Admittedly, I made two claims. My quite abrasive reply, apologies for that, was me kind not considering the first claim (RCC is the True Church and all Christians believed this for 1500 years), but instead only thinking of my second claim (doctrinal authority).
Now, the reason I focus in so much on the argument about doctrinal authority is because I think it's one of the better arguments for the Catholic Church. I see no other Church that can make a reasonable claim to be the authority on scripture, and I find the idea that everyone is their own authority lacking, since no one agrees hence there is no apparent authority. I also think the idea of apostolic succession is important, as the Bible was compiled long after the creation of God's Church. The teachings being passed down matter.
As for your argument, I suppose I'd first say that just because the cathedrals and the infant baptisms aren't in the Bible, doesn't mean they are bad. The big beautiful buildings are a testament to people's faith in God, which is evident in our godless culture where ugly architecture reigns supreme. That, nor the other things you mentioned, are by no means explicitly against the Bible. Every Church doctrine has Biblical support, whether you agree with the Church's interpretation of the verses or not.
Secondly, the Pope is not infallible at all times. He is infallible only under very specific criteria. It's not like if he declares that his favorite color is blue that we are forced to now believe that blue is the greatest color in all of Creation and that God's favorite color is blue. The dude just likes blue.
And it was never Church doctrine to say that heliocentrism was wrong. Just like it's not now Church doctrine to say that geocentrism is wrong. Doctrine is focused on theology, not science.
To be clear, Church doctrine is infallible, not everything an individual member says. That gets right back to authority. The Church, and Pope under certain conditions, hold authority. That doesn't mean that everything a priest says is true, nor does it mean everything the Pope says is true.
One more thing I'd say is that, since the Bible is not exhaustive, I find it in no way unreasonable to expect that the Church would evolve over the years. The view of the Church we get in the Bible is quite small at the time. There are no cathedrals because there was no one to build them, nor did they have the means. But if the Holy Spirit indeed guided Christ's Church in truth, then we'd expect things to evolve as time goes on. Not change or flip-flop, but progress as time progresses, the Church grows, and doctrines need to be made clear. I mean, if upon converting a large portion of a newly discovered country they all are wondering about some specific case that no one had considered before, it makes sense that the Church would need to lay down an authoritative doctrine regarding it.
No, Christ did not come to start something completely different. All the Jews became Christians. They're following the same God they always did. Only a select few continue to reject Him. They also aren't the biblical Jews, so they aren't old.
Islam is a laughable fabrication. It can be debunked in two sentences: 1. The Quran says that it is nothing without the Bible, and to follow it always. 2. The Bible debunks the Quran.
The Mormon Church isn't old, as you say. It also isn't similar to the Jew/Christian distinction, as I explained. It also, same as all the others, was not started by Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry.
So no, these aren't the same just because they claim to be. The argument that other people claim to be old is weak. The age is not the only aspect. Older is not better. But in this case, we can verify the evidence, and it all points to the Catholic Church. Not the Mormon church, not Islam, and not modern Judaism.
Basically, if we are going to investigate the idea that a One True Church exists, and that it has been preserved by God, it becomes quickly evident that the only good candidate is the Roman Catholic Church. Once again, the only institution to last so long. Judaism is not an institution, Islam is not an institution, and Mormonism isn't old and has no Apostolic succession.
So yea, real fun stuff. I do indeed have quite a bit of fun discussing these topics. I certainly hope I can convince others, but it's also just enjoyable to refine my own arguments. And, as always, see if there's anything convincing being argued that might change my own mind.
Also, your level of disdain is palpable. That you so clearly despise the things I'm saying is very much not of the spirit. The Holy Spirit resides in the Church. God's Church. At least regarding authority. Otherwise, everyone would come to the same conclusions through the guidance of the Spirit. This doesn't happen, because the Church isn't giving Pastor Bob authoritative knowledge on scripture, so he inevitably disagrees with Pastor Jim on almost everything.
And I'm good, Christianity has agreed with (and continues to agree with) me for the last 2000 years.
Nice counterargument, buddy.
And try not invoking the Bible when you don't even believe it is the word of God.
You clearly can't be arsed to provide any rebuttal to anything I've claimed or any argument I've posed. Fair enough, but maybe get off the high horse if you aren't going to participate in honest debate.
How disingenuous (and how unfortunate that I made such a typo kek).
Shit like this is why people don't give genuine arguments online and play all the bullshit games to instead just try to "win" the "argument". No one wants to be on the receiving end of this shit when they're actually trying to make an honest argument, admit to their biases, but still present their argument from their perspective.
