the bible (the real bible)

[Mister Sandman]

the church is made up of humans, no human is perfect. That would explain burning non-believers.
.

are you talking about the dark ages? if yes, and just how does the term "no human is perfect". explain such a cruel act of inhumanity?

ever heard of the counter reformation which was launched by Rome on the protestants?

methinks you need to study your history.

Me thinks you need to study your history. The catholic church, inquisitors ect burned heretics i.e witches and people who practice dark magic.
Mainly following a 'law' in the bible, which they the catholic church mistook.
Along the lines of one should not suffer a witch to live. Somthing along those lines.

But then it got out of hand. I.e Killing people off who are a threat to the church.

You cannot justify sin. Pick any religion, any belief, and there will be inhumane acts done under the name of it. No matter how you spin this it was humanity, which preformed inhumane acts.



Now for the counter reformation, or the Catholic Revival and the Reformation.

The Protestant Reformation began as an attempt to doctrinally reform the Catholic Church, effected by Western European Catholics who opposed what they perceived as false doctrines and ecclesiastic malpractice — especially the teaching and the sale of indulgences, and simony, the selling and buying of clerical offices — that the reformers saw as evidence of the systemic corruption of the church’s hierarchy, which included the Pope.

The counter reformation is basically why the catholic church saw that they were no longer supported so to speak and changed their ways for political reasons.

It wasn't against the protestants, though they did pressure that faith without works is dead, while protestants said faith alone is enough.

[[KMA]Avenger]

erm...wrong on every front mate, seriously!

you can reply to what i just said or wait for me to edit this post if you like...

rest assured, i will prove you wrong

[Mister Sandman]

First let me quote my sources and then ill make it obvious what question i am answering.


methinks you need to study your history.

Me thinks you need to study your history.

Your question:are you talking about the dark ages? if yes, and just how does the term "no human is perfect". explain such a cruel act of inhumanity?

The catholic church, inquisitors ect burned heretics i.e witches and people who practice dark magic.
Medieval Sourcebook: Inquisition - Introduction
Mainly following a 'law' in the bible, which they the catholic church mistook.
Along the lines of one should not suffer a witch to live. Something along those lines.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn.htm
But then it got out of hand. I.e Killing people off who are a threat to the church.

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/burni ... itches.htm


You cannot justify sin. Pick any religion, any belief, and there will be inhumane acts done under the name of it. No matter how you spin this it was humanity, which preformed inhumane acts.
Source: General Common Knowledge

Your Question: ever heard of the counter reformation which was launched by Rome on the protestants?

Now for the counter reformation, or the Catholic Revival and the Reformation.

The Protestant Reformation began as an attempt to doctrinally reform the Catholic Church, effected by Western European Catholics who opposed what they perceived as false doctrines and ecclesiastic malpractice — especially the teaching and the sale of indulgences, and simony, the selling and buying of clerical offices — that the reformers saw as evidence of the systemic corruption of the church’s hierarchy, which included the Pope.

# Janz, Denis, ed. A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts With Introductions (2008)

# Luther, Martin Luther's Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters, 2 vols., tr.and ed. by Preserved Smith, Charles Michael Jacobs, The Lutheran Publication Society, Philadelphia, Pa. 1913, 1918. vol.I (1507-1521) and vol.2 (1521-1530) from Google Books. Reprint of Vol.1, Wipf & Stock Publishers (March 2006). ISBN 1-59752-601-0.

# Spitz, Lewis W. The Protestant Reformation: Major Documents. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1997. ISBN 0-570-04993-8

The counter reformation is basically why the catholic church saw that they were no longer supported so to speak and changed their ways for political reasons.

It wasn't against the protestants, though they did pressure that faith without works is dead, while protestants said faith alone is enough.

# ^ Counter Reformation, from The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.
# ^ a b Counter Reformation, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online, latest edition, full-article.

[Sarevok]

if god created the earth in the beggining, when did he find the time to create the big bang, and all the other stuff that happened before the earth existed.

