4 ms·

> The Catholic Church also held orgies in its sacred halls You were lied to, my friend. > enabled and hid a variety of pedophiles Individuals did that, and t

> The Catholic Church also held orgies in its sacred halls You were lied to, my friend. > enabled and hid a variety of pedophiles Individuals did that, and that's very sad and damaging. > and led a variety of violent conflicts for selfish gains Read up on the Crusades (and Spanish Inquisition) from a Catholic perspective. It's not as cut and dry as people make it. > The issue with specific religions is it holds specific beliefs as a pre requisite, That's fine, as long as the beliefs are true. > so it’s hard to just jump in amidst large bodies of diverse opinions Look into any religion hard enough and you will find all categories of them to be logically and historically unsustainable except Catholicism. That's why I'm here. It is the only belief system fully compatible with intellectual integrity. Saint Thomas Aquinas said the same thing when he said that anyone who actually looked into Islam would see clearly that it is utterly absurd and full of contradictions. > and conflicting scientific evidence. There is none.

b_tterc_p 7y ago
Sure
sudosteph 7y ago
> Look into any religion hard enough and you will find all categories of them to be logically and historically unsustainable except Catholicism. That's why I'm here. It is the only belief system fully compatible with intellectual integrity. Saint Thomas Aquinas said the same thing when he said that anyone who actually looked into Islam would see clearly that it is utterly absurd and full of contradictions. Roman Catholicism says that communion will turn wine and bread into literal flesh and blood. How on earth is that "compatible with intellectual integrity"? Or believing in a literal virgin birth? Another thing I can't intellectually justify is insisting on priest celibacy and keeping women out of the priesthood. I'm not going to debate in favor of Islam, but it seems that mainstream protestant beliefs (or at least those which I'm familiar with, the beliefs of United Methodism) are just as capable of claiming the good parts of Christian philosophy, without insisting on the parts which clearly just exist due to the the Roman Catholic penchant for power wrangling and hierarchies.
- sdegutis 7y ago
  > Roman Catholicism says that communion will turn wine and bread into literal flesh and blood. How on earth is that "compatible with intellectual integrity"? That is called Transubstantiation and it is a daily recurring miracle. Miracles, by definition, are God bending the rules of physics, which He created and continually sustains, and is thus allowed to bend. This is philosophical but logically consistent. > Or believing in a literal virgin birth? Another miracle. > insisting on priest celibacy That's a rule, and put there for a very good reason. The less divided your heart is by worldly cares, the more you can care only for the people God put in your care. > keeping women out of the priesthood Just as much as men are kept out of giving birth. Consider this quote from G. K. Chesterton: "How can it be a large career to tell other people's children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No. A woman's function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute." > are just as capable of claiming the good parts of Christian philosophy, without insisting on the parts which clearly just exist due to the the Roman Catholic penchant for power wrangling and hierarchies. They say "you are saved by faith alone" and "the Bible is the sole authority on religion" and yet the Bible literally says "you are not saved by faith alone". That's plenty enough to disregard all their remaining arguments in my opinion. After using the process of elimination, only the Catholic Church's doctrines remain intact.
  - sudosteph 7y ago
