Differences of Catholicism vs Christianity

[Contrarian Expatriate]

No, the Quakers distanced themselves from the Protestants.

Many Quakers prior to the 20th century considered the Religious Society of Friends to be a Christian movement, but did not feel that their religious faith fit within the categories of Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.[140]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers#R ... and_faiths

So be careful branding things so obvious when they are incorrect.

Obviously we don't generally allow people to self-define. It is like you are buying into the whole trans thing. Quakers may not have wanted to get sucked into any conflict and therefore not wanted the Protestant label attached to them, but clearly they were an English Christian movement that broke away from the Catholic Church, and even what was once called the Anglo-Catholic (Anglican or Episcopalian) Church would fit the standard definition of Protestant.

You do have a point because when you try to define yourself as intelligent or somehow "high value" we don't let you get anywhere with that.

But Quakers are technically no more Protestant than Catholics are Jews. Sorry.....

[Cornfed]

But Quakers are technically no more Protestant than Catholics are Jews. Sorry.....

This is a false equivalence. Judaism is an explicitly racial religion whereas Catholicism isn’t. Catholics accept the New Testament whereas Jews don’t. There is a clear distinction. Whereas Quakers and other Protestants just disagree on certain interpretations of the same text. And even then Quakers softened their positions when given control of a colony (Pennsylvania) because they acknowledged their doctrine of nonviolence simple wouldn’t work if they were the government. Anyone who knows history knows they were clearly functionally Protestant.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

But Quakers are technically no more Protestant than Catholics are Jews. Sorry.....

This is a false equivalence. Judaism is an explicitly racial religion whereas Catholicism isn’t. Catholics accept the New Testament whereas Jews don’t. There is a clear distinction. Whereas Quakers and other Protestants just disagree on certain interpretations of the same text. And even then Quakers softened their positions when given control of a colony (Pennsylvania) because they acknowledged their doctrine of nonviolence simple wouldn’t work if they were the government. Anyone who knows history knows they were clearly functionally Protestant.

Really? Your “whirled view” is still as wrong as ever. And by the way, I think you need to brush up on your understanding of logical fallacies. That is not a false equivalence. It was a simple comparison of degrees of similarity. Nice try but you need to get it right before you attempt that again.

[Winston]

Neo,
I recognize the guy in those videos. That's Pastor Anderson right? He's very passionate and righteous. I admire him. But he's very fanatical, and either brave or foolish too, in that he's fearless about attacking the Jews and Zionists, right? Hasn't he received dire consequences for that?

Btw, he has videos attacking Buddhism too? Wow that's a first. Usually no one attacks Buddhism because it's so peaceful and pacifist and does not try to force anyone or impose upon anyone to believe anything. It's a psychological religion that is more of a philosophy and more about self-reflection than belief. So very few criticize Buddhism. It's not often the target of criticism. I've critiqued Buddhism before too, but for different reasons.

[Winston]

Catholicism is the original Christianity. It later split into Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy which are BOTH legitimate variations of Christianity.

Protestantism is the FAKE spin-off of Roman Catholicism that is especially adept at brainwashing people into false beliefs, doctrines, and dogmas.

If you are a fake Christian (Protestant wackjobs), best to keep your crazy beliefs to yourself lest you be seen as the demonic, bigoted, judgmental, evildoers you are.

I am not religious, but I respect Catholicism for the job its institutions did in educating me to prosperity and freethinking. But Protestantism is just plain, old theological feces.

But Protestant literature, such as Evangelical Christian literature in America, claims that the first century Christians were Bible believing Christians like they were. But they were persecuted and suppressed and pushed underground into the catacombs. Then later in the 300's AD, Constantine the Great made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, or at least legalized it. That was the start of the Catholic Church. Evangelicals claim Constantine created a fake Christianity by mixing Roman Pagan religions with Christianity, to create a pro Roman religion used to control the empire, so they could control people with religion which was much cheaper than hiring a standing army. Then during the Dark Ages, after Rome fell, the Romans continued ruling Europe from the Catholic Church or Vatican using their religion which was comprised of Roman paganism. So in a sense Rome never fell, it either moved to the Vatican or to Constantinople, or both.

Is that narrative true or false? Do Evangelical Christians have proof that the First Century Christians believed what they believed, that Jesus was the only way to heaven and the Bible was infallible and if you don't believe that then you go to hell, etc? Offiicial history says that Evangelical Christianity began in the 1800's and didn't become mainstream in America until 1910 when Pastor Billy Sunday made it the mainstream Christian gospel of America. Then Billy Graham took it from there.

