Differences of Catholicism vs Christianity

[Spencer]

The split was hundreds of years in the making and far more complex than a mental midget like yourself could comprehend. Suffice it to say, the central authority of the Pope was questioned and later rejected by the Eastern Orthodoxy and later by the Reformist Protestants. But you can spin it all you like. It will never make you correct....

Actually both of you are right. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire the seat of the Empire and the Church became Constantinople. It remained that way until the appointment of Charlemagne as Emperor, a good 300 years later.

Wait a minute... Are you STILL reading my contributions on the various threads here? That's very surprising because I have to say I don't feel the compulsion to be interested in yours. That's a bit weird from the guy who claims to not believe anything I write about myself here.

Contarian this poster obsesion on you obsesion on wiseton obsesion on happy aboard and same you have no life only post post post so how can you belief busy kitchenman lies are you so dumwit and he need you for feel importance you contarian important to this public duende so very sad it is

Well, I guess I have to begrudgingly agree with you on that one PAG.

You see public duende even contrarian understand you need new life so question being what happen old life is it you retirement already and shush about dopy so so busy chefman that always have time post every days living on happy aboard forum much more than bossman wiseton who hav real life not like you fony baloney fake 2 bits chefman hoy hoy

[Winston]

I don't think karma or the universe will send him to hell for saying that.

You don't acknowledge a lot of things but that does not make them any less true. Evildoers, under the guise of religiosity or righteousness, go right to hell where they belong.

People like Neo don't wish people to go to hell.

Wrong. They consider anyone who does not fall in line with the dictates of their faith as deserving of hell. Ironically, they will be there before anyone.

They are trying to prevent you from going to hell, that's why they warn you about it. So it's out of good intention.

Not even close. They are trying to bully people into compliance with their agenda. They have the VENEER of good intention, but they are in fact evil, controlling, psychopaths who want to manipulate you under their program.

In this case, Neo is simply brainwashed. He doesn't know better.

This we can somewhat agree upon, although there is nothing "simple" about being brainwashed.

He's just brainwashed and a fanatic. Karma isn't gonna punish you for saying what you believe. And he's not saying it out of malice either. It's simply what he believes. So no bad karma there as there's no ill intent. You have to knowingly do wrong to get bad karma.

Knowingly placing people in fear of eternal hell to manipulate them into your orbit is malicious. There are weak people and young people who commit suicide over such faith-bullying. He knows what he is doing.....

How do you know whether Catholicism or Evangelical Christianity came first?

Read up on the history of The Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation. They both spun out of Roman Catholicism which is the original Christian faith. We don't have to actually be somewhere to know that something is true.

But my point is that Neo is not the one threatening to send you to hell. He is claiming that God is, because that's what he honestly believes. So he is not doing it out of malice, but out of a desire to save your soul. Thus it's a good intent, even if he is wrong or delusional or brainwashed. Do you see my point?

Yes I know what history says. If you follow the line of official history, it does seem that Protestantism sprang out of Catholicism. However, if the original First Century Christians were "BIble believing Christians" or "Evangelical Christians" like Billy Graham, and their religion was persecuted and suppressed, then their history and beliefs would have been erased right? So how would you know? You see what I mean? We all know that the victors write history right? So history is biased, not objective. I'm sure you know that. It's common sense.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

I don't think karma or the universe will send him to hell for saying that.

You don't acknowledge a lot of things but that does not make them any less true. Evildoers, under the guise of religiosity or righteousness, go right to hell where they belong.

People like Neo don't wish people to go to hell.

Wrong. They consider anyone who does not fall in line with the dictates of their faith as deserving of hell. Ironically, they will be there before anyone.

They are trying to prevent you from going to hell, that's why they warn you about it. So it's out of good intention.

Not even close. They are trying to bully people into compliance with their agenda. They have the VENEER of good intention, but they are in fact evil, controlling, psychopaths who want to manipulate you under their program.

In this case, Neo is simply brainwashed. He doesn't know better.

This we can somewhat agree upon, although there is nothing "simple" about being brainwashed.

He's just brainwashed and a fanatic. Karma isn't gonna punish you for saying what you believe. And he's not saying it out of malice either. It's simply what he believes. So no bad karma there as there's no ill intent. You have to knowingly do wrong to get bad karma.

Knowingly placing people in fear of eternal hell to manipulate them into your orbit is malicious. There are weak people and young people who commit suicide over such faith-bullying. He knows what he is doing.....

How do you know whether Catholicism or Evangelical Christianity came first?

Read up on the history of The Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation. They both spun out of Roman Catholicism which is the original Christian faith. We don't have to actually be somewhere to know that something is true.

But my point is that Neo is not the one threatening to send you to hell. He is claiming that God is, because that's what he honestly believes. So he is not doing it out of malice, but out of a desire to save your soul. Thus it's a good intent, even if he is wrong or delusional or brainwashed. Do you see my point?

