Do Catholics and Orthodox have a different teaching regarding profanity? The seem to be a lot more relaxed about it compared to Protestants. I grew in a non-denominational(which is basically Baptist lite) community and even saying something as benign as "ass" was seen as a borderline sin. I've noticed, however, that Apostolics tend to swear and make vulgar jokes much more frequently than Protestants. Even the priest at this Catholic parish I visited last Sunday made a joke about a the breasts of a woman he knew growing up when telling the congregation to dress modestly. I wasn't offended truth be told, I make worse jokes than that all the time, but it was surprising to hear a priest say something like that. Do you guys have a different teaching regarding this sort of thing?
Do Catholics and Orthodox have a different teaching regarding profanity...
Orthodox here, I do my best to not swear and keep my speech clean as possible.
I can assure you that the vulgarity issue isn't just with us, I've come across some Protestants with filthy mouths.
Vulgarity is a minor sin for both Catholics and Orthodox. We try to avoid it best we can but sadly here on Zig Forums people tend to swear a lot which makes me swear.
orthodox baptist here. that means i believe the bible. and the bible says
but youre obviously not going to obtain sinless. perfection but you obviously know its wrong otherwise you wouldnt ask about it. it doesnt matter which denomination said one way or the other.
Except the parts when it says baptism is necessary for the remission of sins, right?
baptism of the Holy Ghost?
John 1
and if baptism is required for salvation, why did Jesus get baptized? and why does the account with phillip and the ethiopian eunuch declare that what stopped the eunuch from getting baptized was necessary? here, ill quote the catholic church’s english bible.
I mean it's wrong, but unless it's directed to someone else ain't a sin (or a very light one)
The baptism of John is different from the baptism of Christ retard. The baptism of John is a preparation for the Sacrament, a sacramental.
Acts 19:1-5
And it came to pass, while Apollo was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus and found certain disciples. And he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John's baptism. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance saying: That they should believe in him, who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus. Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
how is water the name Lord Jesus other than figuratively such as in 1 John 5:7-8? It's faith, dude. baptize means to immerse. someone who believes and doesn't get baptized can still get saved, hence the thief on the cross. And the nature of Hebrews 11 is such that "by faith when x did so and so works" that they were justified then. And seeing as how the scripture cannot be broken, did everyone before John the Baptist not get saved? Or are you some offshoot of some random dispensationalist sect?
Are you baiting or are you being serious?
People before Christ didn't need baptism because Christ wasn't incarnate yet.
Secondly the Catholic Church believes in the baptism by blood and baptism of desire. The first applies to people who were killed in the name of Christ but weren't baptised, their love for God and wish to be baptised in Christ, that is to be part of his flock saves them. The second applies to people that have the desire to be baptised but they can't be for various reasons.
Thus the Good Thief is saved since he really wanted to be with Christ. It was a perfect Contrition.
That's why unbaptised babies can't go to heaven since they can't desire the baptism and God.
But babies who were massacred in the name of Christ like those that Herod killed are in heaven.
I recommend you to look into the Catholic believe of the Baptism before affirming your point with memes.
Where does it say that again?
proof from the new testament, please? I don't subscribe to eternal humanity of Jesus, He was specifically incarnate to be a sacrifice for a specific commission of time between 0 and 33 AD. So by your logic we don't need to water baptize after 33 AD, so you can just throw the book of Acts out the window? No, I don't think we should throw it out, user.
so you're not completely without hope for reasoning. Great. That sounds like FAITH as opposed to "works." That sounds like repentance actually. Since the word repent is from the same latin word "to think" which is
PENsar
technically they're asleep still until the resurrection. I'm not a millenarian but being wrong about something so intentionally cryptic as the timing of the day of the Lord fortunately is not a damnable heresy (for obvious reasons).
And who the winnie the pooh does? Jesus existed before all times but only became a man 2000 years ago
Who the winnie the pooh knew that catholics also have faith? I recommend you to search the Web before saying the stupid things your pastor tells you, or worse the ones you came up with
Wtf is this heresy? What is particular judgment? I though protestants believed in the basics of christianism.
Words have power, and authority. There isn't a magical barrier between "good words" and "bad words", however, the power and meaning carried by our words can be good or bad.
St Paul himself used a vulgarity in Philippians 3:8. Swear words can be used in a good context, where they transmit the strength and weight that a regular word would be too weak to carry. But also, and more often than not, they can be used to express anger, to insult others, or simply to let off steam… In that case they must of course be avoided, but let's not forget that "normal" words can also be used to express anger, to insult others, or to let off steam (sometimes to a point that a regular word can become a slur).
