/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13407855]

Is there any hard evidence that Catholicism isn’t true? Any absolute contradictions or historical incidents I NEED to know about before I declare it true?

[Anonymous No.13407858]

>>13407855
Isnt true in what sense

[Anonymous No.13407862]

>>13407858
Catholicism is a set of beliefs+a historical hierarchy. Is there any evidence that the beliefs are incorrect or the line of succession is broken?

[Anonymous No.13407864]

>>13407858
I hate retarded philosophers. “Isn’t true” as in there is truth and untruth and the question is is Catholicism true or not

[Anonymous No.13407871]

>>13407855
>hard evidence
What counts as hard evidence? Is there such thing as soft evidence?

[Anonymous No.13407876]

>>13407871
More retarded philosophers! “Hard evidence” like the common expression used all the time, jackass

[Anonymous No.13407882]

>>13407871
I don’t know. Are you unfamiliar with the term “hard evidence”?

[Anonymous No.13407886]

>>13407855
It’s true. All of it.

[Anonymous No.13407888]

Does the great schism, Martin Luther's correct identification of simony being a form of corruption and subsequent Protestant schism, and the more recent sexual abuse scandals count as the gates of hell overtaking the church? That was after all, Jesus' sole material promise.

[Anonymous No.13407892]

>>13407855
>Any absolute contradictions or historical incidents I NEED to know about

The Gospels, for starters.

[Anonymous No.13407894]

>>13407876
>>13407882
Do I really have to watch an entire D-movie to understand what it means? I mean, I'll do it, but I won't like it.

[Anonymous No.13407897]

>>13407855
Some of the controversy around canonisation might be worth investigating. The pronouncement of a person's sainthood is supposed to be infallible and truly representative of their state in the afterlife. For a dead person to be canonised, they need to be associated with 2 verified miracles -- for instance, someone praying to that person and then being healed in a "medically inexplicable" way. I think with Mother Theresa and maybe Pope John Paul II there has been some skepticism surrounding the miracles used to validate their cases, especially the speed with which they were accepted in light of ambiguous information. I can't remember the details but might be worth looking into.

[Anonymous No.13407923]

Read the council's before the great schism there is not evidence that peters successors had a final say in anything ot was all decided by a unanimous votes.

[Anonymous No.13407994]

>>13407855
a religion with such a cute follower cant be wrong...just look at yourself

[Anonymous No.13408076]

>>13407897
>for instance, someone praying to that person and then being healed
prottie doesn't understand to Whom we are actually praying when mentioning a saint in our prayers
>this shit again..

[Anonymous No.13408078]

>>13408076
How did you come to that conclusion?

[Anonymous No.13408080]

>>13407855
Matthew 23

[Anonymous No.13408082]

>>13408076
Irrelevant to what he was talking about. If he accused you of idolatry you would have reason to use this defense.

[Anonymous No.13408097]

Papal Infallibility is only a result of Vatican I in the 1800’s. Considering popes like Boniface VIII and Alexander VI were popes, I think it’s fair to say the church is “mistaken” on this one (which is theologically possible and not evidence against the church)

[Anonymous No.13408101]

>>13408097
But they can make up whatever they want because Peter had the keys and he could have done absolutely anything and so it doesn’t matter what you say heretic

[Anonymous No.13408113]

>>13407876
>the common expression doesn't need to be clarified because it's common

dont come around asking for proof of philosophical concepts if you dont want the people answering to engage with philosophy

[Anonymous No.13408114]

>>13408101
Wow. Being called a heretic is literally more painful than any other insult I’ve been called on 4chan. Explain the theology behind what you’re saying.

[Anonymous No.13408126]

>>13408113
You responded with snarky pedantry. If you were genuinely seeking to clarify the question you would actually be doing philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13408537]

>>13408097
The existence of morally depraved popes like the popes you mentioned has nothing to do with papal infallibility. Don’t worry though, that’s a common misunderstanding among misinformed and willfully ignorant people who hate God and His Church!

[Anonymous No.13408544]

>>13408537
are you that arrogant moron who's been trying to "convert" people on here? god you're annoying, I do believe satan is using you

[Anonymous No.13408550]

>>13407855
The fact that it's one of the most basic forms of idolatry, for a start ?

[Anonymous No.13408590]

What is the biblical justification for the papacy? Tradition relies on several texts, but one most especially. In Matthew's gospel, Jesus asked his apostles what sorts of things people were saying about him. They gave him a summary of the current rumors. Then Jesus asked them, collectively, who they thought he was. And Simon answered for the group:

Simon Peter replied, "you are the Christ, the son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but for My Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Note first that Simon served as a spokesman for the group, and he uttered a profound doctrine: the dogma of the incarnation (see Jn 6:68-69). Jesus explained to Simon that such truth could not be gained by natural means; Simon had received a special revelation from god. And Simon, with god's help, had spoken infallibly. Jesus then gave Simon a new name, Peter--literally, "Rock"-- a name that appears nowhere in the historical record before that moment. Jesus promised to build a divine edifice upon that rock foundation. He called the edifice "My Church"; for it would be not merely a human institution. It would be, in some sense, incorrupt, too: "the powers of death [or 'gates of hell'] shall not prevail against it." So we see that god himself gave a guarantee to preserve Peter's authority.

