I can't seem to think of any.

Well then you're not thinking hard enough. It's a Christian religion. It's flawed by default.

Their churches look like crap.

quote:Originally posted by Zay:

It's flawed by default.

LOL

quote:Originally posted by Zay:

Well then you're not thinking hard enough. It's a Christian religion. It's flawed by default.

qft

quote:Originally posted by Zay:

Well then you're not thinking hard enough. It's a Christian religion. It's flawed by default.

+1

they aren't catholic

Not only is it a Christian religion, that's based on no concrete evidence but rather a book that says "thou shalt"...

It doesn't even follow the book's rules.

Still... I like them more for this.

Rather depends on you consider 1.'protestantism' and 2. a flaw. From a theological stand point I can probably think of several.

It depends on whatever ideal you're comparing it to.

quote:Originally posted by Bipolar Rocket:

I can't seem to think of any.

Bwaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! Are you serious?!!!

The entire basis of Protestant faith is error.

BUt a big one - Luther and his followers said that they were going to base their religion on the Bible, and solely on the Bible, not Tradition.

It doesn't take much research to show that ANY time the Sabbath is mentioned in the Bible, it is a Saturday.

The Holy Roman Church changed it to a Sunday, and keeping Sunday as a Holy Day is a practice based in Tradition, not the Bible!

Protestant Bibles are all missing the Deuterocanonical books.

While the Catholic Church never burnt a single witch, although many don't realise it (Trial, and execution, were all carried out by the State, as the Church lives by the Commandments of God, Who says "Thou Shalt Not Kill,") Martin Luther personally executed many people for witchcraft.

Thomas Cranmer's liturgical reform in the 1500s desecrated the Holy Mass, and rejected many things, such as kneeling to receive Holy Communion, and the faithful were given Communion in the hand.

Altars were torn out of Churches, relics were trashed and scattered like garbage without any respect for the dead.

Also an unabashed and total rejection of the Real Presence.

Cranmer also put to the sword anybody who stood up for the Mass, and attempted to retain it.

This is all just off the top of my head, and I'm kind of in a rush, will try and post more later - if you've got a few hours to read it all.. and then some lol.

Email me at trichocereus_pachanoi@hushmail.com if you want more direction in where to find the copious errors embedded in Protestant heresies, though!

Pax et Bonum! Dominus Vobiscum!

Tri.

quote:The Holy Roman Church changed it to a Sunday, and keeping Sunday as a Holy Day is a practice based in Tradition, not the Bible!

Not quite, infact it was the Emperor Constantine (a pagan!) in March 325 AD(I might be wrong on that date, I haven't googled) who officially changed it.

The catholic church contends that he was merely affirming the practice of the then church in Rome.

Maybe.....

quote:Originally posted by trichocereus pachanoi:

The entire basis of Protestant faith is error.



As is every other belief system not aligned directly with yours, right Tri?

Your faith would be under the same close-minded scrutiny with the intent to discredit if the thread were to read: Any flaws in Catholicism?

I am sure that just as many flaws could be pointed out in the faith-based system you believe in, as well. No doubt you'd defend it to the best of your abilities on here. But what if it were real life? What if Catholicism were "stamped out" of the mainstream and Islam was inserted in it's place? How far would you go to defend the "correctness" of your faith? I know many people who would rather die than convert to Islam, and vice versa.

Just the fact that you believe that your faith-based system of belief is the only correct system to adhere to is a perfect example of how religion laced with pride and prejudice will always cause conflict instead of bringing people towards a greater understanding of one another.

Could you ever even bring yourself to admit that maybe Protestantism is the right path for some people, as is Islam and other strains of religion? Could you ever admit to yourself that it really depends on the person, and what brand of sanctity they prefer - and that none of you are "correct", per se - but just catering to an emotional need inside you that helps you feel better about yourself?

All rhetorical questions, of course - as I know where you stand when it comes to believing that your faith is the ONLY righteous one. Yours is the ONLY path to God, and the ONLY one God will give merit to in the end.

Edit: One last question, Tri. Taking into account that EVERY religion feels it is the CORRECT religion, I ask of you: Cui Bono? At the end of the day, who really benefits from all this conflict?

[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 04-02-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Cui Bono?

God, I love it when you talk duuurty!

:P

quote:Originally posted by trichocereus pachanoi:





While the Catholic Church never burnt a single witch, although many don't realise it (Trial, and execution, were all carried out by the State, as the Church lives by the Commandments of God, Who says "Thou Shalt Not Kill,") Martin Luther personally executed many people for witchcraft.

Tri.

Ever hear of the Malleus Maleficarum? It was written by a couple of Catholic monks, and for a few hundred years, was THE authority used to justify witch hunts--by both Catholics AND Protestants. One of the few things both camps agreed on.

And the harmless folks who were killed were usually hanged or drowned, not burned. Then there was the poor dude in Salem who was pressed to death--they slowly piled boulders on top of him--rather unChristian thing to do, I'd say.

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

Then there was the poor dude in Salem who was pressed to death--they slowly piled boulders on top of him--rather unChristian thing to do, I'd say.



I love that guy's last words in The Crucible. "More weight!"

