Differences between the Bible and Islam

[Haich]

I understand that you believe it is unrealistic. There's no need to assume i don't understand just because i don't agree.

I am simply saying that a) some Christians throughout the history of Christianity have done this, and b) it is the IDEAL, even though most will fall short of it.

As to when is it approprate to use force, i don't believe physical, replaceable (unlike life) property is worth using force to defend. As far as i remember in all your replies you mentioned robberies and property, not just defending life.

I would never condone injuring or killing someone over an item.

And yes, i am notoriously bad with sarcasm.


I find this laughable because you don't know me or my past history. You have no way of knowing whether i turn the other cheek or not in my daily life. But to assume the worst about me...

The point of preaching it is so we can at least TRY. To make us THINK about it.
Not to earn our salvation, but as a good example of Christian charity.

You just said it’s an ideal that many will fall short of lol that is literally unrealistic. It’s not a matter of belief, you said it yourself that people will fall short. So what does that make it, an attainable standard?

I did mention defending life in an example I referenced where I stated if someone comes into your home and threatens the safety of your family. They are willing to harm you guys to take your possessions. You responded with you don’t believe in defending property. You don’t really seem to read my responses well. My question to you since you want to be deliberately obtuse and ignore every scenario where you wouldn’t be able to turn the other cheek is, what would you do if someone attacked you or your children?

It’s human nature to defend yourself and that’s all I’m saying. You don’t have to take turn the other cheek as the be all way to respond to things. There are times where defending yourself if necessary as people don’t want to die or have harm befall their families.

I’m not assuming the worst so again, don’t be so emotional. I’m just having a discussion with you I’m not making any judgements about your real life. I’m merely trying to challenge you on your stances as they’re not convincing. You don’t believe in defending property but is that a
biblically backed statement or a conclusion you’ve drawn for yourself? So if someone smashes up your car and you see them, you’ll just leave it?

Sure, but you’re trying to make it seem like you have to turn your cheek at every instance and be passive to everything. You need to be crystal clear with what you say as I will only read and comprehend exactly what you type.

 

[Flarepath]

Hitler would have invaded Britain if he hadn't been whupped in the Battle of the Great Iron Birds-




But if we'd turned the cheek and hadn't fought him off we'd be speaking German by now..

An alternate reality-

 

[ToxicFemininitySucks]

You just said it’s an ideal that many will fall short of lol that is literally unrealistic. It’s not a matter of belief, you said it yourself that people will fall short. So what does that make it, an attainable standard

Perhaps we're having miscommunication, but when i hear "unrealistic" i think what is being conveyed is "impossible". Since others have done so, it is not impossible. But i acknowledge it can be difficult.

Honestly, i pray to have the kind of peace and faith the martyrs did as they calmly accepted their fate. It was the example of the martyrs that converted many of those who witnessed them being put to death during the early church age.

I did mention defending life in an example I referenced where I stated if someone comes into your home and threatens the safety of your family. They are willing to harm you guys to take your possessions. You responded with you don’t believe in defending property. You don’t really seem to read my responses well. My question to you since you want to be deliberately obtuse and ignore every scenario where you wouldn’t be able to turn the other cheek is, what would you do if someone attacked you or your children?

It’s human nature to defend yourself and that’s all I’m saying. You don’t have to take turn the other cheek as the be all way to respond to things. There are times where defending yourself if necessary as people don’t want to die or have harm befall their families.

With that example what im understanding is that they would harm us IF we didn't surrender our property, thats why ive responded as i have.

Ok, im going to assume you mean attack with deadly force, correct?
I would try to get them to safety/flee the situation. Other than that, i don't know what would happen once adrenaline kicks in. Some people freeze up in high stress situations. i dont know.

While my children have not been under deadly threat, thank God, whenever a minor physical threat has presented itself what i've done is remove them from the situation. I admit it is hard to not get upset, especially because prior to becoming a Christian i had a quick temper.

Also, last thing, sometimes one does things out of necessity, that still doesn't make it right.

 

[Flarepath]

While my children have not been under deadly threat, thank God, whenever a minor physical threat has presented itself what i've done is remove them from the situation. I admit it is hard to not get upset, especially because prior to becoming a Christian i had a quick temper.

When threats arise, a man's gotta do..
As a great prophet once said-

"You like Jesus? You're gonna meet him"

 

[Haich]

Perhaps we're having miscommunication, but when i hear "unrealistic" i think what is being conveyed is "impossible". Since others have done so, it is not impossible. But i acknowledge it can be difficult.