But why bother when this is the response? Unilateral invalidation of my entire argument because I was intellectually honest and upfront with my position. Real nice.
And yea, I downvoted a couple comments because I find it tiring to see people paint anyone who isn't the Big Don with the deepstate brush. Particularly when, again, I see no evidence of it. Vivek is uniquely "MAGA" in the debates, and sure, maybe that's the ploy, maybe they are trying to make him out like the Trump character in these debates, but I see no great evidence of this. Logical doesn't always mean true. Plenty of people said the same about Trump in 2016. Some still do. And obviously, I'm not voting for anyone but Trump, but that doesn't make every single other person on the political stage a villain.
I find it curious that he's the only Republican up there that isn't marching in lockstep with the deepstate, establishment agenda. Again, it's possible that it's a trick, but I see no reason to think it's as obvious as people try to make it seem. And frankly, I'd rather have hope that there are more good people left on our side than not, while losing nothing because I'm voting for Trump anyway. Me having hope does nothing other than open me up to being let down.
So apologies for being a little salty, I'm sure I came across as such because I am, I just find the frequently jaded discussions to be a bit tiring I guess.
Evidence?
Oh, you don't have any. Just an assumption.
You absolutely implied that Vivek not being able to win was somehow specifically relevant to him and his campaign.
And talk about fucking butthurt... you certainly seem to be displaying some symptoms, fren.
And you know, I admit that I do like a lot of what Vivek says and personally think that he has an appealing personality. Obviously, this doesn't mean he's a good guy, it's easy to say stuff and act a certain way, but what I really don't like is how irrational people seem to be when it comes to him. Like there isn't a shred of evidence he's with the cabal (it's certainly never presented when people cry about him), yet somehow despite doing and saying the right things consistently throughout his campaign, which again I understand means nothing, people just conclude he must be a deepstate clown.
So my point is that you have absolutely nothing but conjecture to base your point on, and maybe a side point would be that a bunch of people around here are too fucking jaded to accept that there may be a good guy other than Trump. Which fair enough, our country and the world is pretty fucked right now, but can we at least try to present things with some level of factual basis? And not just slap everyone who isn't Trump with the "bad" sticker and start hypothesizing a bunch of shit based on that unsubstantiated premise?
It's almost like everyone is just butthurt people are running against Trump. As if every single person knows the plan and must either be working with white hats or black hats. Some people are neither, and also, working with white hats may entail running against Trump.
Edit: this shit reminds of the anti-Tucker and anti-Elon types. Maybe they're right, and it's a long-game scenario, but they're usually pretty fucking quiet these days.
I agree to a certain extent. When I was an atheist, many things confirmed atheism and nothing confirmed God. Now that I'm a Christian, everything confirms God and I find atheism ridiculous.
But the ultimate reality always existed. Atheism was always false and God was always Truth. My perception was the only differentiating factor.
And being positive or negative may change what I generally perceive, but it won't actually change reality around me, only my internal perception of objective reality.
Faith works when it is in God. That's not to say we can't put our faith in Satan and get something out of it. But Satan is still Satan and God is still God. Putting our faith in God will be far better than putting it in Satan. Meanwhile, putting our faith in a rock will do just about nothing.
I don't get to make the rock anything more than a rock, and I don't get to decide who God and Satan are. They all exist independent of me. The same as I don't get to decide who you are or tell you what your opinions are. You are an independent being that I don't control with my mind.
I suppose the response to all of this is just, "if that's what you believe, it will be your world", but my problem is I see no evidence of any of this in a literal sense. Perception is one thing, but my world can only change so much based on my beliefs.
Cool, but God doesn't care what you think is true. He does care about your soul, though, and wants you to live forever. So He logically provided a way for us to know Truth and to follow Christ with the knowledge of what that means.
You won't find God by saying "whatever [you] think is true". You'll find Him by giving up your will and following His will. The question should be, what is His will? How do we find that out?
What we shouldn't be doing is worshiping the self, or some fantasy version of God that everyone can worship their own way and get to the same place (so worshiping self with extra steps). All of that is why the world is so bad in the first place.
Edit: Also, the only miracle that's needed to prove the Church is the fact that an institution supposedly run by Man has lasted for 2000 years. I mean this with all respect, but to think that Man could achieve such a thing is patently retarded. The Church is clearly still around because it's ultimately run by God, not Man.
Let's be very specific here: God would not allow our agency to impede His Will.