Not even close. If Neo started telling these evil tales of burning in the fires of hell to your son Angelo, would you then be so naive about the intentions? The same principle applies to adults. Striking terror in people's hearts so they can do what you say they should do is pure EVIL. Sorry you aren't able to understand that.

And these evangelical "Christians" proselytize not to save our souls, they are trying to curry favor with their leadership and perhaps their god. So self-interest is their motive, not altruism!

[Winston]

Not even close. If Neo started telling these evil tales of burning in the fires of hell to your son Angelo, would you then be so naive about the intentions? The same principle applies to adults. Striking terror in people's hearts so they can do what you say they should do is pure EVIL. Sorry you aren't able to understand that.

And these evangelical "Christians" proselytize not to save our souls, they are trying to curry favor with their leadership and perhaps their god. So self-interest is their motive, not altruism!

Well it's both. They want to get credit from God for saving souls sure, but they also see it like this: Imagine you are driving toward a cliff and don't know it. Out of concern, others will try to warn you about it. So from their perspective it's like that too. They don't want to see you drive off a cliff. That's part of their intention too. And they are doing their Christian duty in witnessing as well.

I know this because I used to be a Christian fundamentalist myself, remember? So I know how they think. I used to have their mindset too. Either way, that is not ill intent. It's still well intentioned and well meaning, even if wrong or misguided. Do you understand?

If someone told my son that he would go to hell if he didn't accept Christ, I would just tell him to ignore him. I wouldn't get riled up by that. They're just words. Remember that. You can't fault fanatics for preaching what they believe.

Btw, you said you grew up Catholic right? Do Catholics also tell their followers that every non-Catholic is going to hell? Or only purgatory?

Why do you say you agree with Catholics? I thought you hate all religion and don't even believe in God? So shouldn't you hate all religions equally? Like Richard Dawkins does?

[Winston]

Dr. Ryan Reeves explains the great schism in 1054 that divided the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church into two factions.





Long version

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Btw, you said you grew up Catholic right?

NO! I said I attended Catholic SCHOOLS. I did not say anything about growing up Catholic.

Do Catholics also tell their followers that every non-Catholic is going to hell? Or only purgatory?

That's a question that should be answered by an actual Catholic, not by me.

Why do you say you agree with Catholics?

You are making things up. I never said I agree with Catholics. I said they are the original Christian faith out of which Protestantism grew and that is 100% true.

I thought you hate all religion and don't even believe in God? So shouldn't you hate all religions equally? Like Richard Dawkins does?

Again, you are making things up. I said that I am non-religious and I have never even commented on whether or not I believe in God.

But yes, some faiths I hate, and others I just barely tolerate.

Islam has been said to be the greatest collection of bad ideas in the history of mankind. I do not like Islam.

The Catholic Pope gave moral and divine sanction to the trans-Atlantic slave trade so that Africans would be "Christianized." I do not like Catholicism.

Protestants are judgmental bigots full of arrogance and ignorance at the same time. I do not like Protestantism.

Neither do I like any person whose life is governed by some "holy" book or cleric instead of being governed by his own reason. They are dangerous and brainwashed drones who create division and hate all over the world. The less of them, the better.

[Neo]

Yes I know what history says. If you follow the line of official history, it does seem that Protestantism sprang out of Catholicism. However, if the original First Century Christians were "BIble believing Christians" or "Evangelical Christians" and their religion was persecuted and suppressed, then their history and beliefs would have been erased right? So how would you know? You see what I mean? We all know that the victors write history right? So history is biased, not objective. I'm sure you know that. It's common sense.

Salvation and eternal life are not about an institution, a building or the commandments of men. Catholicism and its offspring religions of Protestantism are about these: salvation through their institutions and by their own commandments.

Christianity on the other hand is about salvation through faith in Christ with no other requirement.

For example, some Protestant versions of "Christianity" (falsely so called) say salvation is by faith but then they add in works somehow, either by sacraments ( such as eucharist, matrimony, last rites, baptism, church attendance) or later on through various "proofs" of salvation.

However, in Christianity salvation is completely by faith in Christ. Salvation is outside the commandments of both God and man. How? Because Jesus, as God in the flesh, the Messiah is the only one capable of keeping the commandments in their entirety from birth until death. That's impossible for any other man. This is why salvation is outside of the commandments. He kept them all for us. To say that a person must keep the commandments to be saved is to deny Christ and His works on earth, and it is as if the person is making his or her own works equal to that of God's in terms of their value, which negates the need for a Messiah.

Then Christ died for our sins to take the eternal penalty for the sins the saved actually are able to commit.

The saved are under the yoke of God. God has a yoke, a rod, a staff, and even death to keep His children in line, so that they do not go too far. The rejected are not under the yoke of God and their transgressions will multiply and multiply far beyond the level of what a saved person could ever do.

Of course nobody really cares about all that. All some people care about is who states that they are first (and anyone can make any claim if they have all the power), without bothering to look at the fine details. But the details make all the difference. And now, I have probably explained those details to people at least a dozen times here.