Few things to consider about this.
1) Already said before, Big Bang is a theory developed solely based on the observation that the universe is expanding. If it's expanding, in the past, it must have been smaller, so there must be a point it all started.
One of my biggest problems with this theory, is how did the universe expand? I mean, black holes are formed, when you collapse the core of a very large star in on itself, and the gravity crushes it. And that's just the matter of the core of a star. The Big Bang Theory says everything was in a super condensed form (since all the universe was within the size of a pin head). Due to the gravity of such a scenario, how did the matter expand into the universe.
2) Who says he created the big bang? If God can create the universe, what's to stop him from say pushing all the systems out there, away from each other, so they didn't get close and collapse themselves?
3) What other stuff before the Earth existed? Do you mean the rest of the universe? The Bible says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." So, he made them at the same time. Think about it. If he can create the universe, who is to say he couldn't do it in 24 hours? It's like building things now. How long would it have taken people 200 years ago, to build the empire state building (structure most people would know), and how long would it take now. Just because it looks like it should take forever, doesn't mean it will always be that way

if god forgives all sins how can we go to hell and what if his idea of heaven isnt my idea of heaven, it wont be heaven if i dont like it.

Think about it like this. If you say damage my car, but don't ask for forgiveness. How can i forgive you? If you don't ask God for forgiveness, why should he forgive you?
Your Idea of heaven is influenced by whom/what you are now. Who's to say it won't change in a few years? Though i would ask you to consider, what things you would remove from the world. And chances are, most of those will be apart of heaven

lust is a sin, so how do we decide who we want to spend the rest of our lives with if we want to have sex with someone before we marry them thats lust but we wouldnt marry someone we wernt attracted to.

There's a key difference between finding someone attractive, and lusting after them. Lust is a very strong word. And wouldn't be used when you pass a pretty girl in the street.

Sorry, breaking this up, as it's several questions in 1 block.

if i was an all powerfull holy creator and i wanted people to believe in me i would show up every so often to prove i was real so that people were able to believe in me instead of just believing in something just because some book from 2000 years ago siad its real,

That's the thing. He still does. Heck, just last year, a lady came to preach to us, and people were healed from migraine headaches, amongst other things. And within the last few months, a girl in my church, whom had had a bad shoulder and back for a few years was healed. She used to wear a brace to help relieve the pain, but now she has no need for it at all. Don't tell me theirs no signs. Just cause God doesn't write your name with lightening on the footpath as you walk down the street, doesn't mean he doesn't exist...

man existed long before the bible so why did god wait all that time to let his son loose on earth to trick people into believing in his dad

Because at that appointed time, there was few enough people that most would hear about it, yet technology was good enough, that people wouldn't have to for example, walk around lakes to get somewhere.
You do realise, the bible was started to be written (the old testament) about 5-6000 years ago?

but wait jesus is god isnt he and his mum was a virgin so god impregnated mary but kept her a virgin and she gave birth to the thing that got her pregnant

Your assuming God is a singularity. God is plural. 1 being, many personalities. Like water. Water is a liquid, a solid, and a gas, yet all the same thing. God the Holy Spirit, impregnated Mary, whom gave birth to God the Son.

but somehow kept her virginity,

Since she didn't have sex, she was a virgin. I would have thought, with science how it is today, that could acept that a woman could become pregnant, without the need to have ever had sex in her life...

anyway why did 'god' wait so long to show up then dissapear

As i said before, it was the right time to send him then, to maximise he's message.

if we all came from adam and eve and god created them in his own image doesnt that mean that god looks nothing like us because thats a whole lot of inbreeding over a very long period of time so we would look nothing like the first 2 of our species if there were only those 2 to start with.

