: chcecie się nauczyć Hiszpańskiego więc [ wy protestanci ] odrzuciliście lektorów ( / native speakers ) jako "niewystarczająco dobrych" i wybraliście zamiast tego poleganie tylko na podręczniku do nauki języka (tu: Biblii). Co za wspaniała idea ! (sarkazm).
> Literally describing “the traditions” of the papacy, though.
Sorry for explaining it like Vlad to Tucker but our views are so disconnected it is necessary:
Well, not so exactly "traditions of the papacy". Papacy were doing it wrong mostly because after fall of Rome all you had including the clergy were converted "barbarians" not Romans. Those area were almost WITHOUT traditions and it is why it was seriously fucked up. People who not understood what they are doing and why. Other social framework too - Byzantine empire were at first not so feudal at all ! It were becoming such after decline caused by western Crusaders...
https://www.quora.com/Were-the-Byzantines-feudal-If-so-what-time-period-did-they-use-the-feudal-system - boom !
All the "papacy" concept were result of popes being secular feudal rulers.
Where according to Jesus Christ himself:
>My kingdom is not of this world.
>Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar 's, and to God the things that are God 's.
Popes being rulers idea - it has terrible consequences. First "schism" between west and east. (There were in fact no schism at all, just "church curses" done by hierarchy on both sides,but in practice western and eastern church - roman catholic and orthodoxy become divided). All because Greek church not recognised Pope as their "ruler". Why fucking would they ? Peter Apostle were first among equals NOT "only representative" of Jesus !
Next is the result of Pope being secular ruler - church leaders are landowners too. Ones competing with laymen. So there is:
1. Need for celibate being widespread to prevent laymen from inheriting church goods. Originally and in orthodoxy it was monastic practice nothing more. In orthodoxy celibate is reserved to monks,and while bishops are chosen among monks if priest married before choosing priesthood - he can have family,it's ok.
2. Church hierarchy being landowners and too materialistic and competing with laymen who will own more goods. So at the end you get at church positions simple rich laymen from connected not fucking understanding church doctrine.
As the result of this you have for example:
1. Holy communion under ONE kind and using white wine instead red. Invented purely by materialistic reasons by Roman Catholicism as "cutting costs". One of doctrinal reasons The Hussites rebelled against the Roman church (other reasons were however materialistic - taking the goods church hoarded, etc)
2.indulgences market - main reason why Martin Luther rebelled against church.
**So in fact Roman Catholic Church had almost NO ANCIENT TRADITION as most of it were LOST**. Unlike Orthodox church almost no debate about role of symbols/art in church like there would had no clue about reasons of the conflict between iconodules and iconoclasts, and treating all of it almost like pagan idols...
Counter-reformation art and were too absolute piece of shit being about impressing the faithfull - but almost without deeper Theological thought behind of it.
And as we are here I can explain more:
about Martin Luther - as I said the main reason were church being materialistic especially with those indulgences (but also what protestants not say: urge to take Church property, ending celibate for the clergy - Luther married former nun etc).
But also one of the reasons were jews.Yes. It is not mentioned,but easy to get.
You know,church become so materialistic one German wealthy man named **Jakob Fugger bribed pope to end ban on usury (borrowing money for profit). And so he created too great competition for jews who as non-Christians had the monopoly over usury in medieval times**. For this reason (and for their anti-christian reasons why they supported all heresies and enemies of Christianity) Jews supported Martin Luther at first,but at some moment guy noticed he is played and that Jews want to make it their satanic revolution against social order - so he changed sides a bit and become very antisemitic. Unlike some radical sects which were still controlled by jews.
Look at history to confirm. One of leaders of such sects being in fact jewish Revolution against social order were Thomas Müntzer one of founders of later anabaptism and its sects (anabaptism is extremely pro-jewish). Müntzer were later praised by Karl Marx too... Other were John Calvin - "french" son of notary working for some bishop - whose pictures from the times show quite much sephardic jews traits and who unlike Luther weren't so antisemitic - but he fought furiously against holy Communion, any pictures and crosses in church and so on (what makes you wonder wasn't he hidden jews).
Looking at history it is also important to know that Borja family being behind worsening situation of the church before Reformation were possibly Sephardi jewish too. And it is official historical data, if Fuggers,and Medicis were in fact crypto-Jews (in big part doubtful but nevertheless possible) then that would mean all framework for "reformation" were built by jews by design.
Modern English doesn’t have a singular/plural distinction for ‘you,’ so context has to be provided or thee/thou has to remain in the text. And modern English has only one word for ‘love’ where Greek has four, so context has to be provided.
Otherwise, why would translation be impossible?
Let me ask:
How many languages you know and how well ?
I know except my mother Tongue - Polish also English (but not so good as you see) and a bit of German and Russian. It is why I know the problem.
And the problem is:
Language is not some stone but really living network.Changing one. **And cultures are different too - so thing obvious for one man can be mystery for somebody other**. There is no such thing like word being 1:1 in different languages.
Different network of synonyms/bywords (NOT being equivalent 1:1 !), different and sometimes not told cultural meanings. We are all different despite being simillar - really !
You not believe me ?
What is equivalent of Finnish word "sisu" in English ? Come on, Finns and Hungarians as Uralic in origin (but nations genetically mixed - Finns with scandinavians and Hungarian with Slavs) have different system of language to our own and Finnish language have no future tense ! Inuits have different words for different kinds of snow we white indoeuropean don't have.
Indoeuropean languages are more more simillar - but really ?
For example: we Poles have no times simple vs continous like in English. You know it is not intuitive for us to see the difference. And there is more of course...
And for me as Pole reading German and Russian mixes of words - even looking like bahnhofstrasse or ереосвидетельствоваться (pereosvidetel’stvo-vat’sya) can be real pain... (but not so fur Hungarians and Finns I guess as whole their languages are like that)
**"Accurate translation" does not exist really man.That's the point**. And if you use chain of languages to translate something - for example Aramaic to Greek and Greek to Latin you lose accuracy. **Arabs fixed this for themself making Quran to be read in Arabic only.** Not so dumb idea - it proves inbreed morons fucking goats had quite smart ancestors (it seems)...
There were a joke about translation machine between Russian and English being tested in the times of cold war - they used "The spirit is strong but body is weak" and they got "The vodka is strong but meat is rotten". Not a funny joke if you know how true it can be.
So if the people not knowing theology enough (reformers) clashed with Roman Catholic Church which sucked in theology too (Roman vulgata were quite inaccurate) it ended like it ended : clash of 2 incompetent idiots = more idiocy.
Three-ish. One native, one coversational/light technical, and one just a few phrases that I can use to get around as a tourist, including apologizing for not knowing the language.
>What is equivalent of Finnish word "sisu" in English ?
We’d say “heroic last stand.”
>we Poles have no times simple vs continous like in English.
Hmm, can you expound on this a bit?
>it proves inbreed morons fucking goats had quite smart ancestors (it seems)…
And then they were all slaughtered or outbred by the dune coon masses over whom they used to rule, yeah. The Levant and Persia used to be white.
>There were a joke about translation machine between Russian and English being tested in the times of cold war - they used "The spirit is strong but body is weak" and they got "The vodka is strong but meat is rotten". Not a funny joke if you know how true it can be.
I like that one.
>clash of 2 incompetent idiots = more idiocy.
Tale as old as time.