In-game Iran and parts of Iraq are depicted as being Shia, BUT Shiism really became big in Persia after Ismail, Shah of Persia, forcefully converted it after defeating Aq Qoyonlu in war. I feel like there could be a small scenario made that is close to the game start about Shia radicals taking part in events across the muslim world, with it primarily happening in Iran since the region is so turbulent in-game anyway. Thoughts?
After king James creates the Ulster plantations Presbyterianism steadily spreads across the island of Ireland becoming popular with the Irish people, although the church of Ireland remains unpopular. Irish Catholics remain a large minority (20-30% of the populace) what changes?
In Korea, 11% of the Corona cases are related to Protestant churches. And following the recent Survey, 74% of Koreans responded that the Protestant churches are responding to Pandemic very poorly and 86% of them responded that the Freedom of Religion can be limited for Public interests.
I'm protestant Italy and I've finally vassalized what's left of The Papal States. However, it doesn't look like I'll ever be able to diplo annex their last province (Forcalcario) because of the "heretics" relation malus. The subject interface doesn't let me enforce religion on them.
Are there any options for annexing their last province other than:
Either option will bring in England as Defender of the Faith, who I'd rather ally than fight right now.
It looks like those are my choices.
Edit: relation maluses are:
-80: heretic -40: neighboring heretic -20: have a core -245: aggressive expansion -46: took a province -31: force vassalized
I’m particularly curious about the concepts of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura
Hello, I'm trying to revoke the hre as Austria. Protestantism has just started to sprout and is obviously causing some authority growth problems. I thought I'd be able to demand a conversion but there's currently no set religion so the option is unavailable. How do I stop the spread asap? Do I just have to wait for the league war to fire before I can properly stop it all?
Thank you for all the help in advance.
So according to the Protestant salvation you are saved by faith, without works, where as according to the Catholic salvation you are saved by works and faith.
These mean the same because in the Protestant theology there is a hidden equivocation, meaning that one word has two meanings. The two meanings behind the word faith are saving faith and not saving faith. So in the protestant theology you are saved if you have the saving faith, which is detected by the works that it brings forth.
So even though in the Protestant doctrine of salvation they say that you are saved by faith without works the works are included into the word faith by the accurate meaning saving faith.
>- Salvation: Saving faith (faith with works)
>- No salvation: not saving faith (faith without works) or no faith
>- Salvation: faith and works
>- No salvation: faith or works or neither
In my opinion the Catholic version is more clear because it doesn't try to hide the word works behind the word faith, leaving then two different faiths to confuse people.
The verses that are relevant regarding this issue are James 2:14 and 2:17, if someone tried to say that the Protestant doctrine of salvation doesn't require works at all.
>14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
>41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: (https://raamattu.uskonkirjat.net/servlet/bible
They both claim that the Catholic Church fell into false teachings until Muhammad / Martin Luther came around and restored the original faith
Aversion to alcohol
Can anyone else think of more?
I am Protestant, but however I am having doubts. Not at all about Jesus and God, but rather about my where I am in the Body of Christ.
It seems that for most of history since the death of Jesus, at least until the 1500s, Christendom remained largely united. Starting with early Church fathers, while all had some differing views in one form or the other, notably John Chrysostom and St. Augustine which are hallmarked among more traditional protestant groups, at the end of the day they still considered themselves "Catholic" (in this case universal) or rather part of the Church of Christ. Even widespread heresies such as the Aryan Heresy were still managed to be subdued and significant heretical ideas remedied through ecumenical counsels. I see a major focus on keeping the Church as united as possible. Something I cannot reconcile in my mind is how God would allow this unified Church to apparently skew in its teaching for over 1500 years before introducing correction. While I believe the Reformation was needed, I also believe it achieved its purpose. It seems to have went beyond that by introducing new, distinct, churches. How could God's church err in teaching, and potentially damning the millions and millions it has taught, for over 1500 years, while no viable alternative or rival existed to it? I am having a hard time reconciling secular history with my faith lately and was wondering your thoughts.
Martin Luther, O.S.A. was a German professor of theology, priest, author, composer, Augustinian monk, and a seminal figure in the Reformation. Luther was ordained to the priesthood in 1507.
I am a bot! Please send /u/NotListeningItsABook a private message with any comments or feedback on how I work.
EDIT: As of Mon Jan 25 15:36:24 UTC 2021, the post is at [39pts|2c]
|Submission||Is St. John of Damascus correct when he makes out that Islam is not a religion but a heretical sect of Christianity like Arianism, Gnosticism or Protestantism?|
|Comments||Is St. John of Damascus correct when he makes out that Islam is not a religion but a heretical sect of Christianity like Arianism, Gnosticism or Protestantism?|
|Posted On||Sat Jan 23 15:36:48 UTC 2021|
|Score||39||as of Mon Jan 25 15:36:24 UTC 2021|
#Related Comments (2):
|Posted On||Sun Jan 24 14:09:48 UTC 2021|
|Score||2||as of Mon Jan 25 15:36:24 UTC 2021|
>Have you even read one quran or hadith chapter?
Yes, actually. A couple, actually.
>He is heretic means it's christian denomination
Now to be fair, you are right that Islam isn't a heresy in the strictest sense, since heresy requires one to be under church authority, and Muhammad was never a Christian. But a lot of people use "heretic" to mean something that pulls from Christianity but perverts it with false teachings. Mormons or
Jehovas Witnesses aren't technically heretics, but like Islam they drew on Christianity and perverted it. Joseph Smith, like Muhammad, took Christianity and blended it with other religions to create Mormonism. There's actually a lot of similarities between the creation of Islam and Mormonism. Both "prophets" claim to have been visited by an angle and directly given scripture (although Joseph Smith had to translate it). Muhammad, as recorded in some of the earliest biographies of him, encountered a Nestorian monk when he was younger. Muhammad doesn't just make an entire religion from scratch. He takes from Christianity. He has Jesus, Mary, and even some of the apostles, but he changes them in his writings to conform to his religion, much like the gn
So I’m not necessarily an atheist, but I stopped going to church years ago and think organized religion as a whole is detrimental to society.
My very Evangelical parents are aware of this, but my dad mostly stays quiet about it because he knows nothing he’s going to say will change this.
My mother however has been very vocal criticizing me for not going. She’s had moments of crazy before, but this really went to extreme lengths the other night. She told me that we are all born sinner undeserving of anything good and that the only positives in our life are because of God. She told me that all of my hard work in my career is not actually because of me and I owe all of it to God, then called me arrogant for disagreeing with her. She broke down crying about how I would go to hell and apparently her pastor is telling her this shit.
In any other context this would be a clearly abusive relationship, but because it’s with God it’s okay somehow?!? She is constantly terrified of me going to hell strictly because of poor church attendance, and says that I shouldn’t care if I believe most of the people who attend are monsters because God doesn’t need my opinion.
I’m just...at a loss. She wasn’t like this when I was a kid, and raised several children to be intelligent, rational adults, but ever since she and my dad started attending a culty mega church I feel like she’s slowly becoming an anxious “the end is nigh” fear monger.