He would not allow for our agency to completely destroy any evidence of Him or His existence.
He would not reveal Himself to us without safeguarding this revelation.
If His intention was to come and die on the cross for our sins, He isn't going to let that disappear to the sands of time or the corruption of Men.
This makes no sense, and you can provide no justification for such a belief (in part, because you can't authoritatively justify anything ;)).
And none of this requires Him to impinge on our will. Just for Him to use those who are faithful to preserve His teachings forever and ever. So God preserves truth through His Church.
And this is exactly what we see. Everything that is believed today in western society came from the Church. You can dislike it all you want, but it's true. Every single thing about our modern society is the result of and built on the back of 2000 years of Church influence. And then people started ignoring the Church, and everything shortly went to shit in modern times. I wonder why?
Sorry, buddy, but the devil has played no tricks on anyone except the guy who thinks he is the arbiter of truth and who refuses to submit to the will of anyone else. You can phrase it as not submitting to the beliefs of other "men" or "groups", but the level of disdain you display for being "told what to believe" absolutely extends to God. You evidently want God to fit your beliefs, as so many do, rather than make your views fit God. And when that becomes the case, you don't worship God, but self, i.e. Satan.
Sounds like some new-age bullshit to me.
Convenient that the entire idea of a polar shift is unfalsifiable.
If it happened before, there'd be no visible evidence because it would have been a kind of "world reset". And since it's oh-so-rare, we wouldn't see one until it happened. But when it happens we are all destroyed. So there's never any evidence it is even a thing.
I also find it interesting that all these cataclysmic events that only happen once every [insert disingenuously large number here] years are always about to happen to us. Like, for 2000 years people have been doomsaying about the endtimes, yet here we are. Obviously it'll happen one day, but of that time knows no one but the Father in Heaven, and it likely won't be to us. Even if it is, it's honestly just egotistical to believe it will be.
So from my perspective at least, if the elites are preparing for a disaster, it's not the second coming, because they don't know when that is. They're not preparing for some world-rending event because those don't exist and they made them up to keep us afraid (subconsciously, always under the surface, elevates our baseline anxiety/fear) that one day the Earth will just open up and we'll all die.
If they are preparing for a disaster, it's one they will cause, though frankly I don't think they can do that either because "nuclear holocaust" and "God wins" don't mesh very well.
Every religion that isn't Christianity is a lie by Satan. Using them to determine a greater truth about the creation is like using official communications by the CIA to determine the greater truth on geopolitical conflicts.
Nothing you get will be anything other than what the deceivers wanted you to know. The unique problem with Satan, is that he's a genius and knows just what he needs to say to get the response he wants from unsuspecting souls. He's an expert at lies.
Nobody can win except Trump. Certainly not in a Republican primary.
Making it out like Vivek is uniquely unable to win is a weak dig. Using it as some explanation for "why he's being sold to MAGA" is weak logic.
Maybe true, but it's crazy to think they can't even fake the polls hard enough to lean towards Biden being the favorite among really anyone. The fact they lean Trump is unprecedented.
I don't know if I find polar shift plausible. More like some half-baked nonsense they cooked up in some cabal think-tank on how to inject more fear-porn into the public consciousness. Hard to not be afraid when you can literally just die at any point to something we can't really predict or stop even if we could predict it.
The way I see it, the last cataclysm was the flood, and there won't be another cataclysm until God deems it so. We're not just going to die to "muh random polar shift".
Also seems like a way to kill faith in God. How is God real and involved in our lives with a plan for his creation if we all just die to some random polar shift they insist is a real thing?
The notion that we all agree to the rules seems like a convenient excuse to kill any arguments to the effect of "well prove it and delete gravity then", "oh I can't do that on my own, everyone has to have faith that gravity will turn off".
To be honest, all these kinds of claims seem to me to be nothing more than an extreme stretching of the actual truth that how you perceive things "changes your world". But that isn't literal.
If I break my leg, I can see it as positive. My leg is still broken, and I can't work.
I can will myself to be sad that I won a million dollars. I have a million dollars and can now pay off my parent's house and cars.
I can perceive a world where bad things are always happening by "attuning" myself to a world where only bad things happen, but all that means is I'm focusing on a bunch of bad things. It doesn't mean more bad things are happening in our world or that the world changed because of my egocentric notion that I'm for all intents and purposes God and control everything.
I don't see how anyone can make the leap from perception power to a literal reality changing power. The power of perception is real, the power to change reality is firmly held in the Hand of God.
