Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Roman Catholicism is an unscriptural cult
- Thread starter Bass v 2.0
- Start date
Anguille
Bane of the Urbane
- Mar 8, 2008
- 17,910
- 2,266
- 48
I love him! Yes, my elders used to talk about Gypsies. I even saw some of them in Greece. I believe one stole my Yaya's purse. But it's ok, because she is always telling everyone what a good Christian she is, your family probably saw her coming from a mile away.
And we were playing with some Gypsies when I was a kid and my uncle yelled at us to stay away from the Gypsies. LOL. And he said, "don't stay out past 11 oclock, only the Gypsies stay out past 11 oclock!!!
That's funny!
Gypsies are treated very badly in Europe. Especially in Eastern Europe.
My own experiences with them there have always been good. Of course, I always keep my cash in a spot they couldn't reach. LOL!
Shogun
Free: Mudholes Stomped
- Jan 8, 2007
- 30,528
- 2,263
- 1,045
No, not all religions have "rites and ceremonies". NT Baptists certainly don't. We don't even do the Lord's Supper.
I guess the only thing we do is whole immersion baptism.....it's not a rite, it's a ceremony of sorts, I suppose. It's recognized that the act isn't required for salvation, it's just an outward expression of inward conviction, and is done because the scripture implores us to.
So I guess we do have a rite or ceremony....
do you sprinkle or do the full submersion?
AllieBaba
Rookie
- Oct 2, 2007
- 33,778
- 3,927
- 0
- Banned
- #184
The truth is, the earliest Christians were a far cry and did not "develop" out of the Catholic Church, nor did all the earliest Christians become Roman Catholics.
There were many who opposed Catholocism, and they were persecuted mercilessly for it. The first pope wasn't a Christian at all, and those who believe that Christianity began and ended with the Catholic church are sadly mistaken. Not all were taken in, not all believed in the Church, and local churches held out against the Roman Catholics from then until now.
"Constantine I of the Roman Empire
The Emperor Constantine I was, like emperors before him, high priest of the Mithraic religion. However, he was also interested in creating unity for the sake of ease of governance, and to this end he involved himself in a dispute between Christian groups over Arianism, summoning the First Council of Nicaea; this Council produced the Nicene Creed.
Constantine mitigated some differences between orthodox Christianity and its main competitor, the official religion of Sol Invictus. For example, he moved the date of celebration of Jesus' birth to December 25th (since this was the celebration date for the birth of Mithras and Bacchus, and also the date of other winter solstice festivals such as Saturnalia). In addition, Constantine instituted use of the Chi-Rho symbol, representative of Christianity, also alleged by some scholars to have had use as an obeloi for "auspicious" thus serving both Christian and non-Christian purpose simultaneously.
Critics of the merger of church and state point to this shift of the beginning of the era of Constantinianism when Christianity and the will of God gradually came to be identified with the will of the ruling elite; and in some cases was little more than a religious justification for the exercise of power.
Popular legend holds that Constantine I was Christian; however, he never publicly recanted his position as high priest of Mithras Sol Invictus, and the only alleged occurrence of Constantine I converting was on his deathbed (as reported by later Church Fathers), which is impossible to verify. However, it was not that unusual for people in the fourth century to avoid fully converting to Christianity until quite late in life, because of the strong warnings against continuing in sin after having converted and the spiritual consequences thereof."
History of Christianity - Christianity Knowledge Base
My religion is not a "break off" of the Christian religion. It is a religion which descends from the teachings of Christ and has nothing to do with the CAtholic Church...and never has. We've been labeled a variety of things, and many catholics have left catholocism after being witnessed to by non-Catholic NT Christians.
But the very fact that nobody can really trace the Baptist religion other than to point out where they have stood against the Catholic church (and before that, against others who would kill them) in a variety of times and ways tells me it's not an offshoot. YOu can see it all the way back to Christ, but it doesn't exist as a single definitive "religion" because it is instead a collective of "local" churches...people who join together to worship as the NT directs us to, in defiance of whatever happens to be the en vogue religion of the time.
There were many who opposed Catholocism, and they were persecuted mercilessly for it. The first pope wasn't a Christian at all, and those who believe that Christianity began and ended with the Catholic church are sadly mistaken. Not all were taken in, not all believed in the Church, and local churches held out against the Roman Catholics from then until now.