It's not as if saying a bad word is a mortal sin… But rather, think about the words you use before you use them, and never speak foolishly.
i do earnestly wonder because the state of the roman catholic church is pretty bad and has not been authoritative for hundreds of years.
no. i dont believe particular judgment. nothing in the ot suggests otherwise than death entering rest. job requested to enter rest to perish while in the womb, and theres the witch at endor, saul, and samuel.
and then new testament theres 1 thessalonians 4:
He shall cry out to me: Thou art my father: my God, and the support of my salvation.
28 And I will make him my firstborn, high above the kings of the earth.
29 I will keep my mercy for him for ever: and my covenant faithful to him.
30 And I will make his seed to endure for evermore: and his throne as the days of heaven.
31 And if his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments:
32 If they profane my justices: and keep not my commandments:
33 I will visit their iniquities with a rod: and their sins with stripes.
34 But my mercy I will not take away from him: nor will I suffer my truth to fail.
35 Neither will I profane my covenant: and the words that proceed from my mouth I will not make void.
God says you're wrong.
Source? Last time I checked everytime any Pope says something is first page in every newspaper.
And its still the only authority in the Christian world don't know why you say that, but wait you're a prot. You guys hate authority.
Luke 23:42-43
And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.
Heretic. Wouldn't have expected less from a prot. Fortunately your European cousins aren't that much retarded. Only a bit.
What you guys fail to understand is that the kingdom of God is an absolute monarchy, not a democracy.
There is absolutely no room for opinions and freethinking in Christ. Only the truth.
Statements like I "i don't believe in this" or "imo this is something" only shows Satan is in them to steer them form the Truth.
Because sleeping isn't an euphemism for dead isn't it? And Saint Paul clearly believes in particular judgment like in 2 Corinthians 5 and:
Philippians 1:22-23
And if to live in the flesh: this is to me the fruit of labour. And what I shall choose I know not. But I am straitened between two: having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ, a thing by far the better.
If he had to wait until final judgment why was he eager to depart right away?
You prots are so naive to believe that the Church of Christ was wrong for 1600 years but some random dude in Europe or America is right among thousands of other random dudes who claim their right as well although their doctrines are completely opposite with those other dudes.
The human mind is fallible.
God isn't. The end.
yeah that means YOU. catholics have totally perverted judgment. do you know what an indulgence is? where is that in ot or nt scripture? you show me where you think it is, and ill show you the corresponding rebuke for that error, papist.
you murdered the first translator of the english bible, tyndale, as a heretic. the blood is on your hands, and you had better be willing to confess that of tyndale before the throne. are you willing?
im not.
napoleon boneparte
realize that i said authoritative, meaning to enFORCE laws. you dont have that.
thats how ive been reading it. were the corresponding punctuation in the interlinear used. there was no punctuation, thus the interpretation is based on English convention and not a declaration of an attribute that the thief was going to be in paradise THAT DAY. but indeed i think Jesus was being emphatic in he proceeding statement that the hief was going to be with Jesus in paradise.
and ONLY Jesus is king, and all born again are sons who have liberty.
yeah when you fall asleep you lose the experience of time until you wake up.. so entering the sleep of death would be immediately visited with the resurrection in he same manner as sleeping and waking. if youre saved and you know who you have believed, then of course thats how its going to be.
whatever, satan. get thee hence
Yes I know. But I think it's better for me to tell you what it isn't. It doesn't forvige any sin. None at all. Only confession, baptism and perfect contrition (if unable to get a confession) forgives sins.
An indulgence only allows you to settle your "debts" with God, by works of charity for exemples its almost never paying something, although some of them work if you give money to poor or help building a church.
Never the less it only works if you are already forgiven.
There were indeed some people who sold "indulgences" the way you believe they are.
Needless to say they were condemned and excommunicated by 14th century popes.
Your post already shows there's an ongoing battle in your mind.
Just let the Truth of Christ get in.
in response to your assessment of indulgences, God in his furious rebukes in the old testament in Isaiah was that the blood of bulls and goats do not forgive sin, and that to obey is better than to sacrifice.
thus since it is not possible to sufficiently repent, relief from our duly deserved chastisement is subject to an appeal to mercy.. not justifying ourselves to some subjective standard we have internalized for ourselves, as it is written in the book of judges several times, that the children of israel did what was right in the sight of their own eyes.
theres a battle constantly as a christian!
