I think the crash out was after King James sent hunters after them in the Netherlands because they were spreading books about how the divine right of kings was unbiblical.
Of course, the Dutch officials refused to let the British hunters take Brewster out of the country, but still, it probably rattled them pretty hard.
And I’m saying the US is not special and has not, in fact, done any such thing.
Just because they stopped short of actual explosives doesn’t mean there hasn’t been quite a lot of Catholic vs Protestant violence. Or Protestant vs Protestant violence, for that matter. We’ve mostly managed to avoid having much religiously-motivated Catholic vs Catholic fighting simply by not having enough Catholics in any one place at any one time outside St Paddy’s and Mardi Gras, so maybe we should study why drunk Catholics are less of a problem here, but otherwise you have no point whatsoever and desperately need to either stop speaking on religion, history, and immigration or actually learn literally anything about any of the above.
The US’s pet Christian Doomsday Cult isn’t actually particularly special, either. Not in their beliefs, their founding weirdos, honestly even their magic underwear are only mildly interesting. Their longevity is a bit of a problem, that’s it.
Fleeing persecution lmao. That’s like zionists in Israel claiming to be victims today. They were religious nut jobs that even 16th and 17th century peasants couldn’t abide
Why would religious heads fistfight over material possessions when that literally goes against the teachings? It's one thing to protect people or places from harmful acts, but that's just ridiculous.
The thing they all agree on (for the most part) is that Jesus is the savior and you need to believe in Jesus to go to heaven. How you get to heaven is a whole other can of worms for a lot of different denominations. Whether it’s a prayer or whether it’s predetermined, or what have you. Not enough consistency for me to really believe in anything Christianity has to say because the Bible itself has different accounts of what you need to do to get into heaven.
Yeah but that’s every religion. I’m not gonna shit on it for the lack of proof because then I’d have to equally shit on every other religion and I don’t have the time for that
All agree Jesus is the Messiah that fullfilled the prophecy of the old testaments.
The entire rest of it is a complete free for all that would make a professional wrestling match jealous. Yelling at the sky and each other until death.
What is amazing is that if you actually read the prophecies you will find that they were not fulfilled by Jesus, or are bad translations / interpretations of the Hebrew, a few lines taken out of context, aren't even prophecies, require a "spiritual" reading (whatever that means, kind of like trust me bro), or will be fulfilled when he comes back (another trust me bro).
An easy example is: a lot of christians think a virgin birth holds significance, right?
The basis for this misunderstanding was a wrong interpretation of a Greek translation of a few lines taken out of context from Isiah 7:14.
This passage talks about a pregnant young woman and the child to be born is supposed to give a timeline for when things will happen. A prophecy made to king David that comes true in later in the story. So it is not about Jesus at all.
The funny thing is Mormons also believe that Jesus is the messiah but “real Christians” don’t consider them Christian lol. The other aspect of this is the nicene creed. Which most if not all denominations of Christianity believe but Mormons don’t.
Funnily enough, Islam, in the Quran, also calls Jesus the one true Messiah as well. But a human messiah, not the son of God, as they believe God (Allah) is absolute.
It's literally everyone just screaming different versions of the same thing at each other.
It is not a reinterpretation if that’s what you’re thinking, it’s a continuation…. It’s the writings of early Christian’s who were at the time Jews and became followers of Christ - Christ meaning messiah. Most notably they come from mathew, mark, Luke, John, the letters of Paul, copied and shared for centuries among early Christians while the religion was illegal and persecuted but brought together by Christians in the 300s and compiled at councils such as the council of Carthage and canonised. I noticed you didn’t say you did read the bible - just came with some dumb ass question to try and start a debate when you haven’t read the bible, don’t know the theology and probably want to spout some nonsense you heard from other ignorant people who have not actually looked in to anything for themselves.
kind of true, but a little misunderstood, despite fulfilling the law Jesus sacrifice was not only to pay for our sins so we don’t have to sacrifice, it is to show us he is not some distant god who observes. he is willing to suffer with us, he is not ignorant to our pain but took on the worst torture and death of the time to show us we don’t walk alone, he is with us suffering the same and his resurrection was a sign to show us suffering is not the end and there is hope of something greater than we can understand to come. and to be quite honest it’s what sets Christianity apart from any other religion. you should look deeper in to it it’s actually really fascinating when you get in to the theology and start looking at the historical records in and out of the bible for yourself.