Honestly, i pray to have the kind of peace and faith the martyrs did as they calmly accepted their fate. It was the example of the martyrs that converted many of those who witnessed them being put to death during the early church age.



With that example what im understanding is that they would harm us IF we didn't surrender our property, thats why ive responded as i have.

Ok, im going to assume you mean attack with deadly force, correct?
I would try to get them to safety/flee the situation. Other than that, i don't know what would happen once adrenaline kicks in. Some people freeze up in high stress situations. i dont know.

While my children have not been under deadly threat, thank God, whenever a minor physical threat has presented itself what i've done is remove them from the situation. I admit it is hard to not get upset, especially because prior to becoming a Christian i had a quick temper.

Also, last thing, sometimes one does things out of necessity, that still doesn't make it right.

No I disagree, unrealistic isn’t impossible. Impossible means there’s absolutely no way of something ever occurring or happening. The sun will never be blue, it’s impossible. However, my kid might one day be world famous, noble prize winning scientist. It’s very unlikely and is an unrealistic thing to believe will happen with absolute certainty, doesn’t make it entirely impossible.

I mean I don’t know how you’re not getting the essence of my example. Have you not heard of cases where home intruders kill or maim the inhabitants of the house? It’s not always a threat, sometimes they make good of their promise. Of course, if they threaten you, I’m not saying you should whip out a gun and attack first, I’m saying if you follow their commands and they still attack, you don’t think your husband or yourself will defend yourselves? I’m assuming you’re American so you have guns…you wouldn’t shoot them back if you were able to do so in self defence?

If adrenaline kicks in Toxic, you’d do what any human would do. Act on instinct, which is to stay alive and protect yourself. That’s not sinful, that’s part of our nature.

That’s good to hear, all I’m saying is self defence is absolutely warranted and necessary in this life.

 

[ToxicFemininitySucks]

That’s not sinful, that’s part of our nature.

Perhaps the issue is that as a Christian i believe we have a sinful nature.
There's so many things that are instinctive, but i believe with God's help we are supposed to rise above our nature. Of course, it's not the easy path.

I mean I don’t know how you’re not getting the essence of my example. Have you not heard of cases where home intruders kill or maim the inhabitants of the house? It’s not always a threat, sometimes they make good of their promise. Of course, if they threaten you, I’m not saying you should whip out a gun and attack first, I’m saying if you follow their commands and they still attack, you don’t think your husband or yourself will defend yourselves? I’m assuming you’re American so you have guns…you wouldn’t shoot them back if you were able to do so in self defence?

I hear you, and i just pray that we are never in that situation. This is something my husband and i have discussed plenty, and it seems like a lose-lose situation no matter what.

 

[Haich]

Perhaps the issue is that as a Christian i believe we have a sinful nature.
There's so many things that are instinctive, but i believe with God's help we are supposed to rise above our nature. Of course, it's not the easy path

No I agree, we do as humans have a sinful nature and a tendency to follow our whims and desires.


The difference we have is, some things can be perceived as sinful, such as hurting someone to defend yourself, but the intention and the context is where the nuance comes in. I guess an easier example would be, is a hungry orphan that steals an apple to survive sinful? I guess in Islam, we believe God takes intention and circumstance into consideration.

 

[ToxicFemininitySucks]

No I agree, we do as humans have a sinful nature and a tendency to follow our whims and desires.
View attachment 96240

The difference we have is, some things can be perceived as sinful, such as hurting someone to defend yourself, but the intention and the context is where the nuance comes in. I guess an easier example would be, is a hungry orphan that steals an apple to survive sinful? I guess in Islam, we believe God takes intention and circumstance into consideration.

That is a good point, intent definitely matters.

Throughout the gospels there are instances of Jesus breaking the Law in order to heal someone, for example. But the pharisees were so legalistic that all they saw was law breaking, not intent. In the end only God knows what's in our heart.

 

[Haich]

That is a good point, intent definitely matters.

Throughout the gospels there are instances of Jesus breaking the Law in order to heal someone, for example. But the pharisees were so legalistic that all they saw was law breaking, not intent. In the end only God knows what's in our heart.

Yeah that’s definitely true, that’s why we believe ultimately God is the final judge. He truly knows what’s in our hearts and he’s fair and just.

 

[90sWereBetter]

I doesnt mean "whatever i want", it means what it says.
The catholics were the ones who claim it means the opposite of what it says.