Simply Put:

Catholicism / Protestantism: Salvation by the commandments or their institution |

Christianity: Salvation by faith in Christ as only requirement (w/o works /commandments)

More details: See how Catholicism and others violate the commandments of the Bible in practice and then make their own.

What about the commandments for the saved? Can they just do whatever they want? The saved are not those kind of people, otherwise they wouldn't have been saved. God knows what kind of people they are. But if a saved person went too far, their lives could be ruined or shortened to premature death.

[Neo]

Here's some more information for those who think if a church says that they are the first they actually are the first.

Who is the god of this world according to scripture?
Who owns the kingdoms of the world according to scripture?

Remember, after Jesus fasted in the wilderness, He was tempted by the Enemy, who offered Him all the kingdoms of the world, if He would fall down and worship the Enemy.

So all this ought to tell you who is really in control in terms of the power over the nations.

Also, I have refrained from mentioning anything about Popes, however, in Catholicism, the Pope is supposedly infallible and cannot make mistakes. And for some reason, people actually believe it or ignore it and accept Catholicism regardless.

[Neo]

Also, Protestantism is so similar to Catholicism because they split off from it. They are or were protesting the Catholic church, yet they are so similar because they are basically the same. Case in point, look at the Anglican church which is the church of England, which is virtually identical in most ways to the Catholic church in terms of practice.

Of course to notice this, a person would have to be 1. open-minded and 2. interested in the details.

Christianity, on the other hand, was never part of the Catholic church, is nothing like it, and never split off from it and is not protesting against it. That's why Christianity is so different. It was never part of it. It was separate, underground, persecuted.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Christianity, on the other hand, was never part of the Catholic church, is nothing like it, and never split off from it and is not protesting against it. That's why Christianity is so different. It was never part of it. It was separate, underground, persecuted.

Absolute retardation here.

Any religious faith that seeks to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ is a Christian faith.

If you think otherwise, you are a brainwashed MORON!

[Neo]

[Neo]

Christianity, on the other hand, was never part of the Catholic church, is nothing like it, and never split off from it and is not protesting against it. That's why Christianity is so different. It was never part of it. It was separate, underground, persecuted.

Any religious faith that seeks to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ is a Christian faith.

This is actually a good point, but it is only half correct.

There are at least two aspects to Christianity, and both must be correct, and a person must look to see if they are correct.

1. Are they actually following the teachings of Christ? By the things I have posted in this thread, it has been proven that the Catholic church does not. Also most if not all of the Protestant churches do not either.

2. More importantly is the salvation doctrine correct? Is salvation by faith in Christ without works being added? Or is salvation by faith + works, which denies Christ? (Any form of work salvation, whether by works, sacraments or faith plus works or any combination of works for salvation denies Christ.)

A person needs to look at the finer details and not simply at the surface.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Christianity, on the other hand, was never part of the Catholic church, is nothing like it, and never split off from it and is not protesting against it. That's why Christianity is so different. It was never part of it. It was separate, underground, persecuted.

Any religious faith that seeks to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ is a Christian faith.

This is actually a good point, but it is only half correct.

There are at least two aspects to Christianity, and both must be correct, and a person must look to see if they are correct.

1. Are they actually following the teachings of Christ? By the things I have posted in this thread, it has been proven that the Catholic church does not. Also most if not all of the Protestant churches do not either.

2. More importantly is the salvation doctrine correct? Is salvation by faith in Christ without works being added? Or is salvation by faith + works, which denies Christ? (Any form of work salvation, whether by works, sacraments or faith plus works or any combination of works for salvation denies Christ.)

A person needs to look at the finer details and not simply at the surface.

Then you are not a Christian by any stretch. You are a heretic trying to define Christianity is under false pretenses.

You failed miserably by the way, and your flesh will know the burning fires of hell for just the wicked attempt.

[Winston]

Why do you say you agree with Catholics?

You are making things up. I never said I agree with Catholics. I said they are the original Christian faith out of which Protestantism grew and that is 100% true.

You did say you agree with Catholics earlier. See below.

viewtopic.php?style=11&p=342753

Just for clarity, I was not saying that Catholics are antichrists. My intention was to show that even right after the time of Jesus, there were already people preaching false versions of Christianity.

Well Catholics believe you are not truly Christian too so it's a tie score. I would tend to agree with them by the way.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Why do you say you agree with Catholics?

You are making things up. I never said I agree with Catholics. I said they are the original Christian faith out of which Protestantism grew and that is 100% true.

You did say you agree with Catholics earlier. See below.

viewtopic.php?style=11&p=342753

Just for clarity, I was not saying that Catholics are antichrists. My intention was to show that even right after the time of Jesus, there were already people preaching false versions of Christianity.

Well Catholics believe you are not truly Christian too so it's a tie score. I would tend to agree with them by the way.

Your question strongly implies that I said I agree with Catholics GENERALLY which I don't.