The difference between Christianity and Catholicism

[quintessentone]

No, you blamed Luther, you blamed everything but RC corruption, indulgences indeed? 
read Luthers 95 thesis if you are allowed by your church, thinking RC faithful are no different to JW believers, reading your comments
as for the 10 commandments, they were from Moses to the Jews, does that make RCicism a Jewish sect, that you are under every Jewish law? Really? 
explain that please
sounds like you don’t know what you believe

---

Yes indeed, though they were Jews learning a new faith.
It wasn’t what they expected, eye for an eye to love your enemies 
Counter cultural to them

Absolutely counter cultural and it appears the same pushback is alive and well today.

[FlyersFan]

No, you blamed Luther, you blamed everything but RC corruption, indulgences indeed? 
read Luthers 95 thesis if you are allowed by your church, thinking RC faithful are no different to JW believers, reading your comments
as for the 10 commandments, they were from Moses to the Jews, does that make RCicism a Jewish sect, that you are under every Jewish law? Really? 
explain that please
sounds like you don’t know what you believe

---

Snotty.  

My post is clear.  I didn't blame Luther for anything, except his own faults.  I questioned his motivation.  It is well recorded that he did the things I said.  And yes, he tried to ditch the 10 Commandments and change the bible, which the bible says not to do.  Even his contemporary 'reformers' thought he was going too far.  Those 10 Commandments were for the Hebrews and not for us, but that doesn't mean that part of the bible should be erased simply because Luther said people couldn't follow them.   Your statement about the church 'allowing' people to read things or not is ignorant.  And I know exactly what I believe just fine.

[Creaky]

Absolutely counter cultural and it appears the same pushback is alive and well today.

Yes, absolutely and as it should be 
Pushback encourages critical thought and speech

[quintessentone]

Yes, absolutely and as it should be 
Pushback encourages critical thought and speech

Or the opposite reaction. 

[Creaky]

Snotty.  

My post is clear.  I didn't blame Luther for anything, except his own faults.  I questioned his motivation.  It is well recorded that he did the things I said.  And yes, he tried to ditch the 10 Commandments and change the bible, which the bible says not to do.  Even his contemporary 'reformers' thought he was going too far.  Those 10 Commandments were for the Hebrews and not for us, but that doesn't mean that part of the bible should be erased simply because Luther said people couldn't follow them.   Your statement about the church 'allowing' people to read things or not is ignorant.  And I know exactly what I believe just fine.

Think if you read the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said the 10 commandments were impossible for people, hence why Jesus died, grace.
The Jewish people couldn’t live up to the Old Testament laws, is your argument Jews did live up to the OT laws and now Christians should
i have no idea the logic of your argument, what you are talking about.

Luther did not want to erase the OT as you insinuate, Luther had issues with the book of James. 

As a Protestant, yes, the Protestant church has made many mistakes, failed many times and are a disgrace to Christ 
I can see that and freely admit that
Though I do believe the basic teachings and “agree” with the Nicene Creed, that is accepted doctrine. My faith is not in people, a Creed or a church, it’s in Christ

[quintessentone]

Think if you read the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said the 10 commandments were impossible for people, hence why Jesus died, grace.
The Jewish people couldn’t live up to the Old Testament laws, is your argument Jews did live up to the OT laws and now Christians should
i have no idea the logic of your argument, what you are talking about.

Luther did not want to erase the OT as you insinuate, Luther had issues with the book of James. 

As a Protestant, yes, the Protestant church has made many mistakes, failed many times and are a disgrace to Christ 
I can see that and freely admit that
Though I do believe the basic teachings and “agree” with the Nicene Creed, that is accepted doctrine. My faith is not in people, a Creed or a church, it’s in Christ

I can see why most of the bishops complied back then.

The use of the word homoousios in the Nicene Creed was proposed by Emperor Constantine I, who convened and chaired the First Council of Nicea. By persuasion and by threats of excommunication and exile, Constantine obtained the endorsement of all but two of the attending bishops for the inclusion of the word.[sup][[/sup]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoousion

[Creaky]

I can see why most of the bishops complied back then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoousion

Because Arianism was considered false and it wasn’t just Constantine who decided on Arianism as a heresy, it was a council of elders including Constantine who disagreed with Arianism
not big on Wikipedia for Christian explanations
https://www.thoughtco.com/arian-controve...cea-111752

The Nicene creed was decided at the council of Nicaea, think it’s pretty good
It was the Nicene creed that ended the Arianism heresy

[Maxmars]

Youlost me here dude....

Sorry for that.  It wasn't my intention to be cryptic, or confusing.  If I was, it was purely accidental.

From my readings of the lost/secret/discarded gospels, the early Christian faith had many different branches or sects, all disagreeing on many facets of the emerging religion and to this day it remains so.