1/3

[Anonymous No.13408591]

>>13408537
papal infallibility is in itself a big heresy saying that a man on earth is infallible is only applicable to Jesus and anything more than that is trying to say that a person can be a God as Jesus was.

[Anonymous No.13408596]

gnosticism is the only true form of christianity

[Anonymous No.13408600]

>>13408590
Now, some critics argue that Jesus referred to himself when he spoke of the "rock" on which he would build his church. They point out that the word used for "rock" is the Greek 'petra'--meaning a large rock--whereas the name he gave to Simon was the Greek 'petros', meaning a small rock. The critics say that Jesus meant, essentially, that Peter was a little pebble, and Jesus was the boulder from which the church would rise up.

There are several problems with that interpretation. First of all, Jesus probably did not speak Greek in this exchange. It is very likely that he spoke Aramaic, and his words were later translated into Greek when the gospels were written. In Aramaic there is only one word that could be used for "rock": 'kephas'. In Aramaic, there would have been no distinction between Peter's name and the church's foundation.

Still, critics might press the point, noting that the holy spirit inspired Matthew to employ two different Greek words in his written gospel. But Matthew did not have much choice. Jesus was speaking of a foundation stone, so 'petra' would certainly be the right choice; but 'petra' is a feminine noun, and so it could not have served as Simon's new name. A male could not adopt a feminine name; the name would have to be adapted, be given a masculine form. Thus Matthew, guided by the holy spirit, did something that was obvious and practically necessary: he used the masculine form, 'petros', to render Peter's name, 'Kephas.'

Was Jesus giving Peter a unique role in the church? The answer seems obvious from the remaining pages of the New Testament. Peter is everywhere, shown to be the chief spokesman, preacher, teacher, healer, judge, and administrator in the newborn church.

2/3

[Anonymous No.13408605]

>>13408600
Did Peter exhibit any signs of infallibility when he taught doctrine? Critics might point out that, almost immediately after Jesus commissioned him, Peter fell; he contradicted Jesus, telling him he must not suffer. Jesus then reproved Peter in the strongest terms, calling him "Satan"! Critics note too, that much later in Peter's life, he found himself in conflict with Paul over the treatment of gentiles in the church. And Paul publicly corrected Peter! Now, how could a man graced with the charism of infallibility endure public correction by both Jesus and Paul?

We should note right away that both Jesus and Paul were reproving Peter not for his doctrine, but for his failure of will. Indeed, they were faulting him for not living up to his own doctrine. In Matthew's passage, Peter had moved from confessing the lord's divinity to rejecting the lord's will. In the conflict with Paul, Peter had moved from eating with gentiles himself to forbidding other Jewish-Christians to practice such fellowship. Both Jesus and Paul were exhorting Peter merely to practice what he infallibly preached.

Is there biblical justification for our calling Peter the "vicar of Christ"? Doesn't that put Peter in a place occupied by god alone? No, because Jesus himself had said to the apostles: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Lk 10:16). Jesus is clearly assigning the twelve as his vicars. He is telling them that he will act vicariously through them. And what Jesus said of all apostles is pre-eminently true of the prince of apostles.

[Anonymous No.13408615]

>>13407855
What the fuck does your question mean?

[Anonymous No.13408621]

Absolute Divine Simplicity and Trinity.
The ability of the Pope alone to speak infallibly by choice, completely unfounded without historic basis before dark ages.
Councils after the pre-schism councils that contradict the first councils.
Filioque.
Immaculate Conception of Mary.

[Anonymous No.13408636]

>>13408596
except it's not, faggot

[Anonymous No.13408662]

>>13407864
Idiot. Asking "is catholicism is true?" makes as much sense as asking "is my dog true?".

[Anonymous No.13408753]

>>13407855
>s there any hard evidence that Catholicism isn’t true?

Vatican 2 and Nostra Aetate?

[Anonymous No.13408760]

>>13408605
>We should note right away that both Jesus and Paul were reproving Peter not for his doctrine, but for his failure of will.
Oh come on now the absolute sematic hoop jumping you papist do is insane.

[Anonymous No.13408767]

The early church doesn't appear to have been governed by the Papacy at anything near the levels defined at Vatican I, and most of the attempts by Catholic apologists to show that it was are just examples of people saying respectful things about the Pope or the Pope using his sizable, but not absolute authority to do normal things for a major bishop.

[Anonymous No.13408773]

>>13408760
Semantics has nothing to do with it

[Anonymous No.13408798]

>>13408590
>>13408600
>>13408605
Thanks anon.
Can you redpill me on Vatican 2? What was good and what was not about it.

[Anonymous No.13408825]

>>13408798
There's nothing wrong with it, but there was plenty wrong with way the teachings were instituted or the way individual priests interpreted it. Boomers did boomer things.

[Anonymous No.13408868]

>>13408590
>>13408600

I argue that the "gates of Hell" have triumphed over Catholicism, Theologically in having to share the claim to Christianity with the other major Churches and the claim to Monotheism with the other Abrahamic faiths, as well as institutionally in the Church itself being a cesspit of depravity. I would much rather think that Jesus simply means another Church or interpret the words metaphorically than think that he misspoke or failed to deliver on the promise of infallibility. Granted, contradicting Jesus is the very Teleology of Catholicism, so this being THE easiest and most parsimonious idea is totally irrelevant thereto.

[Anonymous No.13408915]

>>13408868
based schizo poster

[Anonymous No.13408927]

>>13408868
If the gates of hell prevailed then Christianity itself is false because it would mean Jesus lied. So of course in order to determine whether this happened we have to know what it means for the gates of hell to prevail against the Church. It can't mean that people merely disagree with the Church or that heretics exist, because heretics existed right from the start. Paul spent a good portion of his mission correcting them, so clearly the existence of non Catholic Christians is not the gates of hell prevailing.

I don't think the passage can be disconnected from this language of "binding and loosing." I see it as Jesus promising that the Church cannot teach error because whatever Peter binds on earth is bound in heaven, and lies are not something that can be taught in heaven so it lies cannot be taught by Peter on earth. We can see in scripture that Peter can be wrong in some ways or in some things but that he can't be wrong in other was, that is, when he's infallibly preaching. So the question ultimately is whether or not the Church teaches false dogma or doctrines as infallibly true. I haven't found any, and if I did I would leave the Church.

[Anonymous No.13409099]

>>13408798
>>13408825
> There's nothing wrong with Vatican 2, only 99% of it!

Vatican 2 completely goes against all the major teachings of the church, as well as destroying the liturgy. No salvation outside the church? Lmao not anymore! Muslims and Jews have salvation.

Also, Pope Benedict was forced out by the SWIFT banking system which froze all financial transactions in Vatican city. The day after he announced his resignation their accounts were unfrozen.

[Anonymous No.13409102]

>>13408927
Or simply Rome isn't the rock of Peter? Or is this inconceivable?

[Anonymous No.13409137]

>>13409102
The argument for the papacy is so strong and I've never seen it addressed by Protestants or the Orthodox so the option isn't worth considering.

[Anonymous No.13409138]

>>13409137
So you cover your ears?

[Anonymous No.13409142]

>>13407855
None. Saint Peter and his succession are well documented. To defy the Holy Church is to defy the will of God.

[Anonymous No.13409149]

>>13407886

[Anonymous No.13409150]

>>13408097
Only infallible in matters of faith and doctrine, my man.

[Anonymous No.13409160]

>>13409138
No, my ears are open to a refutation. I would love to be either Orthodox or Protestant because it woulds be easier. The problem is I have both Orthodox and Protestant study bibles and they skip over certain parts of Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16.

[Anonymous No.13409172]

>>13409160
Because it is irrefutable. Protestants simply pretend it does not exist.

[Anonymous No.13409185]

>>13407864
>>13407876
Giving you the benefit of the doubt from the op to see if you maybe were a genuine seeker of some peace, I realize with these two posts that the amount of work we'd have to do to get you close to a relevant understanding of what you're even trying to accomplish is probably more than a 4chan thread can be asked to do

not catholic btw, but not overtly prejudiced against it

[Anonymous No.13409259]

>>13407858
Truth...... What is truth?

[Anonymous No.13409442]

St. Theophylact of Ochrid points out that the words, "I will give unto thee,""...were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles," since Christ also said, Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted." (The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew [House Springs, MO: Chrysostom Press, 1994], p. 141.) The second verse to which St. Theophylact refers is St. John 20:23. As the translator rightly observes, the verb "remit" is in the second person plural, and thus refers not to St. Peter alone, but to all of the Apostles. As for the "controversial verse" (St. Matthew 16:18), St. Theophylact, following St. John Chrysostomos and the overwhelming consensus of both Greek and Latin Fathers, interprets the words "this rock" to denote St. Peters confession of faith in the Divinity of Christ, and not the Apostles person. Any other interpretation would, of course, violate the Christocentric nature of the Church and the rather clear Scriptural affirmation that "Christ is the head of the Church" (Ephesians 5:23) and the "head of the Body" (Colossians 1:18).

Let us note, also, that the honor which the Orthodox Church has bestowed on both St. Peter and St. Paul, that is, the title of Protokoryphaioi, i.e., "leaders" or "chiefs" of the Apostles, gives us some insight into what the distinctions between the Disciples of Christ actually mean. They describe functions, responsibilities, cares, and rôles; they do not, however, refer to special privileges, prerogatives, or authority. For, in the final analysis, despite these distinctions, all of the Apostles were equal, just as all of the Bishops of the Orthodox Church—who are their successors—, whether they be simple Bishops or Patriarchs or Œcumenical Patriarchs, are absolute equals. This fact helps to explain both the passage which you cite from II Corinthians and the Gospel passages which Papists have wholly unjustifiably used to support the doctrine of Papal supremacy.

From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XVII, No. 1 (2000), pp. 28-30.

[Anonymous No.13409604]

>>13409442
This doesn't actually address the argument. This talk about the other apostles having spiritual authority is a red herring because the Catholic Church agrees with them. The issue at question is whether or not the office of Peter holds a preeminent position among the apostles, and the evidence in support of the Catholic position is quite clear.

In the Davidic kingdom, the king appointed a cabinet of ministers (1 Kgs 4:1-6; 2Kgs 18:37). Of these ministers, one was elevated to a unique status. His authority was second only to that of the king, who gave him the authority over all other minsters and everyone else in the kingdom. This was a common practice in the Near East. For example, when Joseph became the prime minister of Egypt, Pharaoh said, "You shall be over my house [dynasty and kingdom], and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only as regards the throne will I be greater than you ... I am Pharaoh, and without your consent no man shall lift up hand or foot in all the land of Egypt" (Gen 41:40,44). The Symbol of Joseph's office was the signet ring that Pharaoh took from his hand and put it on Joseph's hand (Gen 41:42)

David ruled from 1010 to 970 BC. However, his dynasty continued after his death. Hezekiah became the king of Judah at the age of 25 approximately 265 years after King David's death. Hezekiah's rule from 715 to 687 was marked by a great religious reform. It was during his reign that Shebna, the prime minister or royal steward (Is 22:15) was removed from his office:

Behold, the Lord will hurl you away violently, O you strong man ... I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station" (Is 22:17, 19).

Eliakim will be installed in his place as prime minister (Is 22:20-22). The symbol of that office is "the key of the house of David" (Is 22:22).

The point of Jesus' reference to Isaiah 22 is to indicate that Peter will also be given an office in Jesus' kingdom, which is his Church. That office will continue as long as Jesus' kingdom on earth continues. Jesus is the new Moses. Like the first Moses, Jesus established a priestly hierarchy in his kingdom. Peter and his successors are the chief ministers in that kingdom, the rock upon which Jesus will build his Church.

[Anonymous No.13409625]

Despite being very similar in terms of theological doctrine, except for the filioque which was added after the schism, the roman catholic church broke away from the orthodox church due to political disputes between the eastern and western spheres of influence from the former roman empire. Part of the reason for the split is the byzantine vs western form of liturgy, however this is no longer a significant deciding factor given the existence of the 'eastern catholic' churches which are almost identical to orthodox except that they are subservient to rome. Given that the main issues that still divide the orthodox and roman catholic churches are mostly political with the biggest doctrinal issue being the filioque, I would hazard to assume that they have a similar theological merit. I doubt a pious roman catholic believer would have any more trouble getting into heaven as a orthodox believer would.

[Anonymous No.13409697]

>>13409625
>the roman catholic church broke away from the orthodox church
I hate this sort of rhetoric because there's not even a grain of truth to it. The Catholic Church is and always has been more populous so it's proper to say the Orthodox broke away from Rome regardless of where you stand, because this is a matter of proper grammar. You wouldn't say a pizza broke away from the slice you picked up.

[Anonymous No.13409760]

>>13407894
Alright if no one else is gonna appreciate your joke I will.

+1 charisma

[Anonymous No.13409784]

>>13408662
No retard, Catholicism is a religion. It’s incredibly common to ask if a religion is true or not

[Anonymous No.13409807]

>>13409185
“Hey is there any hard evidence Catholicism is true?”
>durr what’s true mean?
>durr what’s hard evidence mean?
>durr if you think these questions are retarded then you’re just not being genuine

[Anonymous No.13409814]

>>13409697
If you were holding an entire pizza, and the pizza all fell from your hands except for one single piece, you would say a pizza broke away from the slice

[Anonymous No.13409831]

>>13409604
In verse 19, Our Lord says to Peter individually, “And I will give you[singular]the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”The image of “keys” is rooted firmly in the culture contemporary with our Lord and the Disciples and in the Old Testament as well. Consider Isaiah 22:15-23. There, God says to “thissteward,to Shebna, who is over the[royal]house”that he is about to be replaced with a new steward, Eliakim. Now, a “steward” is one who “wards” (guards) the “stead” (place, position and authority) of the master of the house. The “stead-ward” was a servant, oftentimes a slave, who administered the affairs and assets of a wealthy family’s household. As we see even on episodes ofDownton Abbey, it is the butler and the housekeeper, exactly like the ancient stewards, who have charge of all the keys for all the doors and every room in the house. And in a royal or noble household, the steward not only carried they keys but also admitted visitors into the royal/noble presence. Hence, in Isaiah 22:22 God says of Eliakim, “The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; so he shall open, and no one shall shut; and he shall shut, and no one shall open.”
Certainly, Peter exercised a crucial role in opening the door to the Kingdom of God. On the day of Pentecost, through his preaching 3000 souls entered the Kingdom (Acts 2:41); God used Peter to open the door for the Gentile centurion Cornelius and his family (Acts 10:1-48); and Peter’s testimony at the Council of Jerusalem helped open the door for the Church to all Gentiles (Acts 15:6ff).
ButPeter wasnotthe only Apostle to exercise that power of the keys. Certainly Paul was the “Apostle to the Gentiles” (Romans 11:13) and admitted them to the Church even when Peter— the incident with Cornelius notwithstanding—started waffling, such that Paul publicly rebuked Peter: “Now when Peter hadcome to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed” (cf. Galatians 2:11ff). As one English writer said about that moment, “I should hate to have been the one to tell Paulthat Peter was head of the Church.” And note that Paul began admitting Gentiles to the ChurchasGentileswithoutfirst “consulting with flesh and blood,”withoutgetting permission from “those who were apostles before me,” much less from Peter in particular (Galatians 1:16-17). So the power of the keys is not unique to Peter.

http://www.saintaidan.ca/2018/11/15/concerning-primacy-peter/

[Anonymous No.13409836]

>>13409784
Indian religions don't work like that at all. Religion as atheists think is a broken, biased construct

[Anonymous No.13409843]

>>13409836
Catholicism isn’t an Indian religion

[Anonymous No.13409865]

>>13409843
That's not what I'm saying dude. I'm saying that atheists lump religions that work under completely different metaphysics and logic, and just disregard all of them as if they could treat them as being based upon the same suppositions that abrahamic religions do. There's a wide variety of buddhist sects where it makes no sense to ask if "buddhism is true or not". It's a form of living life based upon a philosophy, whose arguments you have to grasp by yourself. It's the same as saying you follow "nietzscheism" or "camuism" just because they told people to live in a certain way. Yet these sects of buddhism are considered a religion in the same way catholicism is. It makes no fucking sense and it's just more western posh orientalism, backed by baseless philosophical assumptions of science.

[Anonymous No.13409916]

>>13409831
What is the argument, that Paul rebuked Peter for not acting as he infallibly preached therefore the Catholic Church is wrong? I doesn't follow. The Catholic Church doesn't believe that Peter or his successors will be sinless.

[Anonymous No.13409924]

1. Christians say the bible Is the inerrant word of god
2. The bible claims that there was a worldwide flood in the times of Noah, that the universe is geocentric, that the exodus happened, that the world was created in 6 days, that the world is 6-20k years old
3. We know these claims to be false
4. Therefore the bible is not the inerrant word of god
5. Therefore Christianity is false

There you go boys it's just that easy

[Anonymous No.13409925]

>>13409831
>>13409916
Also you're just kind of repeating yourself when you argue that other apostles have authority to. That's not being disputed.

[Anonymous No.13409931]

>>13409924
>1. Christians say the bible Is the inerrant word of god
ChRiStIaNs SaY
Go to bed little edgy boy

[Anonymous No.13409949]

>>13409925
It is tho. The pope having a final say sand beeing a leader directly contradicts that.

[Anonymous No.13409953]

>>13409172

I'm not sure what it even is. Here >>13408927 you claim Peter is infallible...except for when he is not? And that the Catholic Church should be held to their own standard of infallibility, or indeed to any standard, only when they are explicitly invoking it? My God, what does any of this even mean?

[Anonymous No.13409956]

>be catholic
>think church is infallible
>church teaches horrific doctrines like limbo which brought sorrow to the hearts of countless believers
>"well the church got it wrong that time! They were just a product of the past!"
if the teachings of the church can change depending on the morality of the times then what is the church even for

[Anonymous No.13409963]

>>13407888
>its another protestant denounce sexual abuse in the catholic church while it happens 3x times in protestantism episode
Also
>the pope is degenerate
>lol sorry Jesus fuck St Peter

[Anonymous No.13409965]

>>13409931
T. Seething dilating christcuck

[Anonymous No.13409983]

>>13409953
You have to read these.

>>13408590
>>13408600
>>13408605

Peter sins while he is being appointed by Christ, so he obviously not without sin. He's protected from teaching falsely or infallibly preaching false doctrine. It's a contextual thing.

[Anonymous No.13410002]

>>13409924
You're wrong in quite a few ways, and I probably won't be able to touch on them all. Nobody claims that the bible is inerrant in every possible sense, because that would be ridiculous. Instead, we say the truths that authors of the bible assert are inerrant.

It's important to make the distinction between what is written in scripture and what is asserted in scripture. Everything that is asserted by the sacred authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the holy spirit. If I say, "It's raining cat's and dogs outside" or "I have a million things to do today," the average listener will know that I am asserting a message that differs from what my words literally mean. It may be easy for modern English speakers to understand a fellow English speaker's assertions, understanding statements made in other languages and cultural contexts becomes more difficult.

The bible's human authors were not writing scientific textbooks. They described and dealt with things in a more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time. Just like ancient people who spoke of "the sun goeth forth in his might," we describe what we observe with expressions that are useful. After all, we too speak of the sun "rising" and "setting" even though the sun does not move in an orbit that "rises" over the earth. We call this the "language of appearances" because it describes the world as it appears to our senses. These descriptions are true, but they are not literal in nature.

We are not limited to saying that every story in the bible is either literal history or poetic fictions. They could instead be nonliteral accounts of actual historical events. Think about how a parent might explain to his child that babies "come from a seed daddies give to mommys that grow inside the mommys tummy." That's a true explanation, but it shouldn't be taken literally since it was accommodated for a childs level of understanding. Likewise, the stories in genesis are true but consist of nonliteral language that comes down (or condescends) to the level of understanding found in the audience that first heard these stories.

[Anonymous No.13410005]

>>13409924
Atheist believe in monkeys and big space explosions
Also
>He doesnt believe in a prime mover

[Anonymous No.13410051]

>>13409983

Again, I cannot help but remark that the Theological transgressions of Catholicism are as perverse and labyrinthine as the Logical transgressions are crude and common.