So Evangelical Christianity (the kind that Neo and Pastor Anderson believes in) is either an American invention of the 1800's or is what the First Century Christians believed 2,000 years ago, before the Romans suppressed them and created a fax paus Christianity (Catholicism) to take its place that would be politically useful to the Romans.

Which is it?

[Winston]

Pastor Anderson explains why Buddhism is a false religion. lol





Wow. @Contrarian Expatriate. Can you listen to that man for even 5 minutes? Doesn't he sound so arrogant and fanatical and preachy and closed minded? Isn't he the type of guy you get along with? lol. Isn't he so righteous? lol.

Can you imagine Contrarian Expatriate being in the audience during that sermon and nodding "Amen" to everything Pastor Anderson says? lol

[Winston]

There is no question that the Catholic Church is presenting the original Christianity.

Something which calls itself Protestant or whatever, Mormons, Jehovah, Science of Happiness, etc. etc. are somehow Christians as they still consider the Bible as guideline, however with some convenient modification which often fits a certain guy or grrl (the founder) who is claiming to be inspired by God or such BS-talk.

I am anyway an atheist, I don't care. I left Catholic Church 50 years ago. Other religions are not interesting for me too. I consider all of them to be nothing else but made-up stories by humans.

But why atheism? Because you hate God? Isn't atheism the worst and weakest and most illogical belief? It explains nothing and offers nothing. Science can't explain why we are here or what intelligence created us or how life began. At least religion offers some explanation. Science offers nothing but theories that are 100 percent impossible, such as life being spontaneously generated by accident. Deep down everyone knows that's untrue.

But the establishment is desperate to promote atheism so it makes up lies like that that no one truly believes. And also, the Communists promote it too, because atheism is required for Communist propaganda to flourish. How can you buy into that? Atheism is just a stepping stone for Communists to INVERT everything in America, turning everything upside down, good into bad and bad into good, etc. We all know that. So why you buy into such evilness?

Anyone who researches history will see that Communists/Marxists invented Atheism. It's not natural. No one before the 1800's would ever consider Atheist ideology because it's totally nonsensical and not even a valid belief system. It not only has ZERO value, but it has NEGATIVE value too, in the MINUS range. How can anyone be dumb enough or gullible enough to fall for something that's clearly a fraud and not even natural, but has to be artificially engineered by evil Communists to exist?

Isn't that totally stupid and illogical and destructive and evil? What were you thinking? What were you smoking? No offense, but seriously.

How do you explain intelligent design, fine tuning, anthropic principle, goldilocks principle, etc? Surely you know that randomness can never in a quadrillion years produce order, complexity, structure, design, patterns, information, LIFE, etc right? You know that right? So how can you choose the worst belief system in the world, Atheism, which is the product of Communism and Marxism?

You know that if you were in the desert and saw the words "I was here" written on a rock, you know that someone wrote that, and that it wasn't written by random chance right? Because information ALWAYS requires an intelligent agent. It NEVER comes from chance or randomness. NEVER EVER. Yet we are surrounded by informatione everywhere all around us, in the cosmos and on earth and in your body and DNA too. So how do atheists explain all that? They can't. It's impossible.

Have you ever opened a human anatomy or biology textbook? If so you can see how complex the human body and DNA is. Clearly it was designed. Cannot come from accident or blind chance. So how can you explain that? Isn't that a HUGE THORN in your side? How do you get it out?

Did you know the discoverer of DNA, Francis Cricke, said that DNA could not have evolved on Earth through evolution and must have come from somewhere else? He said that in his book that he published too.

So what's the justification of atheism? Simply because "religion has caused wars such as the Crusades and the Inquisition" and therefore, no creator or intelligent design or spiritual dimension is possible or necessary? WTF?! Isn't that dumber than dumb? If so, why are there so many atheists these days? Why do they seem to be a majority? Especially among men and even among educated men. Shouldn't it be the opposite? This is totally inexplicable. Can anyone explain logically?

If you hate religion, then why not go for New Age or non-religious forms of spirituality or theism? Why atheism, given all the above, as well as its fraudulent and artificial nature, as well as its propensity to make zero sense?

The above questions go for you too @Contrarian Expatriate. How do you explain all that?

[Neo]

Catholicism is the original Christianity. It later split into Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy which are BOTH legitimate variations of Christianity.

Protestantism is the FAKE spin-off of Roman Catholicism that is especially adept at brainwashing people into false beliefs, doctrines, and dogmas.

If you are a fake Christian (Protestant wackjobs), best to keep your crazy beliefs to yourself lest you be seen as the demonic, bigoted, judgmental, evildoers you are.