"Constantine I of the Roman Empire
The Emperor Constantine I was, like emperors before him, high priest of the Mithraic religion. However, he was also interested in creating unity for the sake of ease of governance, and to this end he involved himself in a dispute between Christian groups over Arianism, summoning the First Council of Nicaea; this Council produced the Nicene Creed.
Constantine mitigated some differences between orthodox Christianity and its main competitor, the official religion of Sol Invictus. For example, he moved the date of celebration of Jesus' birth to December 25th (since this was the celebration date for the birth of Mithras and Bacchus, and also the date of other winter solstice festivals such as Saturnalia). In addition, Constantine instituted use of the Chi-Rho symbol, representative of Christianity, also alleged by some scholars to have had use as an obeloi for "auspicious" thus serving both Christian and non-Christian purpose simultaneously.
Critics of the merger of church and state point to this shift of the beginning of the era of Constantinianism when Christianity and the will of God gradually came to be identified with the will of the ruling elite; and in some cases was little more than a religious justification for the exercise of power.
Popular legend holds that Constantine I was Christian; however, he never publicly recanted his position as high priest of Mithras Sol Invictus, and the only alleged occurrence of Constantine I converting was on his deathbed (as reported by later Church Fathers), which is impossible to verify. However, it was not that unusual for people in the fourth century to avoid fully converting to Christianity until quite late in life, because of the strong warnings against continuing in sin after having converted and the spiritual consequences thereof."
History of Christianity - Christianity Knowledge Base
My religion is not a "break off" of the Christian religion. It is a religion which descends from the teachings of Christ and has nothing to do with the CAtholic Church...and never has. We've been labeled a variety of things, and many catholics have left catholocism after being witnessed to by non-Catholic NT Christians.
But the very fact that nobody can really trace the Baptist religion other than to point out where they have stood against the Catholic church (and before that, against others who would kill them) in a variety of times and ways tells me it's not an offshoot. YOu can see it all the way back to Christ, but it doesn't exist as a single definitive "religion" because it is instead a collective of "local" churches...people who join together to worship as the NT directs us to, in defiance of whatever happens to be the en vogue religion of the time.
Last edited:
Anguille
Bane of the Urbane
- Mar 8, 2008
- 17,910
- 2,266
- 48
Baptist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Origins
There are two main views about the origins of the Baptists: Baptist origins in the 16th and 17th centuries and Baptist perpetuity.
[edit] Viewpoint: Baptist origins in the 16th and 17th centuries
Some see the Baptists as the descendants of the 16th century Anabaptists (which some view as a product of the Protestant Reformation and others view as a continuation of the older pre-Reformation non-Catholic churches). Johannes Warns states that the first independent Baptist Church was that at Augsburg, Germany, in about 1524.[12] Others see the Baptists as a separation from the Church of England in the early 1600s.[13]
Puritan separatists John Smyth and Thomas Helwys are acknowledged by numerous historians as key founders of the modern Baptist denomination. The early Baptists were divided into General Baptists who were Arminian in theology, and Particular Baptists who were Calvinistic in theology.[14][15][16]
According to Baptist historian H. Leon McBeth, Baptists, as a distinct denomination, originated in England in a time of intense religious reform. McBeth writes, Our best historical evidence says that Baptists came into existence in England in the early seventeenth century. They apparently emerged out of the Puritan-Separatist movement in the Church of England.[13]
[edit] Viewpoint: Baptist perpetuity
Main article: Baptist successionism
The Baptist perpetuity view (also known as Baptist succession) holds that the church founded by Christ in Jerusalem was Baptist in character and that like churches have had perpetual existence from the days of Christ to the present. This view is theologically based on Matthew 16:18, where Jesus is speaking to Peter, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Πέτρος[17]), and upon this rock (πέτρα[18]) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," as well as Jesus' commission and promise to be with His followers as they carried on his ministry, "even unto the end of the world."[19]
The Baptist perpetuity view sees Baptists as separate from Catholicism and other religious denominations and considers that the Baptist movement predates the Catholic church and is therefore not part of the Protestant Reformation.[20]
J. M. Carroll's The Trail of Blood booklet, published in 1931, has been a popular writing presenting the successionist view, pointing to groups such as the Montanists, Novatianists, Donatists, Paulicians, Albigensians, Catharists, Waldenses, and Anabaptists, as predecessors to contemporary Baptists.[21] Baptist historian John T. Christian writes in the introduction to his History of the Baptists: "I have throughout pursued the scientific method of investigation, and I have let the facts speak for themselves. I have no question in my own mind that there has been a historical succession of Baptists from the days of Christ to the present time."[22] Other Baptist historians holding the perpetuity view are Thomas Armitage, G.H. Orchard, and David Benedict.