It could be argued that some of the branches of protestantism that are officially recognized instead of being called "heretics" were allowed to exist as masonic controled opposition.

So nowadays when someone mentions a protestant they push the narrative of a denomination with tranny priests who performs sodomite marriages instead of a fundamentalist baptist.

this is the history of protestant-catholic split.

pre-reformation (excluding orthodox): what does the Bible mean? how do we interpret this?

you ask the Bishop. the ask the guy above the bishop. and then it goes all the way up to the pope. Joe the plumber doesn't get to just open the Bible and make up his own interpretation of Christianity and then attribute it to direct inspiration from the holy spirit.

Martin Luther comes. to heck with pope, to heck with the church.

PRIESTHOOD OF THE BELIEVERS. Every random Christian, including every random illiterate Christian... is now on the same level as the pope. every random Christian is now qualified to open the Bible and come up with their own version of Christianity.

That is Protestantism. obviously, the first Protestants lived in much more conservative times. so they didn't open up their Bibles and start claiming the Bible supports radical transgender theory. but yes, once you give random ordinary people the authorization to interpret scripture on their own, to come up with their own interpretation....it may not lead there overnight but it does lead there eventually.

 

[phipps]

Throughout the gospels there are instances of Jesus breaking the Law in order to heal someone, for example. But the pharisees were so legalistic that all they saw was law breaking, not intent. In the end only God knows what's in our heart.

I disagree with you on this and it does not go hand in hand with biblical doctrine.

Jesus never broke any law in the Bible. Not once. Not His law which we are all supposed to obey with His power in us because we can't do it on our own. The Bible says about Jesus' sinlessness:

2 Corinthians 5:21, "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

Hebrews 4:15, "For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin."

1 John 3:5, "And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin."

If Jesus broke any laws they were man made laws and those don't count at all in our salvation. There are instances where it seemed like He was sinning but it was never against God, just against man. That is why He said, "Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. ... And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:6, 9).

Biblically there is never a situation that calls for man to sin (which is breaking God's law), not even for good.

 

[Zakat]

I literally explained to her a few pages ago that we either defend ourselves and our families in the event of danger, or with minor things we let it go. You see how they lie? Now she’s claiming we don’t accept ‘turn the other cheek’ at all, even though I posted Quran verses in the response I’m referring to, where God is telling us to prioritise peace and only resort to self defence in serious threats.

True, plus don't forget where we are Commanded to repel evil with goodness.

 

[Maldarker]

this is the history of protestant-catholic split.

pre-reformation (excluding orthodox): what does the Bible mean? how do we interpret this?

you ask the Bishop. the ask the guy above the bishop. and then it goes all the way up to the pope. Joe the plumber doesn't get to just open the Bible and make up his own interpretation of Christianity and then attribute it to direct inspiration from the holy spirit.

Martin Luther comes. to heck with pope, to heck with the church.

PRIESTHOOD OF THE BELIEVERS. Every random Christian, including every random illiterate Christian... is now on the same level as the pope. every random Christian is now qualified to open the Bible and come up with their own version of Christianity.

That is Protestantism. obviously, the first Protestants lived in much more conservative times. so they didn't open up their Bibles and start claiming the Bible supports radical transgender theory. but yes, once you give random ordinary people the authorization to interpret scripture on their own, to come up with their own interpretation....it may not lead there overnight but it does lead there eventually.

They where alot more literate then kids now days...and what did they read? What was the most printed book at that time. You think they just crawled out of the mud? Sure sounds like that according to you. Every random illiterate Christian nice generalization.

 

[elsbet's cat ^. .^]

This article discusses the differences between the story of Noah in the Bible and the Quran ...
I am unsure if the author of this article is not well versed in the Bible, or is deliberately leaving things out. For example, the article says... God sent the flood upon an unsuspecting world without warning.

When reading the Quranic story of Nuh...
some major differences with the Biblical version immediately become apparent. First, unlike the Biblical account which claims that God sent the flood on an unsuspecting and sinful world, the Quran states...

It is untrue that there was no warning. While the book of Genesis does not go into detail about it, in 2Peter2 the Bible calls Noah "a preacher of righteousness". When would he have been preaching righteousness, before or after the flood?

2Peter 2
5And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.

Oh my.
I love this subject.
You are absolutely right-- there was plenty of warning before the Flood, and we know this from a biblical standpoint, as well as a logical one.

Noah wasn't building this thing in his garage.

It wasn't a secret.

