Why is Protestantism so boring and reactionary and why does it lack spirituality?

Home Forums General & off-topic Why is Protestantism so boring and reactionary and why does it lack spirituality?

Viewing 6 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #96919
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why is Protestantism so boring and reactionary and why does it lack spirituality?

    • #96931
      Dirk
      Guest

      better question: why will people reply to this bait thread?

      • #96934
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Even high church protestant liturgy is pretty ugly tbh, it’s because protestantism has no theological depth to it.

        • #96941
          Anonymous
          Guest

          As opposed to the theological depth of
          >dude the pope says it’s dogma

          • #96943
            Anonymous
            Guest

            No, Protestantism has no concept of mysticism.

            • #96945
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Funny how I grew up Protestant and have had "mystic" thoughts since childhood thanks to just being taught about God by my parents, church, and the Bible I was given at 2 years old in Sunday School.

              • #96953
                Anonymous
                Guest

                "Mystic thoughts" are all new age bullshit, real misticism and spiritualism requieres the study and comitment on the part of the student, there is a reason even Jesus had to fast and participate in cleansing rituals.

                • #96956
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >thinks my "mystic thoughts" haven’t directly lead to lifelong study and commitment including fasting/ritual

              • #96955
                Anonymous
                Guest

                You probably wouldn’t know what mysticism was as a Protestant if it was right in front of your face. However, assuming mysticism can exist in Protestantism, it certainly doesn’t play as central of a role as it does in Catholicism and most especially in Orthodoxy. The general perception is that Protestantism is pretty bland, and that’s because for the most part it is tbh. Why do you think Protestantism is said to be so watered down compared to Traditional Christianity? Because it generally is. Mainline Protestant churches have been basically infiltrated by Marxists, and Evangelical churches are full of people who are too low IQ to even understand mysticism.

                • #96957
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >Evangelicals are uneducated poor people who cannot possibly understand muh glorious mysticism and whose services have no theological depth
                  >meanwhile the Apostles were uneducated poor people

                  • #96958
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >who is Paul the apostle

                • #96959
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >Protestants are doing critical exegesis of the Bible, up to the point that even many Catholics flock to Protestant scholars in Biblical studies (NT Wright, John Walton, Craig Keener etc)
                  >Meanwhile anon is still mad because Protestants are not overly fond of people claiming Mary breastfeeded them

                  • #96960
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >Protestants are doing critical exegesis of the Bible, up to the point that even many Catholics flock to Protestant scholars in Biblical studies (NT Wright, John Walton, Craig Keener etc)
                    >Protestants are ding critical exegesis of the Bible
                    >(((((((Critical exegesis))))))) of the Bible

                    • #96961
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >Shall we compare manuscripts in textual criticism and try to figure out what the writer said?
                      >No dude, we have some medieval saint here who used a Latin translation of the Bible, that’s good enough
                      Kinda ironic when you call Protestants low IQ and then are afraid of actually trying to understand the Bible

                      • #96962
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >No dude, we have some medieval saint here who used a Latin translation of the Bible, that’s good enough
                        If only you understood how stupid that statement was you wouldn’t have said it.

                      • #96963
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Is it true or not that Thomas Aquinas didn’t know Hebrew? Even when dealing with Greek philosophical works he was dependent on Latin translations. Let alone he good compare this with Egyptian or Ugarit writings

                      • #96967
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Actually I think Aquinas did know some Hebrew. However I thought you were talking about Jerome who did in fact know Hebrew and several other languages fluently and used this knowledge to create what became the Vulgate. However the earliest Christians were reading from the LXX and even Augustine, who didn’t speak Greek, believed the LXX to be divinely inspired. Now I find it funny how you say this though, but then you’ll try to demonstrate how your theology goes back to the Church Fathers by referencing Augustine who only knew Latin and not a lick of Hebrew and very very little Greek. Much of Augustine’s theology, which Martin Luther was inspired by, is woke af off of Latin translations. So don’t play this game with me. Catholic theologians and philosophers have produced massive volumes and commentaries on scripture throughout the centuries.

                      • #96972
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >However I thought you were talking about Jerome who did in fact know Hebrew and several other languages fluently
                        Yes I know this. Old news. Try to respond to what I say, not to what you thought I would say
                        >Now I find it funny how you say this though, but then you’ll try to demonstrate how your theology goes back to the Church Fathers by referencing Augustine who only knew Latin and not a lick of Hebrew and very very little Greek. Much of Augustine’s theology, which Martin Luther was inspired by, is woke af off of Latin translations.
                        And which is why it’s important to go back to the originals, which is what Protestants like to do. Hence why they are very interested in textual criticism. I want to know what biblical writer X said, not what some later theologian said biblical writer X said in translation
                        >So don’t play this game with me. Catholic theologians and philosophers have produced massive volumes and commentaries on scripture throughout the centuries.
                        So have Protestants. What’s your argument here? There’s a lot, so it must be good even though the foundation is weak?

                      • #96983
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >And which is why it’s important to go back to the originals, which is what Protestants like to do. Hence why they are very interested in textual criticism. I want to know what biblical writer X said, not what some later theologian said biblical writer X said in translation
                        And Catholic scholars do this too. There are plenty of Catholic textual critics that exist on their own, ever hear of, oh I don’t know, Fr. Raymond Brown? Ever hear of the countless Catholic Bible translations into English which rely on the originals? It’s funny though because so many of the Protestant "textual critics" are pretty damn liberal and it’s also led to the rise of a lot of non-trinitarian forms of Christianity which claim equally to be relying on the Bible alone just as Protestants who claim to believe in the Trinity say that they do.
                        >So have Protestants. What’s your argument here? There’s a lot, so it must be good even though the foundation is weak?
                        My only argument here is to dispel the lie that you’ve made pretty implicit that Catholics don’t care about what the Bible says or teaches, that is blatantly false.

                      • #96985
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >non-Trinitarian forms of Christianity
                        I say that colloquially, their Christianity of course is not spiritually valid just wanted to clarify.

                      • #96995
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >nd Catholic scholars do this too. There are plenty of Catholic textual critics that exist on their own, ever hear of, oh I don’t know, Fr. Raymond Brown?
                        I’ve worked my way through The Death of the Messiah yes. But the guy has been dead for over 20 years.
                        >Ever hear of the countless Catholic Bible translations into English which rely on the originals?
                        So you agree that the original language is important? Good
                        >t’s funny though because so many of the Protestant "textual critics" are pretty damn liberal and it’s also led to the rise of a lot of non-trinitarian forms of Christianity
                        Good say the same thing about Catholic ones (John Dominic Crossan comes to mind). Even Raymond Brown ruffled quite a lot of feathers https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=525&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=441843

                      • #96996
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >So you agree that the original language is important? Good
                        Yes of course, most Catholics scholars do.
                        >John Dominic Crossan
                        He’s not associated with the Catholic Church anymore.

                      • #97002
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Yes of course, most Catholics scholars do.
                        If the original language is most important, then why should we trust on exegesis should they contradict? Thomas Aquinas saying A or modern Hebrew scholar saying B
                        >He’s not associated with the Catholic Church anymore.
                        What about Raymond Brown then. Do you agree with him it’s "very uncertain" angels appeared to Mary and Joseph. His book received nihil obstat and imprimatur

                      • #97006
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >If the original language is most important, then why should we trust on exegesis should they contradict? Thomas Aquinas saying A or modern Hebrew scholar saying B
                        I don’t see your point, most biblical scholars today are working from the viewpoint of academia, it doesn’t even matter what their religion is, so their interpretation is secular in nature. So I guess I’d prefer Aquinas and the Church Fathers and theologians as such, it was "biblical criticism" that lead to things like Arianism.
                        >What about Raymond Brown then. Do you agree with him it’s "very uncertain" angels appeared to Mary and Joseph. His book received nihil obstat and imprimatur
                        No, but do you agree with the late James D. G. Dunn, a Presbyterian Minister, that Jesus isn’t fully God?

                      • #97010
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        My point is that exegesis of the text should always be most important, not what some later saint said. If you think that leads to Arianism you’re basically saying the Bible is too vague on this issue
                        But if you want to go church fathers, let’s go there. What about Epiphanius
                        >https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001051.htm
                        >Moreover, I have heard that certain persons have this grievance against me: When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the Collect, after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort — opposed as they are to our religion — shall not be hung up in any church of Christ.

                      • #97012
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Nta but I don’t really see how you can be a Christian and place “bliblical exegesis” of the modern kind so high. It’s not the mind but the Spirit that leads to understanding and no amount of arguing over syntax will change that. If some novel understanding comes about contrary to what the saints and fathers of the church have said I don’t understand how you don’t immediately feel that is grounds for suspicion.
                        So at least from what I see, I’ll trust the people closest to God on what is meant.