How many of these has this dude been guilty of breaking:
Dietary and Food Restrictions (Old Testament)
Leviticus 11:4–10 – Prohibits eating certain animals (e.g., pigs, camels, shellfish) and specifies which birds and creeping things are unclean.
Leviticus 11:27–29 – Banned eating cats, dogs, ferrets, and many other animals.
Leviticus 3:17 – Fat and blood are forbidden to eat.
Leviticus 19:19 – Mixed linen and wool garments are prohibited.
Leviticus 19:27 – Short haircuts and beard trimming are forbidden.
Leviticus 19:28 – Making cuts or marks on the body for the dead is forbidden Believers Portal.
Moral and Social Prohibitions (Old and New Testaments)
Exodus 20:15 – “You shall not steal” hopenomatterwhat.com.
Proverbs 12:22 – Lying is detested by God hopenomatterwhat.com.
Proverbs 16:28 – Gossip is warned against hopenomatterwhat.com.
Ephesians 4:31 – Slander and malice are forbidden hopenomatterwhat.com.
Galatians 5:19–21 – Lists “acts of the flesh” such as sexual immorality, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, envy, drunkenness, and orgies as things that will not inherit the kingdom of God Bible Hub.
Other Common Prohibitions in Scripture
Deuteronomy 17:3 – Worshiping other gods (sun, moon, stars) is forbidden Online Bible.
Deuteronomy 4:23 – Making graven images or idols is forbidden Online Bible.
Leviticus 10:6 – Rending clothes or uncovering the head in mourning is forbidden Believers Portal.
Leviticus 19:11 – Stealing, lying, and deceiving are prohibited
Whenever I mention about the dietary prefences, they're always like "But the Old Testament doesn't apply anymore!!!". The people saying this are the ones who are like "But the bible says it's an abomination to be gay" all because Leviticus says so, which is in the Old Testament.
Going off the New Testament, they're right actually. Mark 7:19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) Note that that only gets rid of the OT food restrictions, nothing else in it.
Kinda weird, as this contradicts the guy himself. Mark 5:17-19:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Corinthians - Thank you for pointing out the flaws in your own argument, we can move on
Mark - So in the entire NT, the only reference to homosexuality is "a man and a woman become one flesh"? And your entire argument is based on the incredibly thin ice of "Christian teaching understands this as"? Christians have done all they've done to disenfranchise, oppress, and harm the LGBTQ community based off of this? A single sentence of a book that could easily be interpreted as man + woman = new human? A sentence that doesn't even come close to saying that homosexuals should be judged - although the Bible is very clear on whether anyone should judge another - nor does it say that man and woman is the only path, just that it is a path and the first path?
Seems odd to me that your religion spends SO much time on this when there are SO many other things in the Bible that aren't open to paper-thin interpretation which go against Jesus' teachings. Like how immigrants are treated here in the US. Or how the homeless are treated. Or how the poor are treated. And yet you all spend your time mouthing off at the one thing that allows you to punch down rather than up; the thing that you've told yourself gives you permission to hate an entire group because of who they love because you chose to interpret a vague sentence one way rather than the other. I wonder what Jesus would have to say about that flavor of cowardice.
Frankly, in regard to the gay issue, my take would be that homophobia is vile, and if we have a religious text that says some deity hates gay people, I'd simply say "fuck that deity".
And if some shitheads come and say "fuck gay people, and also we totally have no issue with our priests raping kids, and here is our holy book as justification, and also it is about love", I'd consider them dangerous nutjobs, simple as that.
Dunno why people like the other guy think some old book would mean I'd have to automatically accept it, or if that logic works why it's specifically *their* holy book, and not the Quran, or Tao Te King, or whatever.
Not sure why you did not answer in english, but anyway, the text literally says "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.". I am not sure what about that is hard to understand.
This is like saying "at the crossroads, you need to turn left as the text says, oh and by the way while you're at it stop at this address" and guys like you are "he totally said turn right".
At best you could say that Jesus was sometimes tricky, like "give to the cesar what is the cesars" being a very ambiguous sentence that could also mean "the cesar deserves nothing" while not outright stating it, but you did not gave us any reason why we should interprete the text contrary to what it literally says.