You really need to read what the bible says, and no just go off what others say.
1) God created Adam in he's image. And from Adam, created Eve.
2) If you have a sports car, and you get some clay, and try to replicate the sports car. Is the sports car and the clay model the same? Or is the clay model and image of the sports car
3) There was an appointed time by God, whereby having children with close relatives was forbidden. There's a few theories as to why this happened. Either sin had to greatly affected us, and thus this was needed, to prevent severe genetic defect (look up about the degeneration of the Y chromosome i think), or that he was trying to help people diversify themselves, rather then just living in very tight communities, and having children with one another.

Hope this helps you.

[ljietuvis]

Big Bang is a theory developed solely based on the observation that the universe is expanding.

Expanding of the Universe, discovered by Edwin Hubble, was the first reason to develop thescientific theory of Big Bang. However, what about the cosmic microwave background radiation which was PREDICTED by the big bang theory even BEFORE it was first discovered. At the moment big bang is the ONLY scientific explanation for the cosmic microwave background radiation. Of course, by saying "god(s) did it" or "the Invisible Pink "Unicorn did it" can explain absolutely anything.

[Sarevok]

Expanding of the Universe, discovered by Edwin Hubble, was the first reason to develop thescientific theory of Big Bang. However, what about the cosmic microwave background radiation which was PREDICTED by the big bang theory even BEFORE it was first discovered. At the moment big bang is the ONLY scientific explanation for the cosmic microwave background radiation. Of course, by saying "god(s) did it" or "the Invisible Pink "Unicorn did it" can explain absolutely anything.

Let us assume for a moment you are correct (and now your thinking "I am you twit")
If the big bang occurred, can you answer me some questions about it.
1) What caused the whole thing to start expanding/exploding outwards?
2) At what point did matter form, from whatever existed before matter
3) When matter formed, was the universe large enough and atoms in it far enough away from one another, such that they didn't collapse in on themselves like a black hole. I'd like something other then YES, cause it happened. Like what size it was when matter formed, and what was the gravitational force at that point.
4) If the universe had a finite beginning, what can we guess was before this finite time period.
4a) If nothing, then where did all this matter come from? If we maintain the law of physics which states "Matter/Energy can no be created nor destroyed", we can not have made it all from nothing at the start
4b) If something, then what something. What kicked the whole thing off, and why at that point in eternity?
5) Can not the CMB be explained as the furthered we can see, and thus any energy/light that is at that point, would in effect, all combine together to give us this apparent background

[Hitchkok]

Expanding of the Universe, discovered by Edwin Hubble, was the first reason to develop thescientific theory of Big Bang. However, what about the cosmic microwave background radiation which was PREDICTED by the big bang theory even BEFORE it was first discovered. At the moment big bang is the ONLY scientific explanation for the cosmic microwave background radiation. Of course, by saying "god(s) did it" or "the Invisible Pink "Unicorn did it" can explain absolutely anything.

Let us assume for a moment you are correct (and now your thinking "I am you twit")
If the big bang occurred, can you answer me some questions about it.
1) What caused the whole thing to start expanding/exploding outwards?
pressure
2) At what point did matter form, from whatever existed before matter
why are you asumming a time of origin? in other words, can you support the assumption that there was a "time before time"?
3) When matter formed, was the universe large enough and atoms in it far enough away from one another, such that they didn't collapse in on themselves like a black hole. I'd like something other then YES, cause it happened. Like what size it was when matter formed, and what was the gravitational force at that point.
the gravitational constant was the same, but the immense pressure caused "lumps" of matter (matter didn't "form", it existed) to shoot far from each other. this lumps formed into the worlds we know, but left a vast space between them
4) If the universe had a finite beginning, what can we guess was before this finite time period.
youre confusing time with space. the big bang states there universe had a spatialy finite beggining. it says nothing regarding time. and as i said, can you support the notion of a "beginning"? it might help you to think on another question: "had all the atoms in the universe stood still, will the notion of time have any meaning?"
4a) If nothing, then where did all this matter come from? If we maintain the law of physics which states "Matter/Energy can no be created nor destroyed", we can not have made it all from nothing at the start
the laws of phisics does not state that "Matter/Energy can no be created nor destroyed". they state something along the lines of "matter + energy cannot be created nor destroyed". anyway, again, why should matter have been created? couldn't it just existed?
4b) If something, then what something. What kicked the whole thing off, and why at that point in eternity?
pressure, and because that time had the right conditions. had it not, it would have happened at a "later" (again, if all is static, then what's "later" and what's "prior"?) point. and then you would have asked why was it at that later point.
5) Can not the CMB be explained as the furthered we can see, and thus any energy/light that is at that point, would in effect, all combine together to give us this apparent background
the thing about the cosmic microwave radiation is that you can infer on the speed in which the source travels (exactly the same way a police speed camera can infer your speed using a laser gun). and that speed turns out to suite exactly the big bang theory.