I am not religious, but I respect Catholicism for the job its institutions did in educating me to prosperity and freethinking. But Protestantism is just plain, old theological feces.

But Protestant literature, such as Evangelical Christian literature in America, claims that the first century Christians were Bible believing Christians like they were. But they were persecuted and suppressed and pushed underground into the catacombs. Then later in the 300's AD, Constantine the Great made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, or at least legalized it. That was the start of the Catholic Church. Evangelicals claim Constantine created a fake Christianity by mixing Roman Pagan religions with Christianity, to create a pro Roman religion used to control the empire, so they could control people with religion which was much cheaper than hiring a standing army. Then during the Dark Ages, after Rome fell, the Romans continued ruling Europe from the Catholic Church or Vatican using their religion which was comprised of Roman paganism. So in a sense Rome never fell, it either moved to the Vatican or to Constantinople, or both.

Is that narrative true or false? Do Evangelical Christians have proof that the First Century Christians believed what they believed, that Jesus was the only way to heaven and the Bible was infallible and if you don't believe that then you go to hell, etc? Offiicial history says that Evangelical Christianity began in the 1800's and didn't become mainstream in America until 1910 when Pastor Billy Sunday made it the mainstream Christian gospel of America. Then Billy Graham took it from there.

So Evangelical Christianity (the kind that Neo and Pastor Anderson believes in) is either an American invention of the 1800's or is what the First Century Christians believed 2,000 years ago, before the Romans suppressed them and created a fax paus Christianity (Catholicism) to take its place that would be politically useful to the Romans.

Which is it?

Weren't you a Christian before? So you would know the differences.

Even at the very beginning, the Apostle John noted that there were antichrists, and the Apostle Paul noted that there were false doctrines in the world already. Back then there were already people preaching false versions of Christianity. The Apostle Peter also makes similar observations, as written in 2 Peter 2.

The Queen of Heaven goes back even further in time until before the time of Jeremiah, and it is spoken of in his book.

Actually I don't see why it's so hard to believe. Just look at the Bible and then look at what the false versions of Christianity are doing. Just look and compare them. It can be easily recognized that Catholicism is a false religion. Many people simply either can't be bothered to look or have some emotional bias against Christianity. [Probably interesting is that many people will look closer at the details of coupons and brochures than they would doctrine.]

I don't even bother to argue with people over it though. Let them think what they want to believe.

BTW, there may be some evangelism, but it is not Evangelical Christianity. It is fundamentalist Christianity. The basics.

[Winston]

But Protestant literature, such as Evangelical Christian literature in America, claims that the first century Christians were Bible believing Christians like they were. But they were persecuted and suppressed and pushed underground into the catacombs. Then later in the 300's AD, Constantine the Great made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, or at least legalized it. That was the start of the Catholic Church. Evangelicals claim Constantine created a fake Christianity by mixing Roman Pagan religions with Christianity, to create a pro Roman religion used to control the empire, so they could control people with religion which was much cheaper than hiring a standing army. Then during the Dark Ages, after Rome fell, the Romans continued ruling Europe from the Catholic Church or Vatican using their religion which was comprised of Roman paganism. So in a sense Rome never fell, it either moved to the Vatican or to Constantinople, or both.

Is that narrative true or false? Do Evangelical Christians have proof that the First Century Christians believed what they believed, that Jesus was the only way to heaven and the Bible was infallible and if you don't believe that then you go to hell, etc? Offiicial history says that Evangelical Christianity began in the 1800's and didn't become mainstream in America until 1910 when Pastor Billy Sunday made it the mainstream Christian gospel of America. Then Billy Graham took it from there.

So Evangelical Christianity (the kind that Neo and Pastor Anderson believes in) is either an American invention of the 1800's or is what the First Century Christians believed 2,000 years ago, before the Romans suppressed them and created a fax paus Christianity (Catholicism) to take its place that would be politically useful to the Romans.

Which is it?

Weren't you a Christian before? So you would know the differences.

Even at the very beginning, the Apostle John noted that there were antichrists, and the Apostle Paul noted that there were false doctrines in the world already. Back then there were already people preaching false versions of Christianity. The Apostle Peter also makes similar observations, as written in 2 Peter 2.

The Queen of Heaven goes back even further in time until before the time of Jeremiah, and it is spoken of in his book.

Actually I don't see why it's so hard to believe. Just look at the Bible and then look at what the false versions of Christianity are doing. Just look and compare them. It can be easily recognized that Catholicism is a false religion. Many people simply either can't be bothered to look or have some emotional bias against Christianity. [Probably interesting is that many people will look closer at the details of coupons and brochures than they would doctrine.]