[Anonymous No.13410070]

>>13410005
The prime mover argument proves nothing. Even if we were to accept it wholeheartedly we would only be brought so far as deism. I think the arguments for deism are indeed very interesting and I'm open to being convinced either way. This has nothing to do with Christianity though.
>>13410002
> Everything that is asserted by the sacred authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the holy spirit.
The Bible asserts that the universe was created in 6 days. It asserts that god created the animals individually instead of letting them evolve. It asserts (implicitly) that the world is geocentric. It asserts that there was a worldwide flood. The Bible, again, asserts, against all the evidence against it, that the Exodus happened. In fact the Exodus is a hugely important event in Bible history. If, as the archaeological evidence has shown, it didn't happen then the whole story of Moses and Israel's slavery in Egypt was made up.

[Anonymous No.13410095]

>>13410051
Okay well if you want to actually have a discussion with somebody seeking the truth I'll be around. Simply telling me that the Church is wrong doesn't convince me of anything.

[Anonymous No.13410098]

>>13409924

1. /r/atheist say empiricism is the inerrant way to truth
2. empiricism not only cannot prove anything but also requires infinitely recursive empiricism to even exist at all as an otherwise worthless thought experiment
2. therefore i fucking love science!

[Anonymous No.13410103]

>>13410095
>doesn't convince me of anything.

I know, as stated initially:

>>13408868

[Anonymous No.13410105]

>>13410098
>crying this hard

[Anonymous No.13410131]

>>13410070
In one ear and out the other with people like you. Do you understand what I said about the language of appearances? The bible isn't a scientific textbook and you're wrong to treat it as one. The bible isn't scientifically asserting anything about the shape of the universe or the world, but it's merely describing it in a literary way. The bible can be wrong in a particular sense but not in every sense, the bible can describe creation as taking place in 6 days but that doesn't mean it's literally asserting a 6 day creation.

Christians who believe the creation is only a few thousand years old come to that conclusion by counting the years included in the genealogies of the old testament. However the genealogies in the bible cannot be used to date the age of the universe because they were not meant to be exact chronicles of history. In some cases generations were omitted in order to make a symbolic point. In other cases the ages themselves may be symbolic and not literal. The genealogies in scripture were primarily focused on showing how different people were related to one another, not how long ago they lived.

We shouldn't assume the author of Genesis was asserting that a worldwide flood took place. Modern readers may interpret passages in Genesis that describe water covering "the earth" as meaning the entire planet was inundated. But a resident of ancient Mesopotamia may have only understood "the earth" to mean "the land" or the region he knew. In fact, the Hebrew word for "earth" in this passage, eretz, can also mean "land," as in Genesis 41:57, where it says that "all the eretz came to Egypt to buy grain" when a famine struck the region. Of course, this doesn't mean that everyone on the planet went to Egypt to buy grain, just those people who inhabited the region the author was referring to went there.

The Author of Genesis may also have used popular storytelling devices found in other flood narratives in order to show how the God of the Israelites was superior to pagan deities. For example, in the Epic of Gilgamesh the gods are afraid of the flood and flee to higher ground, but in Genesis God is in complete control of the disaster and is unaffected by it.

The Epic of Gilgamesh also seems to have been derived from an even older story called the Epic of Atrahasis. In this story, a pantheon of gods flood the earth because human beings had become too huberous and noisy. The author of the Genesis account may even have been purposefully subverting this anti-life attitude in his own narrative in which God commands that Adam and Eve "be fruitful and multiple." God's decision to send the flood in judgment of sin instead of as a population control measure would be a further subversion of this theme.

1/2

[Anonymous No.13410139]

>>13410131
As far as the exodus goes, there's plenty of evidence for it, so why do you treat it as being so ridiculous? Egyptologists have discovered the presence of Semitic names in Egyptian records from the time of the Exodus. They have also found descriptions of forced laborers making bricks in order to meet quotas as well as failures to meet those quotas because of a lack of straw--details that can all be found in the book of Exodus. The famed Egyptologist Sir Alan Gardiner, who was generally dismissive of the historicity of the Old Testament, said "that Israel was in Egypt under one form or another no historian could possibly doubt."

One reason there may be a lack of evidence describing the Hebrew slaves leaving Egypt is that the Israelites settled in Goshen (Gen. 45:10), which lies in the eastern part of the Nile Delta. The annual flooding of the Nile into this region would have regularly covered areas with a new topsoil thus making artifacts and documents difficult or impossible to recover.

Some people will say "Even if the accounts of the patriarchs, or the exodus, or the Israelites in Canan are not anachronistic, that doesn't prove those accounts describe real events in history. They could just be pieces of historical fiction." But when people say this they are assuming that unless a historical event described in the bible is also described in a nonbiblical work, then the event either never happened or we have no way of knowing if it did happen.

This way of approaching scripture, what some call "hermeneutic of suspicion," treats the historical accounts in the bible as being "guilty until proven innocent." If a justification is given for this assumption, it's usually that the bible describes miracles, and that makes its historical accounts unreliable. But other ancient historians like Josephys, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Herodotus also record miracles, and their knowledge of the ancient world isn't deemed "suspect" unless someone else corroborates their assertions. In fact, these writers represent our only knowledge of many historical episodes.

Another point to remember is that critics who rejected the bible because it was the only witness to something have been proven wrong before. Prior to the late 19th century, the bible was the only source that attested to the existence of the Hittites. Since no other works or artifacts corroborated their existence, modern critics said this was yet another example of the bible getting ancient history wrong. But in 1880, Henry Sayce delivered a lecture demonstrating that hieroglyphics found in Turkey and Syria showed that the Hittites had actually existed.