Sure, but I do believe when He said "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" that He was referring to a specific, physical Church body. The building isn't necessarily important, I suppose, but is just an extension of the having one body decide to build things. But the fact it's one body of believers that all hold to the same doctrine given down by the Church Fathers through the guidance of the Holy Spirit is I think important.
But yea, 100% agree with Jesus being funny. I find it quite funny reading about the Devil trying to tempt Jesus. Like, yea, good luck buddy. And Jesus always had the perfect response to hit back with. It's like putting salt in the wound. The Devil knows exactly who Christ is, knows preciously that the temptation won't work, does it anyway only to fail, and then Christ lays down an absolute banger in response. Every. Single. Time. Kek.
Reasonable enough, fren.
I mean, on the one hand, I want to argue that we can know truth and should declare it for the glory of God, but on the other hand, I'd be remiss to argue against you simply reserving judgement to not step on God's toes, as if that's a bad thing or something kek
I also love space, if you couldn't tell by my name ;).
Likewise, I suppose some of my ironically hostile argumentation towards many things space related recently may be a result of all the lies told and deceit by the cabal. Hard to just enjoy the thing I love when there's a concern over a co-opting of it by evil people for their evil goals.
That’s happening anyway. The quest for doctrinal authority is a significant part of how we have the Talmud
Except it's not happening to the Church. The Church has held the same doctrines for 2000 years and hasn't capitulated on any significant doctrine in modern times.
The Church not folding on homosexuality, abortion, sex before marriage, contraception, no female priests, etc. absolutely means something, and the way I see it, it means God won't let them because He is in charge of His Church.
And the Talmud was never an attempt to be an authority or to explain the scriptures. It exists to explicitly deny them. It was written by Satan because he wants to be God. So He made his own scripture.
The Talmud is in no way similar to the Church doctrines, which all are based on scripture with a reasonable argument in their favor in all such cases. None of them are so diametrically opossed to God's very nature as the Talmud. The disagreements are primarily based on what the Bible is saying, what books count, and where authority lies.
Also, as a periphery argument to the inerrancy of Church Doctrine, I find this quote to be quite compelling:
“The Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine – but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight” ― Hilaire Belloc
What does the price of eggs have to do with salvation?
We can simply change the disagreement to something regarding salvation, such as "do works matter", and then it becomes a salvation issue. This is the thing, any minor disagreement you can say isn't a salvation issue, and any major disagreement you will interpret the Bible for yourself and come to your own conclusion. But that's my problem here. The other guy did that too and came to a different conclusion. Where is the authority? Where is the Holy Spirit? Where is God in this kind of textual criticism? At the end of the day, if you can't convince each other, the Holy Spirit clearly didn't show up, the way I see it. There's no evidence of any divine presence, just people debating their view on the text.
And what if you're wrong? It's easy to say you're always open to new ideas (for what it's worth, as my own little anecdote, this is what I said to myself, and I prayed God would lead me always to the truth, and then I became Catholic lol) but at the end of the day if you're always following your own interpretation what evidence is there for the presence of God in your 2 or more vs the 2 or more who believe some other doctrine, significant or otherwise? I would think if He's present in both since they both believe in Him, that one gathering would repent of their false doctrine real quick.
To be clear, that's not to say He's not present where two or more are gathered, as He said He is, just that I don't think this is how doctrine is to be determined.
If I can be patient with Gnostics (even after they try to get me to renounce the name of God), a Methodist can be patient with an Episcopalian on liturgical disagreement, and in all cases with respectful love and without name calling.
This is exactly what the Church does. Just after doing it, they settle it once and for all as infallible doctrine based on the authority vested in the Church by Christ.
The alternative to me appears to just be endless disagreement and no one ultimately coming to any sort of authoritative truth. And that is not the message of the Bible; that truth is impossible (I'll get back to this thought further down).
Also, regarding division as you mentioned further down in your reply, I'd say that there must be some division. Christ tells us He came to pit us against each other. This doesn't mean we should be devisive all the time, but putting our foot down on grevious error requires us to be divisive because we are dividing ourselves out from those we subscribe to such error.
I'd also argue that grevious error requires an authority on scripture, and how could we be that authority when the people espousing the error read the scripture the same as us? Who actually authoritatively settles the errror if not the Church?
Matthew 23:8
The preceding context is that Jesus is commanding the Jews to obey the Scribes and Pharisees. He tells the Jews to do as they say but not as they do, because what they do is bad and does not line up with the good things they say. So they're hypocrites.