That may be so, but the trial and execution was carried out by the state, not the Church.

Ever hear of the Malleus Maleficarum? It was written by a couple of Catholic monks, and for a few hundred years, was THE authority used to justify witch hunts.

And the harmless folks who were killed were usually hanged or drowned, not burned. Then there was the poor dude in Salem who was pressed to death--they slowly piled boulders on top of him--rather unChristian thing to do, I'd say.

Oh, and the Salem witchtrials were carried out by the Puritans - you just backed my point up, brother! Thanks

Matthew 16:18

Where to start? Are we talking about issues exclusive to protestantism, or Christianity in general? Try all the holidays which have coincidentally overlapped with Pagan holidays. The vernal equinox, winter solstice for example. They did something right in distancing themselves from worship of Mary, and idols. Fundamentalism? Taking the bible literally? Selectively reading the old testament to support their agendas, but ignoring other parts. Using the old testament to justify an anti-homosexual, anti-abortion agenda, yet eating pork and wearing clothing woven of two linens.

Troll

Oh, and the Salem witchtrials were carried out by the Puritans - you just backed my point up, brother! Thanks

Thank you for pointing that out. I have edited my original post.

wearing clothing woven of two linens.

Thankfully, the Most Holy and Ultimate, Unchanging Word of the One True God is silent on the issue of wearing 100% acrylic flannel.

From a purely historical point of view, and looked at objectively, let's analyse this.
Whether or not you believe He was divine, there was a man named Jesus who was a Nazarene around 2000 years ago, with a large following. Records and historical documents of the time, by many groups including the Romans, have documented this, as He had rather a large following.
He founded a Church/Faith/Sect call it what you will, which, after His death was entrusted to Simon Peter. Simon Peter travelled to Rome, where he later died, and established a succession of governors of this Church/Faith/Sect.
Over time many groups broke off, mainly after fallouts over councils during which the dogmas of the Faith and Creeds were written. Various groups are included here, Gnostics, Arians, Coptics are some of the better known ones.
A large schism occured later as well, wherein the Christian Church separated into two - the core Church based in Rome stayed the same, and a large group separated themselves, under the curate of their Patriarch, and formed the Eastern Orthodox faith.
Through all this the core Church in Rome remained, with it's traceable lineage of successors all the way back to Simon Peter, and beyond him to Christ.
Later in the piece, in and around the 15 and 1600s, more sects began to break out into formal schism in Europe, citing quarrels with the practices and/or beliefs of the core Church in Rome.
Noteable here were the reforms of Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer, Zwingli, Calvin, John Knox etc.
Now, the question posed by the OP was "Are there any flaws in Protestantism,".
To which I pose this answer: The largest flaw in Protestantism, is their claiming to be Christian, while their Creeds are all in clear and undeniable schism with the beliefs and practices of the Church which, historically speaking, Christ had actually founded, and which has descended in a clearly visible line of successors from the successor whom He appointed Himself (Simon Peter), through to the Glory of the Olive, Pope Benedict XVI today.
So, while history proves that the core Church, which is based in Rome, called the Roman Catholic Church, is the clear descendant of the original Christian Church, they dispute this, and , in fact, denounce the Roman Church altogether.

From a purely historical point of view, and looked at objectively, let's analyse this.
Whether or not you believe He was divine, there was a man named Jesus who was a Nazarene around 2000 years ago, with a large following. Records and historical documents of the time, by many groups including the Romans, have documented this, as He had rather a large following.
He founded a Church/Faith/Sect call it what you will, which, after His death was entrusted to Simon Peter. Simon Peter travelled to Rome, where he later died, and established a succession of governors of this Church/Faith/Sect.
Over time many groups broke off, mainly after fallouts over councils during which the dogmas of the Faith and Creeds were written. Various groups are included here, Gnostics, Arians, Coptics are some of the better known ones.
A large schism occured later as well, wherein the Christian Church separated into two - the core Church based in Rome stayed the same, and a large group separated themselves, under the curate of their Patriarch, and formed the Eastern Orthodox faith.
Through all this the core Church in Rome remained, with it's traceable lineage of successors all the way back to Simon Peter, and beyond him to Christ.
Later in the piece, in and around the 15 and 1600s, more sects began to break out into formal schism in Europe, citing quarrels with the practices and/or beliefs of the core Church in Rome.
Noteable here were the reforms of Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer, Zwingli, Calvin, John Knox etc.
Now, the question posed by the OP was "Are there any flaws in Protestantism,".
To which I pose this answer: The largest flaw in Protestantism, is their claiming to be Christian, while their Creeds are all in clear and undeniable schism with the beliefs and practices of the Church which, historically speaking, Christ had actually founded, and which has descended in a clearly visible line of successors from the successor whom He appointed Himself (Simon Peter), through to the Glory of the Olive, Pope Benedict XVI today.
So, while history proves that the core Church, which is based in Rome, called the Roman Catholic Church, is the clear descendant of the original Christian Church, they dispute this, and , in fact, denounce the Roman Church altogether.

Your post is so wrong historically that I can't be arsed to list all the inaccuracies.

Most importantly, there is nothing that would constitute 'proof' by the normal rules of engagement for Jesus having existed.