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.
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.
Even nice,but it is not so simple,as this idea is also about being fucking stubborn/determined like Finns are as a natiion. And they can be stubborn like a rock or mountain. Not just last stand but doing things whatever the cost and ignoring the adversities.
And it i more complicated you know.
Another problem of orthodoxy vs roman catholic church - role of holy spirit - Filioque
From Father
From Father and Son
The problem were really caused by one of heresies because of which "and Son" wer added,but also what is making the problem here: Latin has the same word for sent and proceeds. Greek has two different words for sent and proceeds...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque