Summations Only

Er, Catholicism is the mainstream, your lot split, remember?

Gosh, you sure don't bother to read a thread, do you?

...about 500 years ago. You guys are latecomers to the 'my religion is better than yours' party.'

Try reading the thread or at least some of my posts back a page or two.

Faith, I've been reading your stuff for years, I could pretend to be you by now. I can write your next line. I'm just amazed at your consistent inconsistency.

Since the Trinity derives from casting one's own theological interpretations upon inconsistent and contradictory Biblical passages of unknown provenance, you haven't provided any reasons at all beyond "The mainstream view is the correct view," which has a long history of failure and is no reason at all. Well, yes, you did provide an answer when you said it wasn't possible to prove the Bible true, but then you began arguing as if you didn't really believe that but only said it to bring an end to that line of discussion. Well, you haven't been saying anything for a while now. You've been in "I've already answered that" mode.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Just for the record I'll do the subject again about why Romanism isn't even a Christian Church, which I touched on in Message 173 and Message 257.Early on the Bishop of Rome started liking the idea of power over the other churches and in 606 the Emperor Phocas conferred on Rome the status of spiritual primacy over all the churches, so that all spiritual matters were to be referred to him, although before that there had been five major bishops in major cosmopolitan centers. Do I have to point out how far the very idea of power and dominance is from the spirit of Christ? Jesus chided his disciples for wanting to have priority over each other.That was the first installment of the office of the papacy, which in itself is far from the spirit of Christ, being called "Father" along with the priests which Jesus expressly forbade us to do with our spiritual leaders, and at some point he took the title "Holy Father" which is a usurpation of the Name given only to God. There are other ways the Pope acquired the imputation of divinity over the years, making himself God in the spirit of Caesar, certainly not Christ, and it is this presumption of divinity that makes him Antichrist, along with all the false doctrine promoted by the RCC.The Pope and the whole Roman hierarchy also took on all the trappings of the pagan Roman religions, including the title Pontiff for the Pope, nothing Christian in that for sure, but all that weird expensive garb you'd think would alert anyone who knows anything about the gospels of Christ that it has nothing whatever to do with humble fishermen and shepherds and the Christ who had nowhere to lay His head. And the incredible wealth, the palaces etc.Later, forget the date, he had temporal primacy conferred on him as well, and that's when he acquired the three-tiered crown or tiara, as he put himself above all the kings of Christendom. Now he's a spiritual king and a worldly king, quite a combo, taking to himself the right to rule the world. And supporting that "right" with forged documents too, the Donation of Constantine and the Decretals of Isidore, which are still foundational to RCC doctrine although known to be fakes.And of course the religion itself is nothing but superstitious paganism, powers ascribed to relics and saints, prayers to saints instead of to God, worship of Mary and the granting of powers to her that only belong to Christ, the decree of the Pope's infallibility on particular matters, and indulgences are still for sale by Rome, getcha out of all kinds of mischief, and masses for the dead, a little more money for that please. Prayers for the dead are of course contrary to scripture. And the rosary comes from pagan religions too, did you know that? I was flabbergasted to see my Zen Buddhist priestess friend with a rosary wrapped around her wrist. And repetitive prayers also have a pagan origin, all those prayers the priests assign as penance for sin.And we could mention the Inquisition which murders people who don't do things their way, tens of millions of Bible believers down the centuries plus some Jews, Muslims, witches etc., and that is still going on hidden away in third world countries. Evidence of it was found in the 19th Century in Rome yet. Rome periodically stirs up its faithful to persecute Protestants, as it has done in Ireland, and now does in South America. If the RCC ever reestablishes the worldly power it had before the Reformation you can be sure we'll have another Inquisition out in the open for real. And this is all of a piece with their attempts on the lives of kings and even Popes by the Jesuits in the service of the papacy. They poisoned one Pope who had the effrontery to ban them from something or other.And that's just some of it.Of course the world accepts this outrageous imposter "Church" as if it were the leader of Christendom as it so loves to be considered, and you even speak of it as if it had a right to consider itself a legitimate church. Their deception is very very successful despite all the glaring roaring signs that there isn't one Christian thing about any of it.Poor poor Catholics, who are the most deceived of all: get out of that monster!Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So I guess this means you don't count Catholic support for the Trinity. This mainstream thinking you keep going on about just shrunk by a great deal. In fact, since Catholicism is the largest Christian church, your mainstream is smaller than they are. Are you sure you're mainstream?--Percy

I consider the mainstream to be the true doctrines that have come down from the early church, that clearly reflect the scriptural record, from the early church Councils to the Reformation. The RCC accepts it too because the Bishop of Rome was in the Councils, before it had become the RCC it is today as I outlined its history, also some other doctrines Protestants also accept. The mistake is to think the RCC as it grew to be in the Middle Ages and still is, has anything to do with Christianity. They have preserved some truth after all or none of their priests could ever have had a standard for objecting to their false doctrines, and that's how faithful Catholics get confused too.