    So for #1 and #2, you just hand-wave your doctrine as "miracles" that defy all otherwise known and consistent laws of the universe. Doesn't seem like intellectual integrity to me. And #3 and #4 are directly at odds. You say Priests are not allowed to have children, which is why they are celibate (fair enough) but we all know children can't be born without both a Father and Mother involved. So when men choose not to have children for the priesthood, it's seen as noble. But Women aren't given that same choice in your view (Except they are, because nuns exist, yet Nuns cannot ever actually lead the Church). Why don't you admit that the reason the Catholic church does not allow women priests is not because "a women's function is laborious" (a function not all women naturally can even do, otherwise why can't barren women be priests?), but rather because you take the words of Paul literally and do not allow a woman to hold authority over a man? That's the real reason and you know it. Also, the "faith alone" thing is a bit misunderstood to be honest, mostly caused by how protestants overload that word. They basically mean that you cannot be saved by works alone under any circumstance, and that if you are unable to produce any works but have faith, you can still be saved (the example here is the penitent thief on the cross). After that, they consider works to be a natural outcome of legitimate faith, and that if you have the chance to do works and don't you'll lose your justification by faith. There's a sermon by Wesley on that here: http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-43-the-scripture-way-of-salvation/ http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley...
pretendscholar 7y ago
What makes, for example, Hinduism unsustainable?
- morsmodr 7y ago
  Username checks out
  - pretendscholar 7y ago
    I'm not pretending to know anything I'm trying to understand what the op meant with this remark. >Look into any religion hard enough and you will find all categories of them to be logically and historically unsustainable except Catholicism.
    - morsmodr 7y ago
      It was a joke. Take a chill pill. As far as I am concerned, all religion is nothing but a brain management technique to allow us to elevate ourselves over our basest of instincts. Beyond that the difference is primarily influenced by when the religion evolved, where it evolved and is a matter of specifics. That said, Hinduism is interesting when it comes to the concept of moksha because no other known religion (there could be other ones that state this idea, but I don't know) talks about it - the world is an illusion wrapped around your eyes, wake up from it! But that's me, my subjective view. Someone else might find something else as more interesting. Someone who dislikes this comment will downvote it.
pesmhey 7y ago
What is a social organization but a group of individuals?
- sdegutis 7y ago
  When individuals agree on basic absolute truths, they are organized into a social group. When a few individuals deviate from what the original group agreed on to be absolute truth, and the remaining individuals who do agree with the originally agreed upon original truths say that those people are not "one of us", even if the dissenters shout "we are part of the original group", it's obvious to everyone that they aren't. This is also true of the Protestants (Luther, Zwigli, Calvin) and all heretics before and after them. But it's just as true for those in the Church who do evil, because even though they aren't committing formal heresy, they are showing by their evil actions that they do not really know the God that we teach, because otherwise they wouldn't be doing evil. That's not to say they aren't formally part of the Church -- the Catholic Church is a hospital for sinners just as well as a museum of Saints. But these evil people don't at all represent what we teach, because they don't follow it. I myself have done plenty of wrong in my past and I have no excuse except that I was a poor excuse for a Christian, and I did not represent what my holy Church teaches, and for that I am deeply ashamed. But that doesn't change that what my Church teaches is true, even though I did not understand it correctly it apply it to myself well.