It would be 'recorded so' though, wouldn't it?  "Early" Christian faiths will always identify as "one among many disagreeing sects."  Yet, the history reflected in scripture is that there was one church of Christ... not many.  As I stated before, the numbers don't lie.  And I risk appearing pretentious when I say that Christ could not have come to establish a "whole slew of tangentially related subsects of Christianity."  I think most 'separatists' are such because of one of two reasons... they simply can't "tolerate" being part of the whole community, or they reject the "whole" utterly.  How much of that is "human baggage" or "transcendental philosophy" is for better people than I to discern.
 

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is.  I've read it through twice and don't get it.   While not understanding the point, I will say that I have two comments.

Again, I'm sorry about the confusion.  The short of it is that I wanted to discuss the source articles' assertions that distinction had to be drawn regarding the Catholic Church and Christianity.

1 - There is no 'catholic vs christian'.  Catholics ARE Christians. 

2 - The quote from your opening post that I have above .. saying that the 'reformation' came about because of corruption in the Catholic church ... I disagree.  

1 - I agree.  The author of the article seems to be in agreement as well... but not without first establishing the 'except that' idea.

2 - I admit that Luther was as human as any other, filled with stereotypical human baggage and personal drives and afflictions.  But the church was corrupted by people who were clearly of a "classist" bent (as occurs in all hierarchies established within cultural tradition.)
 

Sticky?  more a naive statement
catholicism is not a religion, it’s a word
...
On its own, that simple statement overturns your whole position
...
blind faith is a poison

My first effort in the opening post is to establish the "word" aspect of the argument (perhaps we think alike.)  My "position" was not necessarily the subject of discussion.

What makes the discussion "sticky" (in my perception) is the fact that many approach this subject "feeling" their response rather than "constructing it."  As a result of that many must "dictate" or "announce" an absolute answer rather than "rationalize" one for the remainder of us participating.  It is a danger in the discussion, which we here can easily circumvent with courtesy and respect... in other virtual places courtesy and respect are weaknesses... not here.

Blind hatred of anything is doubly a weakness. Firstly, because it is "blind," and secondly because it is "hatred."

---

I must thank you all for jumping into the discussion....  And I apologize for the uncertainty which I seem to have engendered with this thread...

Maybe I should seek to be more "uncertain" in the future.... 

[Creaky]

Sorry for that.  It wasn't my intention to be cryptic, or confusing.  If I was, it was purely accidental.

It would be 'recorded so' though, wouldn't it?  "Early" Christian faiths will always identify as "one among many disagreeing sects."  Yet, the history reflected in scripture is that there was one church of Christ... not many.  As I stated before, the numbers don't lie.  And I risk appearing pretentious when I say that Christ could not have come to establish a "whole slew of tangentially related subsects of Christianity."  I think most 'separatists' are such because of one of two reasons... they simply can't "tolerate" being part of the whole community, or they reject the "whole" utterly.  How much of that is "human baggage" or "transcendental philosophy" is for better people than I to discern.
 

Again, I'm sorry about the confusion.  The short of it is that I wanted to discuss the source articles' assertions that distinction had to be drawn regarding the Catholic Church and Christianity.

1 - I agree.  The author of the article seems to be in agreement as well... but not without first establishing the 'except that' idea.

2 - I admit that Luther was as human as any other, filled with stereotypical human baggage and personal drives and afflictions.  But the church was corrupted by people who were clearly of a "classist" bent (as occurs in all hierarchies established within cultural tradition.)
 

My first effort in the opening post is to establish the "word" aspect of the argument (perhaps we think alike.)  My "position" was not necessarily the subject of discussion.

What makes the discussion "sticky" (in my perception) is the fact that many approach this subject "feeling" their response rather than "constructing it."  As a result of that many must "dictate" or "announce" an absolute answer rather than "rationalize" one for the remainder of us participating.  It is a danger in the discussion, which we here can easily circumvent with courtesy and respect... in other virtual places courtesy and respect are weaknesses... not here.

Blind hatred of anything is doubly a weakness. Firstly, because it is "blind," and secondly because it is hatred.

---

I must thank you all for jumping into the discussion....  And I apologize for the uncertainty which I seem to have engendered with this thread...

Maybe I should seek to be more "uncertain" in the future.... 

Christian’s, Christianity even our catholic brethren are defined by the beliefs recorded in the Nicene creed, basic, standard and foundational doctrine
outside of that foundation, there is a bit of a free for all. Thinking that God gave us all freewill, made us all unique, independent and individual creatures, with different opinions. Not to be blind, unquestioning brainless morons as some “christian” leaders and public authority would desire
my guess anyway

[Maxmars]

Tomorow I will move this thread to the "Religion, Faith, and Theology" forum in the Off Topic area....

For some reason I didn't see the category when I scanned the board main page... 

Sorry if this is another confusing element