Sidenote

Spoiler: 120 Years

Exegesis varies on Gen. 6:3. Some take it as a reference to mankind's lifespan, post-flood. Other commentators think it applies to the time men were given to repent before the Flood (120 yrs). Either way, the references you posted support the warning given well ahead of time.
+1 Peter 3:20
120 Years
Not forever will the Lord strive with man; but his longsuffering will still continue for one hundred and twenty years. Meanwhile he does not leave himself or his clemency without a witness.

He sent Noah with the message of warning, who preached by his voice, by his walking with God, and also by his long labor and perseverance in the building of the ark.

The doomed race, however, filled up the measure of their iniquity, and when the set number of years was accomplished, the overwhelming flood came. - Barnes

Also... loading the animals into the Ark took a full week -- what a spectacle. A convincing one, imo.

Spoiler: Seven days...

For seven days from now I will send rain
on the earth for forty days and forty nights,
and I will wipe from the face of the earth
every living thing I have made.” And Noah did
all that the LORD had commanded him.
Gen. 7-1-5

This is another difference too, in the biblical account--> it wasn't just one pair of each kind of animal.
• seven pairs of every kind of clean animal
• a pair of every kind of unclean animal
• seven pairs of every kind of bird of the air
(to preserve their offspring on the face of all the earth.)
__________

In contrast to the site i quoted in my previous post, this person believes the flood was not global.
Second, regarding the alleged global nature of the flood, the context of the Quranic story suggests that the flood was in fact a local one, or at most, affected the region in which Nuh (peace be upon him) and his people lived. It also affected only the people of Nuh (peace be upon him).

In my personal opinion based on the Bible, it was a worldwide flood but also the population was somewhat localized, having not been dispersed by God yet.

The reason peoples from all over the world share similar stories is because these stories are from a time before God scattered mankind, after the tower of Babel incident.

Absolutely.
I also believe it was a worldwide flood; water covered the entire face of the earth (Gen 7).

Sonar + the Ridge System

Sonar technology developed to detect and track submarines during World War II, for example, had provided the means after the war to map the topography of the ocean bottom at high resolution for the first time. The results were startling.

(A)ccurately determined margins of continental shelves reveal the striking jigsaw puzzle fit of North and South America with Europe and Africa,¹ (&) the global mid-ocean ridge system, running like a baseball seam some 60,000 km around the Earth, was also unveiled.²

This ridge system, representing a long chain of mountains on the ocean bottom, contained topography some 2,000 m higher than the ocean’s abyssal plains.³ Moreover, its axis displayed curious lateral jumps that came to be known as fracture zones.⁴ LINK

Which ties in well with this...

But if we think of a young earth, how else would phenomenon like the grand canyon be explained if not a worldwide flood? Claiming there is no evidence for a worldwide flood is too much of an appeal to science (and an old earth), which denies God.

According to this article, the Bible is not true because of the date of Noah's flood. The author based this off of egyptian chronologies which don't mention a flood in the region. This is not something i have looked into, but what a bunch of egyptian pagans said against the Bible is not a rebuttal i take serious. The Bible itself does not have a good opinion of egypt...

I don't take the opinions of mainstream archeology seriously, or "divinity scholars" for that matter. These are not sources of "indisputable" fact, afaic. -.-

On the Grand Canyon, this is interesting, too.
You've probably seen it already, but for those who haven't--

Mount St. Helens
If the eruption of Mount St. Helens could initiate a situation in which a canyon one-fortieth the size of the Grand Canyon was formed in one day, and the eruption of Mount St. Helens was by no means the largest ever (dwarfed by the last eruption measured at Yellowstone, which produced 2,000 times the explosive power), then what would a person expect to happen when the “fountains of the deep” were broken up and the entire world was covered by water as in Noah’s Flood?

Surely, the evidence from Mount St. Helens shows that catastrophic origins of geological features like the Grand Canyon are a possibility. The ideology of those who refuse to acknowledge the Flood’s geological force is discussed in 2 Peter 3:5-6: “For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water...” LINK
. . .

 

[90sWereBetter]

They where alot more literate then kids now days...and what did they read? What was the most printed book at that time.

You really think the average Christian in Europe at the time of Martin Luther knew how to read?? Widespread literacy is actually largely kind of a new thing. Don't take it as an assumption when we're looking back at history. I seriously doubt the average Christian in Europe at that time knew how to read. It isn't an insult, literacy was not as widespread historically as it is today.