But then, you can't be using the number of people that you're including to be the volume of the stream, right?In what sense is it the main stream?I'm not being snippy. Honestly, how are you measuring it?Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

Right. Catholicism has preserved some Christian truths like the Trinity, but it doesn't have anything to do with Christianity. Sure.Look, we get it, you don't like Catholicism, but there's no need to go off into lengthy irrational diatribes. You could instead discuss something closer to the topic, like how the Bible is the inerrant word of God and therefore entirely appropriate to serve as the foundational truth behind the Trinity.--Percy

I honestly JUDGE Catholicism to be objectively evidentially false, based on much reading which shows its falseness from the scriptures, this has nothing to do with likes or dislikes as you all love to smear people with you disagree with. I almost became a Catholic myself when I was first discovering God, I was attracted to the writings of some of the Cathoilc mystics. For a long time I thought they WERE the link between the early church and the Reformation, just one of the churches on the line to the present, not appreciating how totally they had deviated from the truth by then. It is only in recent years I've come to see how they had gone completely off the path by the Middle Ages.And with your absolutely stupid idiotic way of assessing these things there is no hope whatever of saying anything that would show you the inerrancy of scripture. It's all been said here before so what's the point? Its marvelous consistency is denied, its cohesiveness over centuries is denied, abe: its perfect record of fulfilled prophecy is denied, its intricately interwoven themes from author to author is denied /abe. You are the ones who believe what you believe on the basis of what you like or dislike, or for other trivial reasons, not I.The Trinity proofs I gave add up to the official Trinity concept but jar makes the idiotic complaint that they are "taken out of context" although within all their separate contexts they still say what they say about the nature of God that adds up to the Trinity. You all treat me like an idiot when you are the ones who are so irrational I don't know how you navigate your way through a day.ABE: You don't love facts and evidence at all, you are deluding yourself.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This brings up an interesting question. As a Christian, I will share what I consider to be important doctrines.1) There is only One Spirit. There is not a relativistic approach to this...in other words, I cant have my own spirit(or vibe) and you have yours and both of us are right..it just doesn't work that way. Humans can and do disagree on a lot of things---which is ok. We disagree on whether evidence should be the main measure of belief and faith. We disagree on what should be expected of a fellow human in regards to trying our best and doing our best in life. We obviously disagree on origins of the universe and whether or not human wisdom is the best thing we have to work with. When it comes to quiet meditation and prayer, there should be no disagreement among humans as to the vibe present. Everyone should understand. The fact that humans don't understand is evidence of a problem.2) Jesus Christ, whether human while on earth, all God and all man, or merely an archetype invented as a mythos...is the way to God if God exists. There simply is no other god, nor is there a better philosophy and example of how to live and One who loved. If anyone disagrees, they are not mainstream.3) Mainstream, by my definition, is other people whom I would feel in communion with on a spiritual level. This would, of course, involve a lot of effort on my part to love and accept you as Jesus would. In fact, I doubt I could do it without Holy Communion and empowerment.4) The wisdom of God is always superior to human wisdom. God is not a concept invented by humans. God existed long before we could think or talk.And finally...it it not important whether or not the Bible is word for word literal. What is important is the idea that there is One God and that God loves humanity and has not given up on us. Some of us, I am sorry to say have given up on God and have in fact deified their own intellect in a manner of speaking...in other words, they go with evidence and human wisdom every time. In time, this belief may become mainstream among humanity but I say now and forever it is wrong.

Like, I say, your cult was a bit late to this 'best religion' game. Just a millenium or so.It's one of the great unexplained mysteries for the dispassionate observer - how the hell can there be thousands of sects from just one form of one religious belief? And then how can there be thousands of others religious forms with totally different beliefs? All the members of which - just like you - claiming the one they happen to be attached to is the correct one.This on top of the self-evident fact that people by-and-large believe whatever their parents did - which is just a random event. If you'd been born in Iran, you would not believe what you believe now - you'd almost certainly be one of those fervent Muslims that you so resent.

I grant that you have a difficult task demonstrating that the Bible with all its internal and external errors and contradictions is inerrant. We know you believe these things about the Bible, but you've never been able to muster any support for them. All your arguments have been refuted. Perhaps there are answers to the refutations, but you don't bother to provide them, you just say, "I've already proved that." Proving things only to your own satisfaction is no proof at all. So you say, but you don't respond to Jar's actual arguments. Or anyone's, actually.The points you're trying to make about Catholicism and the Trinity and other things are underlain by a work of fiction, and speaking just for myself there is no interest in arguments based upon fiction. You can't base arguments upon myths and legends. But NoNukes seems willing to accept the authority of the Bible for the sake of discussion.--Percy