Just as they did with the Hittites, modern scholars also doubted Belshazzar's existence because it was only recorded in the bible, but that too was disproven.

[Anonymous No.13410194]

>>13408097
It's not that the Pope is infallible in all things. It's only on certain matters of faith and doctrine. An immoral or incorrect statement from a position of infallibility is impossible because one would automatically render the Pope excommunicated and thus invalid.

[Anonymous No.13410222]

>>13410131
>>13410139
I'm not reading your bullshit because I already know what arguments you're going to make. Anything that is patently false in the Bible you will claim is literary/poetic/allegorical and anything that is true will be used as support for the Bible's veracity. If your god is not the author of confusion he would not have said 6 days when he meant billions of years.
> The famed Egyptologist Sir Alan Gardiner, who was generally dismissive of the historicity of the Old Testament, said "that Israel was in Egypt under one form or another no historian could possibly doubt."
Hahaha you know what he also said?
"The exodus narratives are no less mythical than the creation narratives found in genesis."
The exodus did not happen. That is academic consensus.

[Anonymous No.13410243]

>>13410222
I kind of figured you weren't reading my posts. It's okay because I'm sure somebody will. I can't imagine why you continue arguing with me, because you're no better than a crazy man who screams at passengers while waiting at a bus stop. You preach without listening but you expect others to hear you and take is seriously.

[Anonymous No.13410294]

>>13410243
I know the arguments already: you just make excuses for anything that's false by saying it's not literal. I can do this with any book in the world. If I wanted to I could go look things up and refute your mental gymnastics but there's really no point because you always have a get out of jail free card.
I only responded to your Exodus apologetics because I know it's just pure subterfuge. Even the scholars you quoted to support the Exodus say that it did not happen. There is no archaeological evidence for it. It did not happen.

[Anonymous No.13410323]

>>13410294
Didn't read lol

[Anonymous No.13410382]

>>13410294
The ancient Egyptians were anti-semitic and deliberately hid the evidence of the Jewish presence in their lands.

[Anonymous No.13410901]

imagine actually living your life in a way that is dependent on jewish fairy tales and wishing everyone on earth was exactly the same and unironically believing that anybody who doesn't believe the hewish fairy tales in the exact same way you do will be punished eternally and this makes sense and makes you feel good

[Anonymous No.13410909]

>>13409924
uh uh uh uh uh those were metaphors mkay

[Anonymous No.13410921]

>>13410131
>muh local flood!
that doesn't make any sense because god promised to never do that again, yet local floods still happen.

[Anonymous No.13410940]

>>13410921
>Genesis 8:21-22 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
This isn't God promising that floods will never happen again, but that he won't destroy creatures as he did, for the reason he did.

[Anonymous No.13411845]

>>13410940
>local thread
>never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done

[Anonymous No.13411906]

>>13407855
>before I declare it true?
Midwit. It's not true because you say so.

[Anonymous No.13411919]

>>13408097
Papal infallibility is a rather weak thing, and a pretty natural development from "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".
>>13408868
Apostasy and scandal aren't new to the church. It's certainly a crisis, but noither the first nor the worst. Despite Vatican II, church doctrine and dogma did not change.
>>13409625
Catholics definitely hold that Orthodox sacraments are valid, and vice-versa. If you're convinced of the claims regarding authority of one or the other, neither would regard following that conscience as sinful.
>>13409697
As a Catholic, it was a mutual split. Both and neither can claim to be the original, in different senses.
>>13410070
Poetic and mythic language is not to be taken literally, and Aquinas has more to his theology than the one argument. If you want more than deism, turn the page.
>>13407855
Nothing firm. A lot of the history can be interpreted in a way that refutes Christianity, but I've never seen anything that can't be read sympathetically to it without reaching.

[Anonymous No.13413287]

>>13407855
You should read what Hippolytus, Cyprian, and the Donatists have to say about the Church of Rome and its bishops in the 3rd/4th centuries. In particular look for what Hippolytus says about Pope Callistus and what Cyprian says in response to Pope Stephen. You can practically see from it that papal supremacy was mere innovation, because the churches in North Africa thought it was innovation at the time. Likewise for the Roman idea, now Catholic doctrine, that neither excommunication nor performance of baptism by a non-Catholic schismatic or heretic renders a baptism void (requiring rebaptism); hence also the Catholic insistence against rebaptizing either excommunicated apostates or schismatics/heretics. The big problem with Rome since the 3rd century was that they began to become corrupt. They would let people off easy with their wickedness, including priests, and they gradually developed the doctrine that it was the priestly operation rather than purity which rendered the sacraments efficacious. And they developed the even more heretical doctrine that certain rites, namely baptism, were efficacious simply from their being performed, regardless of who performed it. That's why to this day they won't rebaptize Protestants. In fact Luther used this doctrine to kickstart his own schism, because he reasoned that baptism was possible on Catholicism's own account without need for an apostolic priesthood.