now, two things
1) none of my answers are too much in depth. but to be honest, neither are your questions. these issues need deep learning to fully grasp, and neither me nor you have put in the effort.
2) none of my answers negate the existence of god. gods existence can't be disproven (nor proven, mind you) scientifically, because god is not a scientific concept. personally, i choose not to believe in god.

[solmyr]

The idea that DNA and our genetic code was purer in the past is inherently stupid, simply because thats not how it works. It doesnt magically start out 100% perfect, it starts out very very inperfect and slowly over a great amount of time and a lot of changes changes itself into the best fitting form for that lifeforms environment.

If you consider the origin of the Homo Sapiens Sapiens as "God's Perfect Creation", then yes.. our genes would have been 'purer'.
Without some divine origins, the whole decaying DNA thing becomes a bit far fetched.

Oh well.. it does decay, our species.. Not the DNA in itself, but the creatures it results in; increasing numbers of failed and defective humans, incapable of survival if not for the investments we as a society put in medicine and other stuff.. I'd say let them die and work on preventing their issues, rather as keeping them alive. We keep our weak alive and sacrifice our strong to internal conflict, instead of allowing nature to eliminate our weak and defective, and breeding with our strong. Man is no different from horses in that one can breed out diseases, and breed into general directions of physique. Work on letting one of your children's children be the embodiment of perfection.
Now that would be manifest destiny.




On another note. Do we not forget that Adam was equal to God? Old Snakey, that devilish naughtyboi Lucifer, never lied.

i also tend to agree on breding out disease and disorder for the overall betterment of humankind.

but thats another intelligent discussion topic altogether

[Sarevok]

1) What caused the whole thing to start expanding/exploding outwards?
pressure
So, that the pressure inside the small universe pushed itself apart. But this pressure would have to overcome the gravitation pull of the matter against each other. Same as why the earth doesn't explode due to pressure inside the core, or the sun for that fact.

2) At what point did matter form, from whatever existed before matter
why are you asumming a time of origin? in other words, can you support the assumption that there was a "time before time"?
Ah, that's a question you need to answer to support your argument. Since you believe the big bang theory. There was a point the plasma became matter-like.
My question is more like what point in the estimated time line did the universe become matter dominant, instead of plasma dominant?

3) When matter formed, was the universe large enough and atoms in it far enough away from one another, such that they didn't collapse in on themselves like a black hole. I'd like something other then YES, cause it happened. Like what size it was when matter formed, and what was the gravitational force at that point.
the gravitational constant was the same, but the immense pressure caused "lumps" of matter (matter didn't "form", it existed) to shoot far from each other. this lumps formed into the worlds we know, but left a vast space between them
That can't happen. If that was true, wouldn't the pressure in a black hole, also push itself apart? Or simply chunks of super compressed matter out?
And matter didn't exist in the first place. I thought i read that, or you said, there was plasma, or something else, then matter. Or am i mistaken? But if I’m wrong. Correct me

4) If the universe had a finite beginning, what can we guess was before this finite time period.
youre confusing time with space. the big bang states there universe had a spatialy finite beggining. it says nothing regarding time. and as i said, can you support the notion of a "beginning"? it might help you to think on another question: "had all the atoms in the universe stood still, will the notion of time have any meaning?"
Ok then, what was before the "spatially finite beginning"? That was what i was after.
Is it just that it was all super dense, till a point was reached where it could overcome it’s own gravity?