I don't even bother to argue with people over it though. Let them think what they want to believe.

BTW, there may be some evangelism, but it is not Evangelical Christianity. It is fundamentalist Christianity. The basics.

Yeah I know what Protestants and Evangelicals SAY. But what I'm asking for is the truth, not what Christians say. Come on.

Some say Paul is the antichrist. Like Jeffrey Daugherty for instance. Here's what he says below.



Anyone can call anyone an antichrist. The Catholics can all the Christians that too.

I don't consider Catholicism to be true or false. It is a mixture of many things, which eventually got corrupted in the Middle Ages and after. St. Francis of Assisi reformed it for a while. But it later became corrupt again, til the days of Martin Luther and today.

I don't think there is any such thing as "true Christianity" because the Bible contains many books that say many things and there are many legit interpretations. Even Jesus wrote down nothing. So it's all speculation and interpretation. Plus no book written by man is infallible. The Bible is also channeled material, and we all know channeled material is dubious and contains both good and bad things. Plus if you look at what the top Bible critic Dr. Bart Ehrman said, the Bible has been changed many times too.

[Neo]

But Protestant literature, such as Evangelical Christian literature in America, claims that the first century Christians were Bible believing Christians like they were. But they were persecuted and suppressed and pushed underground into the catacombs. Then later in the 300's AD, Constantine the Great made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, or at least legalized it. That was the start of the Catholic Church. Evangelicals claim Constantine created a fake Christianity by mixing Roman Pagan religions with Christianity, to create a pro Roman religion used to control the empire, so they could control people with religion which was much cheaper than hiring a standing army. Then during the Dark Ages, after Rome fell, the Romans continued ruling Europe from the Catholic Church or Vatican using their religion which was comprised of Roman paganism. So in a sense Rome never fell, it either moved to the Vatican or to Constantinople, or both.

Is that narrative true or false? Do Evangelical Christians have proof that the First Century Christians believed what they believed, that Jesus was the only way to heaven and the Bible was infallible and if you don't believe that then you go to hell, etc? Offiicial history says that Evangelical Christianity began in the 1800's and didn't become mainstream in America until 1910 when Pastor Billy Sunday made it the mainstream Christian gospel of America. Then Billy Graham took it from there.

So Evangelical Christianity (the kind that Neo and Pastor Anderson believes in) is either an American invention of the 1800's or is what the First Century Christians believed 2,000 years ago, before the Romans suppressed them and created a fax paus Christianity (Catholicism) to take its place that would be politically useful to the Romans.

Which is it?

Weren't you a Christian before? So you would know the differences.

Even at the very beginning, the Apostle John noted that there were antichrists, and the Apostle Paul noted that there were false doctrines in the world already. Back then there were already people preaching false versions of Christianity. The Apostle Peter also makes similar observations, as written in 2 Peter 2.

The Queen of Heaven goes back even further in time until before the time of Jeremiah, and it is spoken of in his book.

Actually I don't see why it's so hard to believe. Just look at the Bible and then look at what the false versions of Christianity are doing. Just look and compare them. It can be easily recognized that Catholicism is a false religion. Many people simply either can't be bothered to look or have some emotional bias against Christianity. [Probably interesting is that many people will look closer at the details of coupons and brochures than they would doctrine.]

I don't even bother to argue with people over it though. Let them think what they want to believe.

BTW, there may be some evangelism, but it is not Evangelical Christianity. It is fundamentalist Christianity. The basics.

Yeah I know what Protestants and Evangelicals SAY. But what I'm asking for is the truth, not what Christians say. Come on.

Some say Paul is the antichrist. Like Jeffrey Daugherty for instance. Here's what he says below.



Anyone can call anyone an antichrist. The Catholics can all the Christians that too.

I don't consider Catholicism to be true or false. It is a mixture of many things, which eventually got corrupted in the Middle Ages and after. St. Francis of Assisi reformed it for a while. But it later became corrupt again, til the days of Martin Luther and today.

I don't think there is any such thing as "true Christianity" because the Bible contains many books that say many things and there are many legit interpretations. Even Jesus wrote down nothing. So it's all speculation and interpretation. Plus no book written by man is infallible. The Bible is also channeled material, and we all know channeled material is dubious and contains both good and bad things. Plus if you look at what the top Bible critic Dr. Bart Ehrman said, the Bible has been changed many times too.

Your mind and your beliefs continue to amaze me, Winston.