This doesn't end here however. Even if you dismiss all that, well the "church" which accepted the seven ecumenical councils and split in two in 1054, what was it? By all accounts I it was clearly the Eastern Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church; that is to say, the RCC split off from the EOC. Again this is because innovation was created at Rome (papal supremacy) which other ecumenical patriarchs + the secular authority over the church (= Byzantine emperor) didn't endorse. By all means the Catholics were schismatics deviating from the status quo.

[Anonymous No.13413409]

>>13410222
"Free thinkers" have truly proven themselves to be the cringe of the internet, no wonder a picture of a fedora is better answer to your posts that actual discussion

[Anonymous No.13413423]

>>13409924
Solo scriptura has never been a part of Christianity, even Augustine struggles with this.

[Anonymous No.13413611]

>>13411919
>church doctrine and dogma did not change.
>geocentrism to geliocentrism, not only as cosmological but as ontological ideas: no change LOL!

[Anonymous No.13413662]

>>13407855
Yes.

[Anonymous No.13413950]

>>13413611
Consider the possibility that geocentrism is not or never has been Church doctrine.

[Anonymous No.13413969]

>>13410382
Jewish presence in their lands is not what is being debated. If the exodus happened we would expect to have found some archeological evidence for it between Egypt and Israel. Archaeologists have basically given up searching at this point because they've scoured all the lands and have found nothing. It is now historical consensus that the exodus was mythical.

[Anonymous No.13413974]

>>13410940
>I destroyed ALL living creatures
>in a local flood
I guess all is metaphorical too? it's all so tiresome man why don't you just be honest with yourself and accept that these writings are simply Bronze Age myths

[Anonymous No.13413989]

>>13413950

Granted, nothing really IS a Catholic doctrine per se. Scurrying in funnel webs and cloacas in order to molt and replenish its perversity is not so much a trick of Catholic Doctrine, whereby solid doctrines decompose and reconstitute, it is itself THE Doctrine. Mary, for example, being a hodgepodge of everything from Sophia to feminist delirium is not so as an example of "living", as it were, Theology, a record of herself becoming Mary, of the Pagan becoming Christian and so on, but as a writhing mass of mutually disqualifying contingency, whereby one closes his hand around it only for it to squirm itself in half. Truly the Synagogue of Satan.

[Anonymous No.13414000]

>>13413989
>Granted, nothing really IS a Catholic doctrine per se.
???

http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2015/09/19/a-list-of-the-dogmas-of-the-catholic-church/

[Anonymous No.13414045]

>>13410222
The bible says many times that a day for god is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day. One can easily say that the bible uses "thousand" because any higher number is incomprehensible, and thousand even means in hebrew "a really large number"; including the poetical use of thousand. Thus one should extrapolate the 'days' with unknown 'ages'.

‘For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.’

[Anonymous No.13414062]

>>13410005
>the prime mover argument
wow what a fag

[Anonymous No.13414072]

>>13407855
The fact that someone would believe an organization capable of protecting very evil individuals for the sake of preserving its image, while claiming to be an intermediary between mankind and the creator of the universe, tells you all you need to know. The willfully blind cannot and won't see, they've drowned in their ideology and are lost to reason.

[Anonymous No.13414183]

>>13408596

Based purificator. We aint reincarnating back with the rest of the faggots.
Anti materialism or valhalla, there are many ways to ascend to heaven.

[Anonymous No.13414192]

Catholicism and Orthodox church both are war & fertility Godess (Ishtar) worshipping cults.

[Anonymous No.13414210]

>>13407855
Catholicism is only a denomination of Christianity.
Do you reject filioque? Well, so many Catholics say that this is only an unimportant element.
The fact is that when Charlemagne wanted to become an emperor (and in the Christian world there can be only one emperor - the defender of all Christians), he ordered to invent a filioque.
Catholic priests know this. All other religious positions are also debatable.
The most important thing we need to know is that Jesus is God, that we recognize his mother Mary and pray to God the father, God the son and the Holy Spirit (how they converge and differ is a separate matter that can be understood by differently).
In the end, we are all just Christians, as Chesterton said.

[Anonymous No.13414236]

>>13410139
These are not Semitic names.
The nations with dna r1b conquered Egypt and brought the myth of the confrontation between God and the Dragon/Worm. Then this religion turned into a cult that was spread by Pharaoh Akhenaten. His followers went to the Levant, and began to preach their faith. The laws of Moses (egyptian name!) are very similar to the text from the Book of the Dead (Ani’s papyrus). All this is our ancient religion, so the Europeans adopted Christianity so quickly. Our ancestors created the provisions of the Egyptian religion, which later entered into Judaism, and then they came back to us. Europeans were not pagans, they had their own ancient faith, similar to the faith of the Egyptians.
In addition, the Jews themselves had a very powerful caste of Levites. The Levites were Cimmerians, nomads with dna r1a, who became servants of the Temple, they were like inquisitors, and they were white people. And they did a lot to make their thousands of years studying religious and mystical practices come down to us, their direct descendants.
And so Christianity appeared.

[Anonymous No.13414248]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

[Anonymous No.13415547]

>>13407855
You should know that catholics are the devil's bitch and he greatly enjoys torturing them

[Anonymous No.13416926]

>>13410294
The people you are responding to are allowed a vote. let that sink in. These are supposedly educated human beings. Truly we are lost.

[Anonymous No.13417049]

>>13414236
This is the most galaxy brained take I’ve ever heard