4a) If nothing, then where did all this matter come from? If we maintain the law of physics which states "Matter/Energy can no be created nor destroyed", we can not have made it all from nothing at the start
the laws of phisics does not state that "Matter/Energy can no be created nor destroyed". they state something along the lines of "matter + energy cannot be created nor destroyed". anyway, again, why should matter have been created? couldn't it just existed?
"The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less"

couldn't it just existed?

Interesting, you can accept that matter has always existed, but not that a being outside of time-space can always exist.

4b) If something, then what something. What kicked the whole thing off, and why at that point in eternity?
pressure, and because that time had the right conditions. had it not, it would have happened at a "later" (again, if all is static, then what's "later" and what's "prior"?) point. and then you would have asked why was it at that later point.
And exactly what conditions would affect it? Nothing would change, as you said, it would remain static…

5) Can not the CMB be explained as the furthered we can see, and thus any energy/light that is at that point, would in effect, all combine together to give us this apparent background
the thing about the cosmic microwave radiation is that you can infer on the speed in which the source travels (exactly the same way a police speed camera can infer your speed using a laser gun). and that speed turns out to suite exactly the big bang theory.
If that were so. Wouldn’t the CMB be also moving away at a certain speed? If it is, what is this speed, if it is known [/quote]

2) none of my answers negate the existence of god. gods existence can't be disproven

Cause it’s impossible to prove a negative, being God doesn’t exist. Agreed.

2) none of my answers negate the existence of god. gods existence can't be disproven (nor proven, mind you) scientifically, because god is not a scientific concept. personally, i choose not to believe in god.

And what if you could find evidences of things that are unexplainable by science, and can never be done so?

[Hitchkok]

1) What caused the whole thing to start expanding/exploding outwards?
pressure
So, that the pressure inside the small universe pushed itself apart. But this pressure would have to overcome the gravitation pull of the matter against each other. Same as why the earth doesn't explode due to pressure inside the core, or the sun for that fact.
it does. we know it as volcanic eruptions, or sun spots. differenc is, when those happen the pressure is relieved, by going somewhere, so a worldwide catastrophe is avoided. in the case of the entire cosmos, it doesn't have where to go, hence, the big bang.

2) At what point did matter form, from whatever existed before matter
why are you asumming a time of origin? in other words, can you support the assumption that there was a "time before time"?
Ah, that's a question you need to answer to support your argument. Since you believe the big bang theory. There was a point the plasma became matter-like.
My question is more like what point in the estimated time line did the universe become matter dominant, instead of plasma dominant?
a) plasma is also matter. it is super heated gas. when the universe begun expanding, the pressure was relieved, and the plasma begun cooling into gas, and later fluids and solids
) why does it matter at what point did the matter became dominant over energy? actually, i'm not sure it did. for all i know, we might be living in a cosmos more plentyful in energy than matter.
3) When matter formed, was the universe large enough and atoms in it far enough away from one another, such that they didn't collapse in on themselves like a black hole. I'd like something other then YES, cause it happened. Like what size it was when matter formed, and what was the gravitational force at that point.
the gravitational constant was the same, but the immense pressure caused "lumps" of matter (matter didn't "form", it existed) to shoot far from each other. this lumps formed into the worlds we know, but left a vast space between them
That can't happen. If that was true, wouldn't the pressure in a black hole, also push itself apart? Or simply chunks of super compressed matter out?
And matter didn't exist in the first place. I thought i read that, or you said, there was plasma, or something else, then matter. Or am i mistaken? But if I’m wrong. Correct me
the pressure in a black hole might cause the same, when it reaches a critical mass (rather, a critical density). but the black hole won't tear itself apart. there will be somthing akin to a volcanic eruption, which will push the black hole under the critical density.
4) If the universe had a finite beginning, what can we guess was before this finite time period.
youre confusing time with space. the big bang states there universe had a spatialy finite beggining. it says nothing regarding time. and as i said, can you support the notion of a "beginning"? it might help you to think on another question: "had all the atoms in the universe stood still, will the notion of time have any meaning?"
Ok then, what was before the "spatially finite beginning"? That was what i was after.
Is it just that it was all super dense, till a point was reached where it could overcome it’s own gravity?
what do you mean before? why did anything had to be "before"? what will you answer if i'll answer you what was before god?
truth is, no one knows what was before. there are theories, ranging from a previous universe that collapsed into itself, to a sinite dot that was "always" there.