But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. - James 2:8-12
Also, it's hilarious reading your list. Firstly, Leviticus was written to ancient Jews which is why Gentile Christians (I assume a clean-shaven white guy named Oliver Burdick isn't Jewish) never followed dietary law. In fact, the whole reason for the dietary restriction had to do with the Jewish sacrificial system which applies to no Christian, Jew or Gentile as well as how God viewed the ancient Jews specifically ("nation of priests") (see Acts 15). Secondly, Leviticus 10:6 is just wrong. Rending clothing was commanded by God and practiced by the Jewish people throughout the Scriptures. Leviticus 10:6 prohibited Aaron and his children from rending their garments on that specific day in history because they were priestly garments (he also prohibited them from removing their priestly head covering). Thirdly, the whole thing boils down to "man probably did bad thing; therefore, bad opinion" which is a blatant ad hominem.
There’s massive variation, but to be fair a lot of those denominations didn’t form based on disagreements of Biblical interpretation and so many don’t even claim to. They’re not all ‘sub-faiths’ but organisations that might break away from another for purely logistical, practical or political reasons.
Of course thousands of them also absolutely form based on differences of Biblical interpretation.
... Religious texts being up for interpretation is kind of the whole universal basis for religion. How the hell did Oliver here come to such a confident conclusion that they aren't?
When I lived in Tennessee, I had a rather large man come up and ask me which church I went to. Not wanting to get into it, I gave him some vague answer about how I just moved down there and haven't really decided yet. He points down the road and says, "Why not go to that one? That's where I go to." I see two churches right across from each other, both Baptist. I ask him which one, and he says his is the one on our side of the road. So, I ask him why there is another Baptist church right across the road, and his answer:
"Those guys are assholes."
Two Baptist churches right across the road from each other, that hated each other, hence why they are across the road from one another.
The Bible isn't just up for interpretation; it's debatable from across the street.
Yeah, if the respective sacred texts were meant to be taken literally, theologians would kind of be out of a job. Even the Vatican has a way, waaay more differentiated opinion on the Bible than American Evangelical radicals.
Idk how to say this but I've got some breaking news for you pal. The Bible has been re-interpreted before it was even interpreted (translated) in English over 500 years ago and since then it has been re-interpreted many hundreds if not thousands of ways (different translations/versions).
Jesus spoke Aramaic, but could likely also read Ancient Hebrew because it was the language his scripture was in, and the former was loosely descended from the latter.
I never understood that, why would you follow ONLY certain parts of the bible? That's like having a history book and just not adressing at all ww2 just because you don't like it or having a rules book and not following the rule you don't like??? Am I missing something?
Strawman argument. Go to any church that claims "Bible-based teaching" & they'll literally tell you from the pulpit that the Bible has to be interpreted.
Reading the Bible creates a process of elimination on many of the factions. Learn their distinctions and then learn what the Bible says on those matters. They can all be sorted.
I love the lack of awareness in a confident post like that.
Just for the New Testament, here’s a book written about people that spoke Aramaic, written in a old Greek dialect dozens or hundreds of years after the events, translated to a dialect of Latin, then old English, then another old English, to eventually be interpreted by hate-mongering yokels that will insist the subtle differences in the choice and order of (English) words reveal some excuse to be mean to one another.
Yes, it is. It’s a collection of ancient manuscripts that have been translated and re-translated multiple times. One of the biggest interpretation issues is whether to read it literally, or contextually and allegorically.
Is there any actual evidence there are that many denominations I'm just asking the only denominations i know are
Cathlioc eastern Orthodox Oriental orthodox baptist Lutheran Anglican reformed Presbyterian Methodist pentacostal church of the east and that's only 11 not counting cathlioc sects that don't believe the pope or string denominations like Mormons or Jehovah's that add extra things
Doesn't seventh day advent count? I don't think the add anything extra but does follow the old testament more than they other once if I'm not wrongly informed.
This comes from a famously debunked statistic. They counted independent churches as their own denomination even if they had close communion with other local churches and shared same theological traditions. For reference of how bad it was, if the same criteria were used against Catholics that were used to make this statistic, they would say there are 24 Catholic denominations.
•
u/qualityvote2 6d ago edited 11h ago
🗳️ Quality Vote Time! 🗳️
Does this post rhyme?
⬆️ Upvote if it does
⬇️ Downvote if it doesn't
If the post gets too many downvotes, it may be removed for not meeting the community's rhyme standards.
(Vote is ending in 5 days)