God is a holy God and no sin is allowed in his presence.
when our mother and father ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, the flesh of that fruit became a part of us, and since no unrighteousness is allowed in the presence of God, we are here in prison until our bodies die so that our spirit can rest until the judgment.
Let's start with the obvious, there is literally nothing in the Bible against obscenity, vulgarity, foul language, and scandal. Anyone stating otherwise is either making up fake sins against matthew 15:1-8 or is a liar or both. Profanity is defined in ezekiel 22:26
Profanity is to show no difference between the holy and unholy. Such as treating the word of God as dirt or base, that is profanity. Calling the word of God the best f-u-c-king Bible to ever exist is not profanity, as it continues to treat the word of God as it is, holy.
Swearing is defined in matthew 5:33-37
Swearing is to take an oath or forswear thyself. Such as saying: by the Holy Bible I am going to do *insert thing sworn here*. Examples of not swearing and not using profanity include: Those F-u-cking modern apostates profaning the word of God!
Cursing since we are going to delve into this is defined at 2 samuel 16:7-8
Here he doesn't use what you consider a conventional curse word. He simply wishes evil upon David. An example of wishing evil, known as cursing, would be I wish your eyeballs fell out.
Now jesting/joking is mentioned in ephesians 5:4
Here joking is equated to foolish talking.
An example of not cursing would be calling a dumb ass in 2 peter 2:16
Actually in Isaiah God says he's mad with them because the sacrifices that they made was not accompanied by the heart. Has nothing to do with what I mentioned about up there. It's another proof about the decay of Judaism and that they did their rituals without faith or heart. They just did it for the ritual in itself.
And if you truly regret a sin God forgives you in Confession. In layman terms what the indulgence does is for example: you hurt a very good friend of yours. He forgives what you've done to him, but since you love him very much (no homo) you want to make it up for him so would help him if he needs to, taking him out for a dinner etc thus re-establishing the way our relationship used to be before
Same thing with God. Since I've offended Him I want to make it up since He is my friend and thus our great relation will be back again no hardfellings (wtv this means for God).
And the Church has the power to do that because the power of binding people to God or not was given by God Himself to the Apostles.
yeah exactly, thats what im saying about not just the catholics, but all of the so called protestants as well. they're judaized.
thats referring to balaam’s horse, dude..
I am aware. Hence why I said it would be calling a blind donkey, or a dumb ass.
oh whoops my bad, i thought you were saying that someone called peter a dumbass.
What do you mean with that? Nothing in the Church has Jewish traits besides those that are the core of Christianity.
Every ritual in the Catholic must be done with faith otherwise is a great sacrilege and a mortal sin that is you go to hell if you don't repent doing those holy things without love for Jesus.
An example is confession without true repentance. The priest can say you are forgiven, but that doesn't matter if your heart is not sorry for offending God.
The Church says that those who do that get in an worse situation since they've committed sacrilege against Our Lord. The same with other things as Mass etc.
Not like the Jews that actually believed as they do now that if they do those rituals perfectly and afterwards forget it and do wtv they want go to heaven lol. That's called ritualism.
The church has no jewish tendencies
The church lives and breathes jewish tendencies.
Saul represents the state
Recall the account of doag the edomite. Saul was hunting david, saul commands his men God had one law: that David should live, and saul meant to impose his law contrary to God's.
Did not saul decree that the priests should be slain in 1 Samuel? and who slew the priests? Doeg the edomite. The edomites followed the law of the canaanites since Esau despised his birthright.
Your church follows the statutes and edicts of the state. otherwise the church would be like "whoa the state can't write laws or enforce anything pertaining to abortion, theft (extortion), etc."
Again, doesn't matter what you SAY, it's what you DO. And the catholic church and all of the churches do nothing.
Are you thinking about the orthodox Churches?
Bro again everyone knows the Church was always against the separation of state and Church. That's why the church was in the government of every Catholic European country until the Masonic French revolution happened.
Are you talking about the same Catholic Church or are you mistaking us with somebody else?
Forgot to add, if we lived in a world in which the state wasn't separated of the Church gay shit like gays and abortion would never happen since the Church would be in charge of things.
Just like Islam has power in the constitution of Iran where trials are religious and shit.