4a) If nothing, then where did all this matter come from? If we maintain the law of physics which states "Matter/Energy can no be created nor destroyed", we can not have made it all from nothing at the start
the laws of phisics does not state that "Matter/Energy can no be created nor destroyed". they state something along the lines of "matter + energy cannot be created nor destroyed". anyway, again, why should matter have been created? couldn't it just existed?
"The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less"
exactly. where does that say that once the amount was zero?

couldn't it just existed?

Interesting, you can accept that matter has always existed, but not that a being outside of time-space can always exist.
i can. but i don't. why? because it doesn't stand the old ockam's razor test. it just takes too much assumptions.
4b) If something, then what something. What kicked the whole thing off, and why at that point in eternity?
pressure, and because that time had the right conditions. had it not, it would have happened at a "later" (again, if all is static, then what's "later" and what's "prior"?) point. and then you would have asked why was it at that later point.
And exactly what conditions would affect it? Nothing would change, as you said, it would remain static…
we don't know. that's way we keep investigating,

5) Can not the CMB be explained as the furthered we can see, and thus any energy/light that is at that point, would in effect, all combine together to give us this apparent background
the thing about the cosmic microwave radiation is that you can infer on the speed in which the source travels (exactly the same way a police speed camera can infer your speed using a laser gun). and that speed turns out to suite exactly the big bang theory.
If that were so. Wouldn’t the CMB be also moving away at a certain speed? If it is, what is this speed, if it is known
think of a flashlight on the end of a train that is going away from you. if that train would move in a sufficient speed, the light would turn to the blue end of the spectrum, and you would see it as greenish, or bluish (if the train would be moving toward you, you would see it as redish) note, sufficient speeds are fractions of light-speed, so a 300MPH bullet train won't quite cut it (although, you can hear the same kind of effect with the train's horn, which will sound higher in pitch when coming towards you, and lower when going away). this is what we call the Doppler effect. the matter in the universe is the flashlight. the cosmic microwave radiation is the light. and it turns out that everywhere we look, it's greenish. the CMB isn't an object. it is the sum of light emitted by matter when the big bang occured.

2) none of my answers negate the existence of god. gods existence can't be disproven

Cause it’s impossible to prove a negative, being God doesn’t exist. Agreed. I just love the way you took a fragment. read on: "god's existence can't be disproven (nor proven, mind you) scientifically, because god is not a scientific concept". the accepted definition for a scientific concept, by the way, is one that can be DIS-proven scientifically. so before attempting to prove god scientifically, take a minute to reflect on what will happen should you fail.

2) none of my answers negate the existence of god. god's existence can't be disproven (nor proven, mind you) scientifically, because god is not a scientific concept. personally, i choose not to believe in god.

And what if you could find evidences of things that are unexplainable by science, and can never be done so?[/quote]
like what?
heavy objects lifted without direct contact? we call it magnetism.
a flick of a switch that makes the night as bright as day? we call it electricity.
water being pumped up without apparent energy being applied? we call it capilary properties.
a sheep being born of an un-impregnated sheep? we call it cloning.
i can go on. and on.
fact is, once you'll find a phenomenon that isn't explained by science, science will adapt. science is NOT a dogma. it is an attempt at describing the world around us, and foreseeing phenomenons not yet seen. it is very possible that on another world, an other set of theories was evolved that is totally different than our own, but not less (or more) accurate. it will be based on a different set of assumptions. but for both sets, the assumption of god is an assumption they do very well without.

