/lit/ - Literature

>>19506505
>Also don't forget the namefag schizo who entrapped us.
Excuse me? Maybe we'll need to get more litigious here if these endless threats against me from catholic posters a day their off topic generals continue. Do something mods.

>>19501750
Yeah that person was you. Stop running a PR campaign for yourself on 4chan of all places. It's very... sad?

>>19501718
Toxic communities and generals that exist to coordinate raids into other threads, such as what your group did to Puritan Christian Literature General, don't deserve to thrive. Never once have these Generals ever discussed literature. The last thread was about masturbation and how to stop constantly looking at porn. Let's not posture now. You are all defending the doxxer too.

>>19501714
That's fine. I don't use a name often. With that said, I never lost a debate so badly I was tempted to hurt someone else in real life. Speaks volumes.

>>19501678
Because I'm not afraid of my online behavior and it keeps me accountable when a discussion might get uncharitable, which it did. I have nothing to be ashamed of. That other poster does. I can live with my posts. I can show them to my employer and my acquaintances. I can explain why I did it and not feel embarrassed. Those monsters can't say the same. And I won the debate.

>>19496201
If I were aware you were the sick person who posts these infographics I never would have replied to you to begin with. This poster has serious issues and has episodes where he fazes out of reality. He gets creepy. Watch him in a thread sometime.

>>19496155
So this post has the zinger that "well MOST (but not all) catholics believe the catholic party line so take that protties!"

Is this the best you can do? List some literally who historians from a shitty blog post full of cope?

>>19496123
Is your final argument really going to be a misapplication of the argument from silence? And an implicit trick suggesting that only Addison thinks this? Recall that prominent Catholic historians share his view. But to be clear, is "argument from silence" where you now land?

>>19495906
I thought you said history was bullshit that was liberal and disproved Christianity and so didn't matter anyway. Why are you talking about historical evidence? Are you a liberal?

>the historical evidence for either position is scant at best.
You have not supported this claim at all. You're trying to equivocate the debate out of existence. The evidence is in fact abundant and clear. We both know you know you're wrong. This wheel spinning and endless redefinition and equivocation is textbook cognitive dissonance, as is you trying to bring your diseased understanding of Protestantism into the argument to change topic, a bait no one thankfully took. Just admit you're wrong. This is ridiculous. You can't keep your story straight for one full post and you've already admitted you didn't didn't understand your own doctrine on the papacy. Did you just become an expert 2 minutes ago? Concede already you prideful apostate.

>>19495797
So you'll just keep moving the goalposts forever on the pope issue even well beyond the infallible declaration of the Church and your own statements on the issue.

Ok well since you will just redefine concepts forever I guess there's no way to win the argument. You're just correct by virtue of your infinite mutability. Definitely a characteristic of the "true faith" I'm sure. But

>The point about tenets being developed later does not apply to Catholicism
In this case it does because of what Vatican I claimed. It didn't claim a gradual development. It made a verifiable historical claim that has since been proven false. You can weasel out of Vatican I's language here. Development of doctrine doesn't apply to this claim.

>immediately and directly

Is not gradual. And it is an anathematizing statement to disagree. Again

>>The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister

You again anathematize yourself. Repent.

>>19495762
;)

>>19495721
Sour grapes from the catholics who now call Christianity a myth. Wondeful stuff, catholics.

>>19495668
>Catholic wants to dox me because he lost the argument
How Christian! What an excellent testimony to your faith! Notice how satanic these Catholic nutjobs become when called out.

Come over and let's talk about Christ, mate.

>>19495628
>Also, I never said that I believed the consensus
No, you just claimed that the Catholic church did. What a liar.

YOUR POST MY LIEGE
>They don't agree with the particular claim that the church was monarchical from its inception; a claim which, even if renounced, does not impeach the idea that the church was meant to become monarchical - the actual Catholic claim -, as testified by the fact that those Catholic scholars who agree with this consensus do not give up on Catholicism
But Vatican 1 disagrees, so you're lying.

The Catholic liar above denies this dogma of Vatican 1:
>We teach and declare that,
according to the gospel evidence,
a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and
conferred on him by Christ the lord.

>The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

YOU ARE ANATHEMA FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR BEING A LIAR AND A SNAKE.

>>19495535
>that the church was meant to become monarchical - the actual Catholic claim
Not according to the infallible proclamation of Vatican 1. You're just trying to adjust true teaching because you lost the argument. Please post the relevant Vatican 1 statement and explain how the lie you just told agrees with it. You have read it, right? Because with that statement you essentially anathematized yourself

>>19483549
He's a psychotic who has forsaken his Protestant roots. All the Reformers emphasized predestination and forsook free will.

>>19483555
Oh look the conservatards are scared of people who aren't white and stand in solidarity with their brown and black sisters and brothers

>>19483524
Why would you have that picture saved on your computer? Imagine how sick and deranged you must be.

>>19483461
Not op but he asked for books

>>19483213
I thought about it, my wife Sarah has been on a girl's trip to Jamaica for like 2 weeks now so since the trip keeps extending I need something to do at Middlebury. But I'm back home to Florida to see the rents in two more weeks anyway

Anti-china retards are fucking cringe.
>muh dogs
>muh liveleak videos from the 90s
Here are some cold facts:
>China has already overtaken whites in technology as evidenced by the supersonic test and their new quantum computers. Asians have the highest IQ of all races.
>Chinese military beats Americans in every war game (including American ones)
>China already overtook the US in life expectancy (Amerisharts are literally dying of being fat fucks lmao)
>China has vastly superior infrastructure to the US and even buildings built after 2015 are basically Western quality
>Chinese culture values science while all the western kids want to become vloggers and other stupid shit
>China despises niggers and supports ethnic homogeneity, the Chinese know that Jews control America and they openly copy Jewish tactics while in the West your life is basically ruined if you thread on Jews or their pavement ape pets and the chaos that immigrants bring
>China keeps femoids in check and curbs feminist shit before it has a chance to spread
>China bases it's political ideology on literal nazis (Carl Schmitt)
If China was white, you faggots would be drooling all over it. Instead, all China threads are just pathetic amerishart cope these days. It's fucking sad.

>>19471911
>I say this as a protestant myself! Hey thread, I'm a protestant! Did we all know that I'm a protestant! But I'm behaving in an unusual manner for one! Please acknowledge my presence, validate my identity. Its the only thing that makes me feel normal and connected to others

>>19455940
>They're pretty much all like this. Some are worse
Sorry Presbyterianism appeals to wealthy, highly educated, moderate to conservative people with families I guess? Maybe we should be more like Catholic retards who can barely strong two sentences together without consulting Catholic Answers dot com.

>>19455960
Uh yes? But feel free to check it out for yourself.