It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


You can't make diamonds from turds

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 12:46 PM
Mainstream Christianity in today's world is split between Catholocism and Protestantism (which includes Lutherans, Evangelists, Born-Agains, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc).

If Martin Luther thought that Catholocism was not True Christianity, then how did "fixing" Catholocism bring back the Truth? The Catholic Church was founded in the 300's by pagan Emporer Constantine, during which he made many changes to Christianity to make it more palatable. If over 1200 years passed on with the Truth having been distorted, how can someone claim to have "Reformed" Christianity to bring back the Truth?

How can multiple successive (not to mention diverging) reforms bring back True Christianity? The Baptists teach that you have to physically be immersed in water to be Baptized, while Evangelists and Born-Agains teach that you just have to believe, and that is the true baptism, and that immersion baptism is a distortion of the truth. Catholics just give you a little sprinkle with holy water.

Both groups interpret "being born of water and of the spirit" in completely different ways. Baptists say that "water" is water, and the Evangelists say that "water" is another word for the spirit, even though the "spirit" is named separately in the same Bible verse.

Anyway, this is information that I have gathered by talking with people from these actual faiths. If these are single indivituals who have given me mistaken information, then I apologize for passing it on.

My point:

If the Catholic Church is wrong, then Protestantism, which came from Catholocism, must also be wrong, since Reformists were just normal guys that translated the Bible in their own spin-off way.

If the Catholic Church is right, then Protestantism, which fell away from Catholocism, must still be wrong.

posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 02:10 PM
Oh look another Christian bashing post from some one who probably hasn't been to Church more than twice in their life.

The Bible is very clear about Baptism. St. John the Baptist baptised with water, but said that he was not worthy compared to one that will come and baptise you with fire ( Spirit from God).

Jesus took a full immersion baptism from St. John because it was true and right that he did, in order for the Lord Almighty to let him recieve the Holy spirit. Jesus then went on to do mighty things.

Oh and no im not a Baptist, i'm an Anglican who believes that baptism is right when you are fully immersed. Oh and for note, over 20 priests and chaplains I know from the Anglican church agree that immersion is the right way to baptise, its just that modern people view it as 'kooky or weird'.

posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Ralph_The_Wonder_Llama
"being born of water and of the spirit"
"water" is another word for the spirit"

when the world was young magnetics was allmost visable, the egyptians evolved there minds to use this feild, they used it to move heavey objects with out touching them, the spirit KA, BA, the water of life its everyware, its real love!

new topics

log in