Without any faith in the accuracy of the Bible, especially the King James version, there's practically no hope for eternal salvation. The Bible, at least the KJV, is the Word of God. (The other Bible versions are not so accurate; it's hard to translate parables when the translator doesn't know the interpretation.)

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.

And there's no sense in listening to anyone call Paul antichrist, since he was an apostle and wrote most of the NT. The NT being the consistent continuation of the OT.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Without any faith in the accuracy of the Bible, especially the King James version, there's practically no hope for eternal salvation.

This is the typical demonic lie used to try to scare people into compliance. You earn a place in hell just by perpetuating that filth.

The Bible, at least the KJV, is the Word of God.

Oh really? And where is your proof, because some mouth-frothing preacher told you so?

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.

[Neo]

I don't think there is any such thing as "true Christianity" because the Bible contains many books that say many things and there are many legit interpretations. Even Jesus wrote down nothing. So it's all speculation and interpretation. Plus no book written by man is infallible. The Bible is also channeled material, and we all know channeled material is dubious and contains both good and bad things. Plus if you look at what the top Bible critic Dr. Bart Ehrman said, the Bible has been changed many times too.

Channeling is communication with demons, which is against the commandments of God. It is prone to error.

However, this cannot be said about the Bible. There is no channeling involved. God literally owns humanity, because He is the Creator. There is no channeling. He dwells in the heart of His believers but also with His prophets. God is the divine guide of humanity, but especially of His prophets.

I think that some men simply don't (or refuse to) believe in the omnipotence and righteousness of God.

[Cornfed]

Without any faith in the accuracy of the Bible, especially the King James version, there's practically no hope for eternal salvation. The Bible, at least the KJV, is the Word of God.

To take the Catholic position just for fun, didn't the early Church decide which books went into the New Testament from a lot of contenders? That being the case, isn't it reasonable to take the position that the New Testament derives its authority from being backed by the Church, rather than the other way round?

[Winston]

Without any faith in the accuracy of the Bible, especially the King James version, there's practically no hope for eternal salvation.

This is the typical demonic lie used to try to scare people into compliance. You earn a place in hell just by perpetuating that filth.

The Bible, at least the KJV, is the Word of God.

Oh really? And where is your proof, because some mouth-frothing preacher told you so?

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.

I don't think karma or the universe will send him to hell for saying that. People like Neo don't wish people to go to hell. 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. In this case, Neo is simply brainwashed. He doesn't know better. He believes that what he believes is the truth. So he is not being dishonest. 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.

His proof is that the Bible says so and he feels it and truth can be felt, so if he can sense that the Bible is truth, then it is. It doesn't need to be proven, it simply is the truth to him, like 2+2=4. And of course, because all of its prophecies were fulfilled too, they claim.

How do you know whether Catholicism or Evangelical Christianity came first? If you weren't there in the First Century, how do you know which was the original religion that Jesus taught? Since Jesus wrote nothing, all we have is hearsay and anonymous sources.

[Neo]

Without any faith in the accuracy of the Bible, especially the King James version, there's practically no hope for eternal salvation. The Bible, at least the KJV, is the Word of God.continuation of the OT.

To take the Catholic position just for fun, didn't the early Church decide which books went into the New Testament from a lot of contenders? That being the case, isn't it reasonable to take the position that the New Testament derives its authority from being backed by the Church, rather than the other way round?

The NT itself is against Catholicism openly.

For example, Catholicism contains men that call themselves by the title of Father according to religion, but Christ Himself says that people are not to call men Father (according to religion), because there is only One Father, God.

The NT says that Christ is the mediator between God and men, but Catholicism says that Mary is the intermediatrix between God and men.

Christ says to beware of religious men who wear long robes, yet priests sometimes wear long robes in Catholicism.

Paul says that forbidding someone to marry is demonic, yet Catholicism forbids priests to marry. Same with forbidding people to eat meat, while Catholicism says people should eat fish only for their meat on Fridays.

Christ in the NT says not to pray in vain repetitions, yet in Catholicism, one of the ways to repent of sin is to say 'n' number of Hail Marys.

The OT says not even to make a statue of any kind. Yet Catholicism is FILLED with statues.

There is also no mention of putting ash on the forehead on Ash Wednesday, making the cross symbol over one's body, holy water, praying to Mary or dead saints, or rosary beads in the Bible. In fact, Paul says to beware of the worship of angels.

But the most important is that for Christianity salvation is by faith in Christ alone, as the Son of God, the Redeemer, the Savior, while in Catholicism it is by keeping their manmade commandments called "sacraments."

So what does Catholicism really have to do with the Bible? Not much.