Those holding the perpetuity view of Baptist history can be basically divided into two categories: those who hold that there is a direct succession from one church to the next (most commonly identified with Landmarkism), and those who hold that while the Baptist practices and churches continued, they may have originated independently of any previously existing church.
While there is no direct evidence to support "Landmarkism" or "Successionism" in church history, the modern Baptist movement owes its theological heritage to the earlier "Frei Kirche" movement as embodied in the writings of Balthasar Hubmaier, an early Anabaptist theologian, who was martyred for his beliefs on the rite of baptism in the early days of the Protestant Reformation.[23] No doubt, the various beliefs of Baptists can be "discovered" through independent study; however, church history does not seem to support the notion that movements began ad hoc or in a vacuum. While the Southern Baptist Convention's stand (as articulated by McBeth) is that the modern Baptist movement is a part of the larger Protestant movement, that does not automatically delete the earlier influences of others who published and advocated some or all of the distinctive views that identify modern Baptists. The Baptist movement is in the larger context of theological movements of dissent since the official birth of the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Nicea."
"Origins
There are two main views about the origins of the Baptists: Baptist origins in the 16th and 17th centuries and Baptist perpetuity.
[edit] Viewpoint: Baptist origins in the 16th and 17th centuries
Some see the Baptists as the descendants of the 16th century Anabaptists (which some view as a product of the Protestant Reformation and others view as a continuation of the older pre-Reformation non-Catholic churches). Johannes Warns states that the first independent Baptist Church was that at Augsburg, Germany, in about 1524.[12] Others see the Baptists as a separation from the Church of England in the early 1600s.[13]
Puritan separatists John Smyth and Thomas Helwys are acknowledged by numerous historians as key founders of the modern Baptist denomination. The early Baptists were divided into General Baptists who were Arminian in theology, and Particular Baptists who were Calvinistic in theology.[14][15][16]
According to Baptist historian H. Leon McBeth, Baptists, as a distinct denomination, originated in England in a time of intense religious reform. McBeth writes, Our best historical evidence says that Baptists came into existence in England in the early seventeenth century. They apparently emerged out of the Puritan-Separatist movement in the Church of England.[13]
[edit] Viewpoint: Baptist perpetuity
Main article: Baptist successionism
The Baptist perpetuity view (also known as Baptist succession) holds that the church founded by Christ in Jerusalem was Baptist in character and that like churches have had perpetual existence from the days of Christ to the present. This view is theologically based on Matthew 16:18, where Jesus is speaking to Peter, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Πέτρος[17]), and upon this rock (πέτρα[18]) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," as well as Jesus' commission and promise to be with His followers as they carried on his ministry, "even unto the end of the world."[19]
The Baptist perpetuity view sees Baptists as separate from Catholicism and other religious denominations and considers that the Baptist movement predates the Catholic church and is therefore not part of the Protestant Reformation.[20]
J. M. Carroll's The Trail of Blood booklet, published in 1931, has been a popular writing presenting the successionist view, pointing to groups such as the Montanists, Novatianists, Donatists, Paulicians, Albigensians, Catharists, Waldenses, and Anabaptists, as predecessors to contemporary Baptists.[21] Baptist historian John T. Christian writes in the introduction to his History of the Baptists: "I have throughout pursued the scientific method of investigation, and I have let the facts speak for themselves. I have no question in my own mind that there has been a historical succession of Baptists from the days of Christ to the present time."[22] Other Baptist historians holding the perpetuity view are Thomas Armitage, G.H. Orchard, and David Benedict.
Those holding the perpetuity view of Baptist history can be basically divided into two categories: those who hold that there is a direct succession from one church to the next (most commonly identified with Landmarkism), and those who hold that while the Baptist practices and churches continued, they may have originated independently of any previously existing church.