[[KMA]Avenger]

First let me quote my sources and then ill make it obvious what question i am answering.


methinks you need to study your history.

Me thinks you need to study your history.

Your question:are you talking about the dark ages? if yes, and just how does the term "no human is perfect". explain such a cruel act of inhumanity?

The catholic church, inquisitors ect burned heretics i.e witches and people who practice dark magic.
Medieval Sourcebook: Inquisition - Introduction
Mainly following a 'law' in the bible, which they the catholic church mistook.
Along the lines of one should not suffer a witch to live. Something along those lines.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn.htm
But then it got out of hand. I.e Killing people off who are a threat to the church.

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/burni ... itches.htm


You cannot justify sin. Pick any religion, any belief, and there will be inhumane acts done under the name of it. No matter how you spin this it was humanity, which preformed inhumane acts.
Source: General Common Knowledge

Your Question: ever heard of the counter reformation which was launched by Rome on the protestants?

Now for the counter reformation, or the Catholic Revival and the Reformation.

The Protestant Reformation began as an attempt to doctrinally reform the Catholic Church, effected by Western European Catholics who opposed what they perceived as false doctrines and ecclesiastic malpractice — especially the teaching and the sale of indulgences, and simony, the selling and buying of clerical offices — that the reformers saw as evidence of the systemic corruption of the church’s hierarchy, which included the Pope.

# Janz, Denis, ed. A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts With Introductions (2008)

# Luther, Martin Luther's Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters, 2 vols., tr.and ed. by Preserved Smith, Charles Michael Jacobs, The Lutheran Publication Society, Philadelphia, Pa. 1913, 1918. vol.I (1507-1521) and vol.2 (1521-1530) from Google Books. Reprint of Vol.1, Wipf & Stock Publishers (March 2006). ISBN 1-59752-601-0.

# Spitz, Lewis W. The Protestant Reformation: Major Documents. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1997. ISBN 0-570-04993-8

The counter reformation is basically why the catholic church saw that they were no longer supported so to speak and changed their ways for political reasons.

It wasn't against the protestants, though they did pressure that faith without works is dead, while protestants said faith alone is enough.

# ^ Counter Reformation, from The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.
# ^ a b Counter Reformation, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online, latest edition, full-article.

i haven't had the time to counter this last post of yours, and don't have enough time for anything but a short post for now (rest assured i will prove you wrong as i said i would).

after reading it again, i see you copy/pasted most of it...quick question...is there anything in that post that you have researched personally?

if not, i suggest you go study the history of the reformation, the protestants and especially study the history of the Jesuit order and its counter reformation against the French protestants...damn, what was their name?!

will post it as soon as i can remember.

i remember...the Huguenots.

i would also read and research the books of Avro Manhattan who knew all to well the bloody and awful history of the Vatican and the Papacy.

[Mister Sandman]

i haven't had the time to counter this last post of yours, and don't have enough time for anything but a short post for now (rest assured i will prove you wrong as i said i would).

Love to see you try to discredit reputable sources and most them being direct quotes.

after reading it again, i see you copy/pasted most of it...quick question...is there anything in that post that you have researched personally?

It was personally researched, direct quotes that is all. Copy pasta was required to save me time, and effort, and to really just say what i knew with supporting evidence. Where, you infact, provide nothing but allegations and questions.

if not, i suggest you go study the history of the reformation, the protestants and especially study the history of the Jesuit order and its counter reformation against the French protestants...damn, what was their name?!

already have, I have provided direct quotes, answering your questions.

will post it as soon as i can remember.

i remember...the Huguenots.

i would also read and research the books of Avro Manhattan who knew all to well the bloody and awful history of the Vatican and the Papacy.