Every random illiterate Christian nice generalization.

who am I generalizing? yes, I don't think random commoners should be allowed to come up with their own interpretation of scripture

*adjusts monocle*

 

[elsbet's cat ^. .^]

this is the history of protestant-catholic split.
pre-reformation (excluding orthodox): what does the Bible mean? how do we interpret this?

you ask the Bishop. the ask the guy above the bishop. and then it goes all the way up to the pope. Joe the plumber doesn't get to just open the Bible and make up his own interpretation of Christianity and then attribute it to direct inspiration from the holy spirit.
Martin Luther comes. to heck with pope, to heck with the church.

PRIESTHOOD OF THE BELIEVERS. Every random Christian, including every random illiterate Christian... is now on the same level as the pope. every random Christian is now qualified to open the Bible and come up with their own version of Christianity.

Hmm... the Pope also thinks we* should pray to Mary and other dead people, whose corpses are conveniently kept in airtight glass containers for further "veneration."
* Meaning both you and I ( ^. .^ ).

Granted, the RCC isn't always in possession of the whole corpse-- in those cases, the parishioners have to make do with just the skull or another random (but holy!) body part.

SKULL OF ST. VALENTINE (JAW MISSING)

PIECES OF ST. PETER

This box of bones was gifted to the Orthodox church by the Pope in 2019. There's a lot of overlap in their worship of the dead, iirc.

Spoiler: Shrine of St Pankratius

St Pankratius' actual skeleton is in the San Pacrazio basilica in Rome. Apparently, they were able to not only retain, but reaffix his head after it was most unceremoniously removed at the gallows, c. 303 AD.

Wonder where or to what he is pointing. Heck, he may be throwing one of the holy gang signs they seem to favor.

Spoiler: Signs

Statuary and worship of the dead are expressly prohibited in the biblical account. Tbh, I didn't realize Islam was on board with these practices. I thought even statuary was prohibited.

That is Protestantism. obviously, the first Protestants lived in much more conservative times. so they didn't open up their Bibles and start claiming the Bible supports radical transgender theory.

Wow.
So someone here tried to use the Bible to support transgender theory? I missed that.

but yes, once you give random ordinary people the authorization to interpret scripture on their own, to come up with their own interpretation....it may not lead there overnight but it does lead there eventually.

I have to be honest... it seems strange an illiterate was given the Quran by angel, which wasn't transcribed until much later by his friends-- but educated people aren't allowed to read it with any sort of critical thought.

We have a duty to study the text. Js
. . .

 

[Haich]

I have to be honest... it seems strange an illiterate was given the Quran by angel, which wasn't transcribed until much later by his friends-- but educated people aren't allowed to read it with any sort of critical thought.

That’s not what he said. You all come to your own conclusions because there is no official body of study on your book. You have no classical scholars and your Bible doesn’t line up with the general message of monotheism that Abraham and all the other prophets preached. We have classical scholars who have studied the Quran and Hadith extensively so with about 80-90% of matters there is a consensus. The things Muslims differ on aren’t fundamental pillars or aspects of faith. That’s a Christian problem I’m afraid.

Literacy was scarce in Arabia and the Prophet was alive so there was no need to write The Quran down so upon revelation. The vast majority of recipients hearing The Quran wouldn’t have been able to read anyway. I’ve posted a link to the breakdown of this in a response to Flarepath a few pages back.


There’s hundreds of denominations all coming to different conclusions about things. There are some of you who are Trinitarians, Unitarian some who believe in worshipping Mary alongside Jesus (you can continue to dissociate with Catholicism but they’re not exactly a branch of Hinduism are they?)

Critical thought is encouraged in the Quran it’s called ‘Taddabur’ but you have to have solid understanding of how context and root words affect the verses you’re pondering on. You guys do a whole personal critical thought on the entire Bible to the point where everyone has such differing ideas. It’s confusing.

 

[Haich]

If a group of laymen observe a shooting star, they’ll come to all sort of conclusions. Some with a little knowledge will say oh it’s an object that’s fallen from space. Some simpler minds might argue that a piece of earth has broken off or that the sky is breaking. But if those group of people have among them, someone who has studied the night sky and space extensively, he will be able to tell them that is a shooting star and will also be able to break down exactly how they’re formed, why they’re named that and where they tend to land.