While there is no direct evidence to support "Landmarkism" or "Successionism" in church history, the modern Baptist movement owes its theological heritage to the earlier "Frei Kirche" movement as embodied in the writings of Balthasar Hubmaier, an early Anabaptist theologian, who was martyred for his beliefs on the rite of baptism in the early days of the Protestant Reformation.[23] No doubt, the various beliefs of Baptists can be "discovered" through independent study; however, church history does not seem to support the notion that movements began ad hoc or in a vacuum. While the Southern Baptist Convention's stand (as articulated by McBeth) is that the modern Baptist movement is a part of the larger Protestant movement, that does not automatically delete the earlier influences of others who published and advocated some or all of the distinctive views that identify modern Baptists. The Baptist movement is in the larger context of theological movements of dissent since the official birth of the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Nicea."
Anguille
Bane of the Urbane
- Mar 8, 2008
- 17,910
- 2,266
- 48
The truth is, the earliest Christians were a far cry and did not "develop" out of the Catholic Church, nor did all the earliest Christians become Roman Catholics.
There were many who opposed Catholocism, and they were persecuted mercilessly for it. The first pope wasn't a Christian at all, and those who believe that Christianity began and ended with the Catholic church are sadly mistaken. Not all were taken in, not all believed in the Church, and local churches held out against the Roman Catholics from then until now.
"Constantine I of the Roman Empire
The Emperor Constantine I was, like emperors before him, high priest of the Mithraic religion. However, he was also interested in creating unity for the sake of ease of governance, and to this end he involved himself in a dispute between Christian groups over Arianism, summoning the First Council of Nicaea; this Council produced the Nicene Creed.
Constantine mitigated some differences between orthodox Christianity and its main competitor, the official religion of Sol Invictus. For example, he moved the date of celebration of Jesus' birth to December 25th (since this was the celebration date for the birth of Mithras and Bacchus, and also the date of other winter solstice festivals such as Saturnalia). In addition, Constantine instituted use of the Chi-Rho symbol, representative of Christianity, also alleged by some scholars to have had use as an obeloi for "auspicious" thus serving both Christian and non-Christian purpose simultaneously.
Critics of the merger of church and state point to this shift of the beginning of the era of Constantinianism when Christianity and the will of God gradually came to be identified with the will of the ruling elite; and in some cases was little more than a religious justification for the exercise of power.
Popular legend holds that Constantine I was Christian; however, he never publicly recanted his position as high priest of Mithras Sol Invictus, and the only alleged occurrence of Constantine I converting was on his deathbed (as reported by later Church Fathers), which is impossible to verify. However, it was not that unusual for people in the fourth century to avoid fully converting to Christianity until quite late in life, because of the strong warnings against continuing in sin after having converted and the spiritual consequences thereof."
History of Christianity - Christianity Knowledge Base
My religion is not a "break off" of the Christian religion. It is a religion which descends from the teachings of Christ and has nothing to do with the CAtholic Church...and never has. We've been labeled a variety of things, and many catholics have left catholocism after being witnessed to by non-Catholic NT Christians.
But the very fact that nobody can really trace the Baptist religion other than to point out where they have stood against the Catholic church (and before that, against others who would kill them) in a variety of times and ways tells me it's not an offshoot. YOu can see it all the way back to Christ, but it doesn't exist as a single definitive "religion" because it is instead a collective of "local" churches...people who join together to worship as the NT directs us to, in defiance of whatever happens to be the en vogue religion of the time.
If that is a quote from a published source you need to attribute it.
AllieBaba
Rookie
- Oct 2, 2007
- 33,778
- 3,927
- 0
- Banned
- #187
If that is a quote from a published source you need to attribute it.
Whoops, sorry...
History of Christianity - Christianity Knowledge Base
Wait, I already did that! THe comments are my own.