Sadly the USA and France decided to tell the church to winnie the pooh off since being a free men and sucking Jewish cock is better.
dude you and i both know your pope is a marxist, and that corroborates with my presupposition that the roman catholic church has no authority based on your CORRECT assessment that thouh christian ethics about these things are clear, and yet the church does nothing about it.
no i think the committees full of patriots kicking the tories out was a good thing. you should read this book. it will give you a factual history of he american revolution rather than the judaizing perception that the principles of the revolution were solely based in freemasonic deism. it wasn't.
it was a christian revival at te grassroots level, and you would have to be willing to confess the sins of every single person who fought and died while chanting “NO KING BUT JESUS” all up along the colonies.
america was amazing, even frederic bastiat admitted it in his serialized essay “the law.”
It was merciful tbh, traitors are usually punished with death
treason too!
Source: Marxist media.
If I believed in what the media says I would believe that trump was crazy as winnie the pooh?
Why don't you read his homilies and find what he is completely different from what the media portrays him.
Btw nice to see you've ran out of arguments to justify your heretical sect.
God he with you user.
Ps: nothing changes the fact that your country was founded by freemason like George Washington and you guys try to shovel on everyone's throat the cancer of democracy.
nice attempt at sleight of hand but it didnt work.
read which contains arguments that i allegedly didnt make.
this is a story about statist tyranny of which the progenitor are papal influences on the anglican church. was there not a split in the late 18th century? by definition indeed so, the colonial anglicans fought with the patriots, and the displaced tories sided with the anglican church in england, right?
where is that in the media? and despite what the pope says in or out of context, what does the roman catholic church DO!?
nothing.
God says to judge the great whore. and the best way for a man to judge a woman is by what she does, and not by what she says.
the rcc does nothing, it is powerless. it is more likely based on observable reality that it is in collusion with canaanite paganism than it is with the God of Israel.
Lmao. I bet you support Israel as well.
Being a prot was already delusional as winnie the pooh but not facing the truth that your country was and is a freemason playground is even worse.
That's why you are a prot and a burger.
You dont like the Pope, you don't like Kings you don't like everyone that rules over you so you prefer a system where you can believe in anything you want and pretend you have the power to elect your rulers when in fact you don't.
sure I do support the believers, not the jews who fake being israel
it's a matter of perspective – from my perspective roman catholics are protestants against the truth of the bible.
each tribe in israel selected judges over each tribe but the lands upon each corresponding tribe belonged to the name after someone's seed. so in pre-kingdom israel it would basically be someone's grandfather as a "president."
There was no need for israel to have a king because they already had God as their king.
You made no mention of any specific people in these committees. What about Issac Davis for example? What do you think about Lexington Green and Concord?
Anyway you sound rather touched and unable to actually address any of my arguments.
And here's the scripture:
1 Samuel 8
Your arguments
Also you also ignore that the Bible tells you to obey civil power.
Oh well if you want to go through the wide door instead of the narrower I can't blame you.
When it is doing its job, which is to defend the rights God gave us
Early Christians lived in an empire that was as degenerate as the modern world.
Of course if some day sodomy is mandatory you must disobey.
An example.
A crazy king tells you to burn all the hats of the kingdom. You have to do it because he is your king.
But if your king tells you to hunt catholics and deliver them to death you have the right and must disobey and die for it if needed.
It's never been bad as this. I find it hard to believe even Sodom itself was this bad. But besides, that empire became Christian, did it not?
Why? If the powers rule by right, then they must be obeyed in all cases whatsoever.
Is he my god? He does not deserve me obedience when he is unfit to rule. If those hats are my property, I own them by a right given to me by God. For my property to be taken from me without my consent is theft, a mad king certainly does not have the right.
No, this is one of the things he must be obeyed in, because it is his duty to ensure the purity of religion within the nation, and it is for that nation's good to be godly. To quote the Westminster Confession, "he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed". Now death is a harsh penalty which shouldn't be used except in the most desperate circumstances, but it is always the magistrate's right to select that punishment if he feels it is necessary.
Protestantism the post.
Literally what? Even invalid councils have more authority than that shit.
The whole town rioted because they wanted to rape strangers and weren't satisfied with gang-raping Lot's daughter. If we were worse than Soddom God would have already wiped us off the face of the earth.
Are you trying to distinguish yourself from all of the UnOrthodox Baptists?
I understand how directing bad and hateful language towards another person is sinful.
But what about humor? I honestly think there's nothing wrong with joking and using any kind of dirty word. The point of satire is to either demean or to downplay more serious topics, which truly helps us cope with the harsh reality of things.
Life would be so much darker, serious and paranoid without humor…