                      • #97013
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Actually that whole idea is flawed, and ironically an argument used by Steven Anderson. The idea that the Holy Spirit is your personal exegete cannot be supported
                        >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a97pwxWaCzc
                        I don’t mean to say that what the church fathers said is worthless, but I would always place the text first. If they contradict that might be grounds for checking again, but they can never trump the meaning on the text.

                      • #97014
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        To be clear, modern scholars might bring presuppositions that I would reject, and therefore their conclusions woke af on them. But I also wouldn’t necessarily reject a non-Christian scholar saying something. Otherwise you would have to argue that a non-Christian cannot understand anything in the Bible

                      • #97015
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I would argue that they can’t, and I would say Acts points this out. Rather, Acts and the Gospel. To truly know that the scripture is saying, the Holy Spirit must reveal it. The Ethiopian Eunuch could have spent years reading and analyzing Isaiah, but until Philip came, he was never going to get it

                      • #97016
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        That’s more about that he understood what the passage said, but didn’t know about who it was because he hadn’t heard of Jesus yet. He knew what the passage said, but didn’t know who it was referring to (because that was new revelation)

                      • #97017
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Otherwise you would have to argue that a non-Christian cannot understand anything in the Bible
                        But that’s what the bible says? How many parables did Jesus tell that no one could understand because they were alienated from God? Lots right? Don’t the epistles tell us that some things will be twisted by some want to be teachers?
                        >but they can never trump the meaning on the text.
                        That seems like an empty statement anon. After all, you aren’t comparing their interpretation to the text itself, but some interpretation of the text you’re evaluating them against. You can’t compare "against the text" because the text is just symbols. It’s your interpretation of the text your comparing them against, not the text itself… which means it’s really just your interpretation over theirs. Neither of you have some sort of special privilege on the "meaning of the text" on that basis alone. So I guess I don’t get your point. If God appointed some people as prophets, if lots of people can’t understand the parables – not just the pharisees but even the apostles and many others – then honestly I trust the people God appointed to this role to expound on it with the meaning God intended.

                      • #97018
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        So going by your logic, Protestants should stop reading Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, etc. And yes, the Bible is actually too vague on the issue. If it wasn’t for the Church Fathers we wouldn’t have the traditional understanding of the Trinity that we have today. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Athanasius, and most especially, the Cappadocian Fathers, laid the foundation for the orthodox understanding of the Trinity. They introduced all the terms that Protestants theologians themselves continue to use today, such as hypostasis and ousia among many others, which are not found in the New Testament specifically to describe God. Your understanding of the Trinity is indebted to them. These men spent their entire lives studying the scriptures and studying the writings of those who came before them, many of whom had direct succession from the apostles like Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons. This kind of simplistic attitude you often see in modern day Protestantism is what makes Protestantism so laughable, even Martin Luther and John Calvin didn’t think this.

                        Also, that quote by Epiphanius was forged, he didn’t actually write that at all, it was forged by iconoclasts in the 8th century to give legitimacy to their movement, St. John of Damascus discuses it as well as the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

                • #96964
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >standing and singing praises to an invisible being isn’t mystic
                  >communal prayer to an invisible being isn’t mystic
                  Apparently the ancient Greek and Eurasian pagans required things to be overly complicated and outwardly "aesthetic" before they would get on board. They didn’t believe on the word alone. It sounds like you "high" churchers are mostly actually worshiping yourselves.

                  • #96966
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    A lot of catholics are now mainly arguing that catholicism is true because muh aesthetics. Question of time before the Catholic church becomes too liberal for them and they convert to Islam or something

                    • #96971
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      It’s like they learned nothing at all from the Indiana Jones grail cup incident.

                      • #96984
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >It’s like they learned nothing from a protestant movie
                        Made me think

                  • #96970
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    A lot of catholics are now mainly arguing that catholicism is true because muh aesthetics. Question of time before the Catholic church becomes too liberal for them and they convert to Islam or something

                    You misunderstand the role of aesthetics. Aesthetics reflect theology, they reflect the mystical attitudes and beliefs of the Church, they’re not just there to look pretty, they’re there to honor God completely and show case his mysteries on Earth. Also
                    >referencing pagans

                    • #96986
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Dude the earliest Christians met in house churches, Jesus preached from a boat and on a hill. If your religion is woke af on aesthetics why not convert to Hinduism or Islam because they have pretty buildings too
                      Thinking that you’re so spiritual and right because you surround yourself with pretty things is just delusional

                      • #96988
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Okay? And the earliest Israelite wandered in the desert for 40 years. That’s not an argument. If you have the opportunity to offer up even greater praise and worship to God, wouldn’t you?