Anguille
Bane of the Urbane
- Mar 8, 2008
- 17,910
- 2,266
- 48
All this talk of various religions and sects and cults reminds me of what a character in one of Salman Rushdie's short stories said,
"“If you were an atheist, Birbal,” the Emperor challenged his first minister, “what would you say to the true believers of all the great religions of the world?” Birbal was a devout Brahmin from Trivikrampur, but he answered unhesitatingly, “I would say to them that in my opinion they were all atheists as well; I merely believe in one god less than each of them.” “How so?” the Emperor asked. “All true believers have good reasons for disbelieving in every god except their own,” said Birbal. “And so it is they who, between them, give me all the reasons for believing in none.” "
A great story if any one is interested.
http://www.newyorker.com/fiction/features/2008/02/25/080225fi_fiction_rushdie?currentPage=all
"“If you were an atheist, Birbal,” the Emperor challenged his first minister, “what would you say to the true believers of all the great religions of the world?” Birbal was a devout Brahmin from Trivikrampur, but he answered unhesitatingly, “I would say to them that in my opinion they were all atheists as well; I merely believe in one god less than each of them.” “How so?” the Emperor asked. “All true believers have good reasons for disbelieving in every god except their own,” said Birbal. “And so it is they who, between them, give me all the reasons for believing in none.” "
A great story if any one is interested.
http://www.newyorker.com/fiction/features/2008/02/25/080225fi_fiction_rushdie?currentPage=all
Last edited:
CA95380
USMB Member
I wonder if these nuts have read the "Bill of Rights" lately. 
Maybe they need to
Article III
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The Bill of Rights - Text Version | Freedom Documents
Maybe they need to
AllieBaba
Rookie
- Oct 2, 2007
- 33,778
- 3,927
- 0
- Banned
- #191
I wonder if these nuts have read the "Bill of Rights" lately.
Maybe they need to
Which nuts?
Are you talking about discussing the theory of creationism along with the theory of evolution as a possible explanation for the existence of the universe, and man?
Are you suggesting it's better to eliminate all reference to religion whatsoever in the schools? Shall we eliminate all reference to pregnancy, as well, then? Mathematics? Let's just pretend these things don't exist, and refuse to teach our children about them. That will make them more intelligent, better rounded individuals for sure.
CA95380
USMB Member
Which nuts?
Are you talking about discussing the theory of creationism along with the theory of evolution as a possible explanation for the existence of the universe, and man?
Are you suggesting it's better to eliminate all reference to religion whatsoever in the schools? Shall we eliminate all reference to pregnancy, as well, then? Mathematics? Let's just pretend these things don't exist, and refuse to teach our children about them. That will make them more intelligent, better rounded individuals for sure.
I was talking about the Catholic bashing nuts!
Anguille
Bane of the Urbane
- Mar 8, 2008
- 17,910
- 2,266
- 48
Which nuts?
Little peanut brains, like you.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Last edited:
Shogun
Free: Mudholes Stomped
- Jan 8, 2007
- 30,528
- 2,263
- 1,045
Which still won't make any difference in the end, when we'll all find out who is wrong and who is right about God. And believing fervently won't make you any less wrong, if you are.
unfortunately, when we are all dead and you dont find out how wrong your faith is there is no retribution for your actions while alive. That is the only drawback to atheism. Unfortunately, there is no "if then" statement for dogma junkies.
Anguille
Bane of the Urbane
- Mar 8, 2008
- 17,910
- 2,266
- 48
unfortunately, when we are all dead and you dont find out how wrong your faith is there is no retribution for your actions while alive. That is the only drawback to atheism. Unfortunately, there is no "if then" statement for dogma junkies.
Huh??
CA95380
USMB Member
I can't figure out what you're saying there, but I'm not 100 percent today.
Allie ... since you said your not 100% today ... do you mind "quoting" who you are answering or talking to? You are getting me confused! lol
Anguille
Bane of the Urbane
- Mar 8, 2008
- 17,910
- 2,266
- 48
I was talking about the Catholic bashing nuts!
As long as the nuts are just mouthing off and not inciting actual violence, I think they are free to say what they like.
If anyone is strong in their faith, they should be able to handle criticism or skepticism.
Anguille
Bane of the Urbane
- Mar 8, 2008
- 17,910
- 2,266
- 48
Here, here!!
You do that a lot Allie, though you are definately not the only one. Sometimes I just shorten a long quote to just a period so that anyone not following can link back.
See above.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 141
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 256
- Replies
- 256
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 345
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 43
- Views
- 181
- Replies
- 76
- Views
- 415
- Replies
- 868
- Views
- 35K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8562
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 485
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-