Honestly, Im not catholic, What they do/have done is not brandishing and tarring my name.
What I have said, in response to your question are historically true.

The counter reformation was done for mainly political reasons. Becoming more 'progressive'. Just read the direct quotes.

[[KMA]Avenger]

i think we have our wires crossed mate.

what i'm saying is that there was real intent behind the Vatican's decision to go after both the reformers and the protestants, it wasn't something that simply "got out of hand", there was real intent to enforce church doctrine on everybody, and those who would not accept church doctrine would at best be pronounced an anathema (excommunicated), at worst killed in any manor of gruesome deaths. i dismiss any source which states otherwise.



[spoiler]FOURTH SESSION: DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES: "If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts [the 66 books of the Bible plus 12 apocryphal books, being two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Sophonias, two of Macabees], as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA."

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: "If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 1).



Additional Details
TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: "If anyone says that it is a deception to celebrate masses in honor of the saints and in order to obtain their intercession with God, as the Church intends, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 5).

TWENTY-FIFTH SESSION, DECREE ON PURGATORY: "Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, following the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught in sacred councils and very recently in this ecumenical council that there is a purgatory, and that the souls there detained are aided by the suffrages of the faithful and chiefly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar, the holy council commands the bishops that they strive diligently to the end that the sound doctrine of purgatory, transmitted by the Fathers and sacred councils, be believed and maintained by the faithful of Christ, and be everywhere taught and preached."[/spoiler]



[spoiler]The Council of Trent between 1545 to 1563 CE marks one of the most evil actions of human history by arguably the most evil organization to ever exist on planet earth.

Here are some "highlights" during the 18 odd years the Council met:

1540 Jesuit Order founded to assist in the identification, translation and elimination of any and all knowledge that threatens church doctrine.

1542 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to extend torture and barbarity to cities/groups showing signs of embracing humanistic and non-church values. Venice is targetted heavily.

1544 A new version of Index of Forbidden Works created listing all banned knowledge that was not able to be eliminated/destroyed before becoming public knowledge.

Roman Catholic Church did maintain the legitimacy of slavery as law in the official Corpus Iuris Canonici (Canon Law), based on the Decretum Gratiani, and Nova Compilatio decretalium (New Compilation of Decretals) which became the official law of the Church since Pope Gregory IX in 1227. Furthermore, that this law enabled slave traders during this century to be free of any charge of heresy (therefore loss of property) as well as ensure their protected by church law. That this law promoting the international slave trade by the Catholic Church was only repealed in the 20th Century on, May 27, 1917.

Of course, Catholic apologists, pr agents and spin doctors will say it was a divinely inspired event, of Gods work full of love.

The Vatican, the Catholic Church is the only organization in human history that has killed, tortured and burned people alive all in the name of "love".[/spoiler]

research the Council of Trent, to prove there was intention from the outset.

[Mister Sandman]

i think we have our wires crossed mate.

what i'm saying is that there was real intent behind the Vatican's decision to go after both the reformers and the protestants, it wasn't something that simply "got out of hand", there was real intent to enforce church doctrine on everybody, and those who would not accept church doctrine would at best be pronounced an anathema (excommunicated), at worst killed in any manor of gruesome deaths. i dismiss any source which states otherwise

.

Nice to see your arguing/debating style hasnt changed.

[[KMA]Avenger]

nice to see you completely missed the point as usual...

if you had bothered to find out what the council of Trent was all about you would also dismiss those very same sources you provided for 1 very simple reason...the vaticans evil council of Trent proves those sources are false!

i don't simply dismiss a source because it doesn't fit my argument, i dismiss them when its provably wrong and the Vaticans evil council of Trent proves they are wrong....

any chance you can make a better reply to my 2nd to last post other than "Nice to see your arguing/debating style hasnt changed."?