It goes on to say to call no man father. Doesn't sound great for Catholics, does it? But it also sounds like Jesus is validating these people's positions, not saying the position is bad. His complaint is that they attempt to exalt themselves, are prideful, and aren't humble. His complaint isn't that the positions they hold are inherently bad. I mean, again, He tells the Jews to listen to what they say since they are their teachers
It's like how "Judge not" doesn't refer to judgement, but unrighteous, hypocritical judgement. These aren't meant to be taken as such staunch, declarative instructions on our actions, but are meant to tell us what should be in our hearts when performing these actions.
It's why Jesus focuses so intently on their hearts, but says nothing of their actions. The problem isn't being a scribe or "instructor", it's with doing it in a prideful way while looking to exalt oneself above others.
Jesus appears here to be telling us HOW to be instructors, teachers, scribes, fathers. In some translations, "scribe" is translated "teacher". So Christ calls them teachers and then later says they shouldn't be called teachers? Is Christ a hypocrite? I think not.
In 1 Corinthians 4:14-16 Paul says:
14 I write not these things to confound you; but I admonish you as my dearest children.
15 For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.
16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.
He's calling himself their father in verse 15, and it's translated directly as father in other translations. He also says to follow him as he follows Christ.
This would appear to be a direct contradiction if we take the speech by Jesus to be literal actions we should follow. (there are also other cases of the apostles using "father" in the Bible, in supossed direct contradiction to these words by Jesus)
As an aside, Paul is almost implicating a kind of hierarchy, which I also think is important to point out as frequent in the Bible regarding Heaven. While Jesus often says we are all the same and God is our master (though seemingly only in the context of our prideful squabbling over those distinctions between ourselves. He's more reminding us we have a master in Heaven, not saying to abolish all hierarchy), He also frequently alludes to a hierarchy, particularly in Heaven. It makes sense to me that this hierarchy would be mirrored in the Church (and by all accounts it is).
I've actually been developing this argument recently, because I recalled that before I became a Christian I watched Jordan Peterson, and he often points out in defense of hierarchy among Man that hierarchy is prevalent in nature.
Hierarchy seems to be baked into God's creation. It clashes completely with a literal reading of such verses as in Matthew 23. Hierarchy is so prevalent in nature, and so prevalent in the Bible, that I find it very easy to believe God intended a Church hierarchy as well. On top of this, for over a thousand years it's been commonly believed that the angels exist in a hierarchy. Also, that demons exist in a hierarchy, and that Heaven and Hell have "levels". This is nothing new. Good Christians have believed this for a 1000+ years. And many Protestants do as well regarding many of those things, I'm sure. It would seem everything has a hierarchy besides the Church ;)
Even God exists in a hierarchy. The Nicene Creed presents Christ coming from the Father, and the Spirit coming from Christ.
Obviously all members of the trinity are God, but merely the Father/Son distinction posits at least the appearence of a hierarchy.
You’re right! He left us the scriptures
Sort of; He inspired the scriptures, and the Roman Catholic Church compiled the Bible. By what authority does the Bible exist? Seems obvious to me that it's the Church.
Before Rome decided on the Bible through the Holy Spirit's guidance, every different Church all believed a different set of texts to be divine scripture. This is exactly what you say: They came together to figure it out once and for all, and then they agreed for 1000+ years until Luther came along. Once they decided, they all agreed to be bound by this doctrine based on the authority of the Church given by Christ, which they also believed in.
I mean, is the dueterocanon scripture? Or was Luther right? This is exactly what I mean by high-and-dry. It would appear under your system that God left us to figure this stuff out 2000 years later, instead of just including a glossary in one of the books, or giving us a Church to follow.
And while yes, meditating on the scriptures and seeking God is surely a good thing, it seems to me that no one, Catholic or otherwise, understands God's character very well, at least not well enough to know what is His Word or not. Even among Catholics, outside of set doctrine we must believe, it's a free-for-all. Everyone has a different opinion on everything, everyone is of their own mind and not of God's mind.
And outside the Church you get Mormons and shit. Are we to write off people who don't believe Christ is God as just misled? They base it on what they read in scripture, as all Protestants do.
It seems clear to me that we as individuals aren't meant to read the Bible and come up with our own interpretation. We need to come together, like you say, and settle significant matters of disagreement as one body. The Church does just this. And I'd say the authority is important, or you just end up with everyone agreeing to disagree, and eventually that extends out to people not believing in any basic tenant of the faith. We could say truth is unimportant outside of significant errors, but I just don't believe that. The truth of God is important, and He provides us the way to knowing this Truth.