                      • #96991
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I get the distinct impression that His idea of (You) offering up greater praise to Him is in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and cold, healing the sick, visiting the imprisoned, etc. I mean, that’s just what He said is important to Him, is all.

                      • #96994
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        And Catholics do this. The Catholic Church is the largest charity on Earth. You’re not really making a good case here.

                      • #97001
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I think you mean largest "Charity™" on earth.

                      • #96997
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        If you think more gold = more holy, you might want to rethink your position
                        Let me put it diffently. I don’t like modernist buildings, I prefer my old traditionally built churches. But I’m not going to pretend that because "church not beautiful therefore theology wrong". That’s a dumb argument

                      • #96999
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Then why did God order the Ark of the Covenant to be gold? Why was much of the Temple gold? Why is the New Jerusalem gold? It adds much to the worship of God.

                      • #97004
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        At what point do you Satanic pagans realize that the era of physical living beings slaughtered for sacrificial atonement in buildings dedicated to the purpose is over and that *everything* is different post Jesus?

                      • #97009
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The apostles continued to worship in the Temple even after Christ established the New Covenant (Luke 24:53)

                      • #97011
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The Apostles were garden gnomes who grew up gnomish, it was all they had known all of their lives and was their personal human cultural standard. God destroyed the temple not long after, in fact probably right about the time the last of the Apostles had left the area for good.

                      • #97019
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Your argument is not very convincing.

                      • #97020
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        It’s true regardless of your being "convinced" or not.

                      • #97008
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Not to mention, God literally came in cloud and fire to the Ark.

            • #96951
              Anonymous
              Guest

              They do. Less than Catholocism perhaps but if pic related is your idea of mysticism I don’t think that’s a bad thing

          • #96973
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >i wrote a short sentence and i said the word dude therefore the pope is a shallow concept and dogma is shallow
            that this got even one honest (you) is a mercy and a gift

    • #96932
      Anonymous
      Guest

      https://i.4cdn.org/his/1632860100194.jpg

      Don’t post that KJV-onlyist heretic. He promotes the corrupted (((KJV))) text that came over 200 years after the preserved perfect Word of God, the Wycliffe Bible, was given to us faithful Christians.

    • #96933
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >this idiot is Protestantism personified
      Yeah, no.

    • #96940
      Anonymous
      Guest
      • #96969
        Anonymous
        Guest

        It lines up with West and East Germany dipshit. One part of Germany which has had capitalism for over half a century vs one that was stuck in state controlled economy up until the 90s.

        • #96979
          Anonymous
          Guest

          economy has nothing to do with it. Soviet philosophy didn’t allow for religion, and thus you see less catholics. Communism vs Capitalism isn’t part of it.

          • #96993
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Are you braindead? I don’t know if you posted what I replied to but it insinuates that the Catholic parts of Germany are more commercially successful than the Protestant parts. Of course the fact that the country was split in two econmic system where private enterprise existed in one part but not the other has an effect on the number of corporations. That’s even ignoring the fact that south-western Germany is all the coal and steel is, or that there is a big cluster in northern Protestant territory around Hamburg.

            Catholics never cease to amaze with their dishonesty.

    • #96942
      Anonymous
      Guest

      This guy is such an abrasive poopyhole and loud mouth and he turns Christianity into nothing more but a very vulgar anti gay thing. Why are Protestants like this?

      • #96946
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Why are Protestants like this?
        Because they’re heretics anon who don’t actually understand the Bible or Christianity. Protestantism is literally one giant medieval misinterpretation of Christianity as an entire religion.

        • #96982
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Care to explain? Legitimately curious by the way

    • #96978
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why is he like this brehs

      • #96980
        Anonymous
        Guest

        A broken clock is right twice daily.

      • #96987
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Probably the only thing he has been right about.

        • #96989
          Anonymous
          Guest

          No, he’s mostly right about the KJV too.

          • #96990
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Kjv onlyism
            LOL!

            • #96992
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >thinking anything else is the Bible
              Many such cases. Sad!

      • #96998
        Anonymous
        Guest

        It’s pretty funny how the alt right picked him up specifically bc he made a video denying the Holocaust and thought he was one of them when he’s at the very least a true Christian in terms of it being for all the world and not just an ethnic-supremacist LARP session

Viewing 6 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.