b_tterc_p 7y ago

Sure

sudosteph 7y ago

> Look into any religion hard enough and you will find all categories of them to be logically and historically unsustainable except Catholicism. That's why I'm here. It is the only belief system fully compatible with intellectual integrity. Saint Thomas Aquinas said the same thing when he said that anyone who actually looked into Islam would see clearly that it is utterly absurd and full of contradictions. Roman Catholicism says that communion will turn wine and bread into literal flesh and blood. How on earth is that "compatible with intellectual integrity"? Or believing in a literal virgin birth? Another thing I can't intellectually justify is insisting on priest celibacy and keeping women out of the priesthood. I'm not going to debate in favor of Islam, but it seems that mainstream protestant beliefs (or at least those which I'm familiar with, the beliefs of United Methodism) are just as capable of claiming the good parts of Christian philosophy, without insisting on the parts which clearly just exist due to the the Roman Catholic penchant for power wrangling and hierarchies.

sdegutis 7y ago
> Roman Catholicism says that communion will turn wine and bread into literal flesh and blood. How on earth is that "compatible with intellectual integrity"? That is called Transubstantiation and it is a daily recurring miracle. Miracles, by definition, are God bending the rules of physics, which He created and continually sustains, and is thus allowed to bend. This is philosophical but logically consistent. > Or believing in a literal virgin birth? Another miracle. > insisting on priest celibacy That's a rule, and put there for a very good reason. The less divided your heart is by worldly cares, the more you can care only for the people God put in your care. > keeping women out of the priesthood Just as much as men are kept out of giving birth. Consider this quote from G. K. Chesterton: "How can it be a large career to tell other people's children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No. A woman's function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute." > are just as capable of claiming the good parts of Christian philosophy, without insisting on the parts which clearly just exist due to the the Roman Catholic penchant for power wrangling and hierarchies. They say "you are saved by faith alone" and "the Bible is the sole authority on religion" and yet the Bible literally says "you are not saved by faith alone". That's plenty enough to disregard all their remaining arguments in my opinion. After using the process of elimination, only the Catholic Church's doctrines remain intact.
- sudosteph 7y ago
  So for #1 and #2, you just hand-wave your doctrine as "miracles" that defy all otherwise known and consistent laws of the universe. Doesn't seem like intellectual integrity to me. And #3 and #4 are directly at odds. You say Priests are not allowed to have children, which is why they are celibate (fair enough) but we all know children can't be born without both a Father and Mother involved. So when men choose not to have children for the priesthood, it's seen as noble. But Women aren't given that same choice in your view (Except they are, because nuns exist, yet Nuns cannot ever actually lead the Church). Why don't you admit that the reason the Catholic church does not allow women priests is not because "a women's function is laborious" (a function not all women naturally can even do, otherwise why can't barren women be priests?), but rather because you take the words of Paul literally and do not allow a woman to hold authority over a man? That's the real reason and you know it. Also, the "faith alone" thing is a bit misunderstood to be honest, mostly caused by how protestants overload that word. They basically mean that you cannot be saved by works alone under any circumstance, and that if you are unable to produce any works but have faith, you can still be saved (the example here is the penitent thief on the cross). After that, they consider works to be a natural outcome of legitimate faith, and that if you have the chance to do works and don't you'll lose your justification by faith. There's a sermon by Wesley on that here: http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-43-the-scripture-way-of-salvation/ http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley...

pretendscholar 7y ago

What makes, for example, Hinduism unsustainable?

morsmodr 7y ago
Username checks out
- pretendscholar 7y ago
  I'm not pretending to know anything I'm trying to understand what the op meant with this remark. >Look into any religion hard enough and you will find all categories of them to be logically and historically unsustainable except Catholicism.
  - morsmodr 7y ago
    It was a joke. Take a chill pill. As far as I am concerned, all religion is nothing but a brain management technique to allow us to elevate ourselves over our basest of instincts. Beyond that the difference is primarily influenced by when the religion evolved, where it evolved and is a matter of specifics. That said, Hinduism is interesting when it comes to the concept of moksha because no other known religion (there could be other ones that state this idea, but I don't know) talks about it - the world is an illusion wrapped around your eyes, wake up from it! But that's me, my subjective view. Someone else might find something else as more interesting. Someone who dislikes this comment will downvote it.

pesmhey 7y ago

What is a social organization but a group of individuals?

sdegutis 7y ago
When individuals agree on basic absolute truths, they are organized into a social group. When a few individuals deviate from what the original group agreed on to be absolute truth, and the remaining individuals who do agree with the originally agreed upon original truths say that those people are not "one of us", even if the dissenters shout "we are part of the original group", it's obvious to everyone that they aren't. This is also true of the Protestants (Luther, Zwigli, Calvin) and all heretics before and after them. But it's just as true for those in the Church who do evil, because even though they aren't committing formal heresy, they are showing by their evil actions that they do not really know the God that we teach, because otherwise they wouldn't be doing evil. That's not to say they aren't formally part of the Church -- the Catholic Church is a hospital for sinners just as well as a museum of Saints. But these evil people don't at all represent what we teach, because they don't follow it. I myself have done plenty of wrong in my past and I have no excuse except that I was a poor excuse for a Christian, and I did not represent what my holy Church teaches, and for that I am deeply ashamed. But that doesn't change that what my Church teaches is true, even though I did not understand it correctly it apply it to myself well.