John 14:23-26 reads:
23 Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not, keepeth not my words. And the word which you have heard, is not mine; but the Father's who sent me.
25 These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you.
26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.
Firstly, it sounds like what many Protestants would describe as works based salvation.
Secondly, it establishes that the Holy Spirit will "teach us all things", which even if we take as figurative language, would still mean we're being taught many truths by the Holy Spirit.
So I guess I'd end with my initial comment's beginning: Where is the evidence of this among Protestants or others that don't subscribe to the idea of Church authority? It seems like there's no teaching of much of anything being granted by the Spirit, unless we say they just aren't listening, but then surely God would have know that's what would happen and not designed His Truth giving process that way. Nevertheless, it seems to me it's because the Spirit IS teaching us all things, and is busy working in the Church started by Christ and given to Peter.
They aren't guesses, but they could be control.
I don't know about you, but I don't know any of these people who have died. Most of us only find out when the media tells us.
Not hard to control the 3 or 4 companies that release that info.
There's plenty of acceptance of homosexuality and abortion outside the Church, too. People not following the faith is not an argument against the bible, and it isn't an argument against the Church either.
A random Church in San Fran being evil is not an indictment on the entire institution, which still hold (and in the current political climate no less) that abortion is a sin, sex before marriage in a sin, contraception is a sin, and homosexuality is a sin.
Not one doctrine has been changed in the last 100 years. Expanded, sure, but not changed. In our current world, that is unthinkable. In on current world, they should have folded on contraception, sex before marriage, and 1st term abortion long ago. God won't let them because the Church belongs to Him.
Where is your counterargument?
It gets really tiring posing a very specific argument and just receiving a "verse battle" in response, or whatever other manner of completely unrelated response.
Why should I respond to your argument when you categorically ignore mine?
We'll see, fren.
And the thing is, I think all the same things are true from my perspective.
I think everything I've said is solid fact.
I think you can research the history and come to the same exact conclusion I have.
I think the logical backing of my argument is perfectly solid.
And I 100% categorically believe that the truth is coming soon, and the Deep Church will burn and God will keep His Church preserved through the machinations of the Devil.
God will preserve His Church as he clearly always has, evidenced by the fact that no institution so incompetently run could have stood for 2000 years. This is further proven by the fact that no other institution does. At least not publicly, which is very unlike the cabal. They love renaming their institutions and even themselves every so often so no one can track them down.
“The Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine – but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight” ― Hilaire Belloc
Jesus Christ is God. The trinity is the basis of Christianity.
You don't get to claim that doctrines that have been rejected by all of Christianity for 1500+ years are Christian. Even if they are wrong, they aren't Christian.
This argument is like saying Islam and Christianity are compatible and worship the same God. It's just not true.
There are doctrines one must believe, and to not believe them is to not believe in the same God as people who do believe in those doctrines.
Christianity is not for everyone, in the sense that if you reject the basic tenants, you don't get to just make up whatever you want and claim to be Christian. It IS for everyone, in the sense that you can repent and become a Christian by giving yourself over to God.
Also, the Catholic Church is the One True Church. You don't have some special knowledge of ancient deception or whatever. To keep it simple, God wouldn't have allowed such a thing because it would completely contradict His nature to do so.
Christ started the Church and made Peter the first Pope, our history is accurate enough to confirm what it needs to about the faith, and there wasn't an extended period of hundreds to a thousand plus years when God left the faithful high and dry living in deception unable to truly know Him.
And before you pull out all the lazy arguments: I wasn't raised Catholic, and only became one recently after previously converting to Christianity, which I only did after getting involved here on GAW 4 years ago and getting all the anti-Roman Catholic Church talking points hammered into my head over the years.
I'm referring to the people who believe it.
I don't know if I'd even call the people enforcing these things "leftists". More like "evil anti-humanists".
100% agree they are not incompetent and do it on purpose for their agenda.
Thanks, fren.
Also,
Questioning corruption implies a standard of purity or correctness
Really like this argument. Might just start using it myself :)
Well I think if the Bible is true then those secrets are going to stay secrets lol. If we knew anything about them, they wouldn't be very well-kept secrets.
So no, I haven't looked into that, but I'd wager that we wouldn't find anything if we tried, and if we did, the Bible is either fake (not this one) or they would fall into the second category of things that are revealed (this one).