This is the Islamic approach. It’s very academic. You have to have skilled people well versed in Quranic Classical Arabic who have studied the primary sources extensively, explored secondary sources and can give you a detailed breakdown and overview with evidence of a verse or chapter. After you have that, you can do Tadabur (ponder and reflect critically) on verses and chapters. Otherwise, if you just nose dive without looking at the Tafsir (critical classical commentaries and explanations of verses and chapters) you’re making up your own assumptions about God’s words just like those people making guesses about the shooting star.

 

[Mohammed_123]

If a group of laymen observe a shooting star, they’ll come to all sort of conclusions. Some with a little knowledge will say oh it’s an object that’s fallen from space. Some simpler minds might argue that a piece of earth has broken off or that the sky is breaking. But if those group of people have among them, someone who has studied the night sky and space extensively, he will be able to tell them that is a shooting star and will also be able to break down exactly how they’re formed, why they’re named that and where they tend to land.

This is the Islamic approach. It’s very academic. You have to have skilled people well versed in Quranic Classical Arabic who have studied the primary sources extensively, explored secondary sources and can give you a detailed breakdown and overview with evidence of a verse or chapter. After you have that, you can do Tadabur (ponder and reflect critically) on verses and chapters. Otherwise, if you just nose dive without looking at the Tafsir (critical classical commentaries and explanations of verses and chapters) you’re making up your own assumptions about God’s words just like those people making guesses about the shooting star.

i once saw a star fall from the sky..landed right next to me and it said sirius on the bulb.....

Truman show anyone?

 

[ToxicFemininitySucks]

pre-reformation (excluding orthodox): what does the Bible mean? how do we interpret this?

you ask the Bishop. the ask the guy above the bishop. and then it goes all the way up to the pope. Joe the plumber doesn't get to just open the Bible and make up his own interpretation of Christianity and then attribute it to direct inspiration from the holy spirit.

A few problems with this rather simplistic analysis.

- early on (im talking before the constantine era and the bowing down to the pagans and the shift from the church being persecuted by the authorities to being the "official" religion or else) many true Christians were silenced, their teachings suppressed.

- the church councils were mostly political and corrupt. Some doctrines were formed over political gains, not because of love of God or the truth. Other doctrines were later made to cover up the mistakes of earlier ones...

- the Bible itself makes no mention of a pope!
(And again, if the catholics edited the Bible one would think they would have thought to add in the unbiblical doctrines)

- up until the 1000s, orthodox an catholic followed the same errors, then split off. The current existence of one makes the other unable to hold the claim of the absolute arbiter of the truth. Of course, since the catholic agenda is openly full on ecumenism they DO accept the orthidox as being in communion with them, a "privilege" the orthodox do NOT extend back

this is the history of protestant-catholic split.
...
Martin Luther comes. to heck with pope, to heck with the church

This is simply untrue. Others came about long before luther, but due to the lack of a printing press their teachings were easily suppressed by the catholics. It's a wonder we know about these people at all.

I made a thread a while back about this.

What's the difference between a "heretic" and a "reformer"?

This is a spin off question from another thread, but didn't want to threeadjack And, in my personal opinion, the fact that the reformation age men are called "reformers" but pre-reformation age men are "heretics" is suspicious in it's own right. But that's probably a discussion suited better...

vigilantcitizenforums.com

I would consider luther controlled opposition. He was ok with praying to Mary and believing that she remained a virgin for life when the Bible mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters. Or forcing parants to baptize babies when the Bible says belief comes before baptism. The only benefit to this unbiblical doctrine is to increase numbers, not to save souls.

PRIESTHOOD OF THE BELIEVERS. Every random Christian, including every random illiterate Christian... is now on the same level as the pope. every random Christian is now qualified to open the Bible and come up with their own version of Christianity.

That is Protestantism. obviously, the first Protestants lived in much more conservative times. so they didn't open up their Bibles and start claiming the Bible supports radical transgender theory. but yes, once you give random ordinary people the authorization to interpret scripture on their own, to come up with their own interpretation....it may not lead there overnight but it does lead there eventually.

Well, as i already mentioned, there is no biblical position of "pope", so yes, every believer is at the same status.

There is NO biblical justification of practicing sodomites or crossdressing. Both are explicitly forbidden. Perhaps if every believer knew their Bible well these ideas could be countered WITH the Bible.

Deceivers take advantage if the fact that most people don't know the Bible to make wild allegations about it. How are people gonna correct them unless they know the Bible themselves?

But yeah, the middle ages catholic approach was to just put everyone to death, and the modern catholic appraoch with their commie pope is to allow everything (except believing in the Bible). Both approaches suck.