Total posts: 1,328
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I'm not saying the church is inconsistent thus fallible. I'm saying the church is only infallible when it is consistent with Jesus... when its not consistent it isnt really the church speaking. Its a truism... the church is infallible when its infallible. That means it is infallivle even if individuals mess it up. How can we tell when that's the case? Only by interpretation. A lotta folks might not like that answer but it's the best we got. Plus even catholics and orthodox have to figure out what's official teaching v not and have their own room for interpretation. Plus
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
the be more precise, the pope isn't infallible. you have a certain logic that jesus is infallible and thus the church is by extension as both are the body of christ. however, the church is only infallble when it's consistent with jesus. no church, protestants, catholic, or orthodox, teach consistently such that they can be said to be always infallible. the orthodox church might be, but how they define their authority and submission elements aren't defined very well and are open to interpretation and there's lots of contradicting teachings, depending how you define it. maybe the catholic church could be said the same thing, but only if it dropped the obviously false teaching of infallibility .
Created:
Posted in:
also you point to peter and the keys in the bible. but jesus later gave all the apostles the power of binding and loosing. explicitly. so what makes peter so special?
i could get behind the idea that if the catholic and orthodox churches were reunited, the pope should be reqjuired to be a part of the church, unlike how the east is now. and all can agree a 'first among equals'. they can't be first if they are excommunited. but the catholics should drop the idea of infalliblity of the pope, or at least not require faith in that teaching to foster unity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
you didn't show evidence for infallibility in the early church. it's just not there, or scarce. yes there's evidence that the pope should be listened to, but that doesn't indicate infallible. a lot of the quotes that the catholic church uses to support even papal power, are distorted in translation. you also say papal primacy was in the early church, but no one contests this, not even the orthodox. primacy doesn't prove supremecy, papal supremacy. you also did a very poor job responding to all my points in my opening posts. the catholic church has contradicted itself several times, which an infallible agency cannot do. you didn't respond to the authority behind early church councils and the context of that, and you didn't show any supporting evidence for men like aquanis, augustine, irenanaous, or cyprian. it's pretty clear you are deeply brainwashed if my arguments haven't changed your perception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
for something to be infallibly defined, it has to have the following elements: the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. there's a myth floating around that the church has acted infallibly only a handful of times or less. that's blatantly untrue and not historical.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Carrot God does not approve. 🥕
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I was trying to move the debate forward and you dropped my responses. how do you respond?
well what's the answer smart guy who did his research? how dangerous is the disease for a healthy young person? and, how do you respond to my hypothetical, cause it seems pretty reasonable and you ignored it..."if the average death rate being unvaxed is two in a thousand, what would it be for a healthy person? you just assume you know the answer or that it's better than the shot. maybe the odds are one in ten thousand healthy people will die without the vax... that's still a lot more dangerous than one in a million risk from the shot, isn't it? the only thing I see you doing is using third grade logic against experts"
also I did back during the pandemic look up how long it takes for side effects to show up. the said with every vaccine in history, the bad effects show up within a couple weeks or a month, almost never longer. plus, the experts know how the vaccine interacts with our body, info I wouldn't claim to know. and, skeptics say the vaccine creation was rushed, but as the experts point out, the background research was already done before the pandemic even started. so its not that much of a rushed vaccine either.again, the bottom line I s that all I see you doing, is using third grade logic about the scientific process against expert consensus opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
also I did back during the pandemic look up how long it takes for side effects to show up. the said with every vaccine in history, the bad effects show up within a couple weeks or a month, almost never longer. plus, the experts know how the vaccine interacts with our body, info I wouldn't claim to know. and, skeptics say the vaccine creation was rushed, but as the experts point out, the background research was already done before the pandemic even started. so its not that much of a rushed vaccine either.
again, the bottom line I s that all I see you doing, is using third grade logic about the scientific process against expert consensus opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
well what's the answer smart guy who did his research? how dangerous is the disease for a healthy young person? and, how do you respond to my hypothetical, cause it seems pretty reasonable and you ignored it...
"if the average death rate being unvaxed is two in a thousand, what would it be for a healthy person? you just assume you know the answer or that it's better than the shot. maybe the odds are one in ten thousand healthy people will die without the vax... that's still a lot more dangerous than one in a million risk from the shot, isn't it? the only thing I see you doing is using third grade logic against experts"
Created:
Posted in:
trump says he wants universal care, but he's too incompetent to do anything smart in that regard. he tried to repeal Obamacare, but John McCain was the deciding vote to stop him. he tried to take away people's healthcare, without a replacement. then, in this election, he said his tinkering with Obamacare is what saved Obamacare. he didn't do anything constuctive with it, and only damaged it, yet tried to take credit for it. most experts think trump won't try to repeal Obamacare, cause it gives so many people healthcare, even early retirees and it's been the law for around fourteen years. so what will trump do this time? he'll probably gut the addded subsidides to make it more affordable. he'll turn it into a catastrophic plan essentially, and make it too expensive for most people to use, and many will drop it. that is a republican idea anyway, if they at least say they want universal care, catostrophic care. and then, in the next election cycle, he will simply say he saved Obamacare from imploding, and then blame a dysfunctional law, on Obama and the Democrats. that's the way trump operates, it's pretty predictable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
what I meant was, the odds of dying from the shot are next to zero. maybe one in a million. super rare. I wasn't saying the odds of dying from the disease after the shot are near zero, but the shot drastically reduces the risk of death. your point that the shot doesn't have long term testing is true, and that a healthy person is less likely to need the shot. but, the experts say the long term safety is okay, and I base my opinion on trusting them on their expertise, which you aren't saying why doubt them other than by you using third grade logic about the scientific method against their expertise. plus, even for the healthy people... if the average death rate being unvaxed is two in a thousand, what would it be for a healthy person? you just assume you know the answer or that it's better than the shot. maybe the odds are one in ten thousand healthy people will die without the vax... that's still a lot more dangerous than one in a million risk from the shot, isn't it? the only thing I see you doing is using third grade logic against experts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
if you're not an expert in virology and you dont trust anyone to tell you what to think, what do you base your opinion on? any third grade logic about the scientific method lacks expertise when they try to pick apart the expert's opinions. the only way I can figure someone wouldn't use third grade logic against experts, is to find some experts who in the minority, or even a fringe minority. at that point, they're 'appealing to authority' by your measure. so which do you do, use third grade logic against experts, or appeal to fringe expert authority? if you do neither, how do you form your opinion on the effectiveness of the vaccines?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I think you should look into arguments from the orthodox church about the bishop of romes claims. The early church is orthodox, not catholic
Created:
Posted in:
EARLY CHURCH CONTRA INDICATIONS
there isnt much talk in the early church that the church can't err on faith and morals. there is talk that the bishop of Rome should be listened to, but that's it. read Cyprian, iranaeus, Augustine, aquanis, among others. they talk about church structure and unity and authority but they almost never talk as if the church can't err on faith and morals. 'the silence is deafening'. the idea of infallibility took hundreds of years and even thousands to fully develop. in the early church, the great 7 councils of Catholic/orthodox were not led by the bishop of Rome, weren't called by the bishop of Rome, and some didn't even have representatives from Rome. in some councils, the bishop of Rome was excommunicated. this doesn't disprove infallibility but it's evidence or weight against the idea. on the idea that Rome must be listened to, read Catholic apologetics and all you will find is vague references and distortions. Augustine sometimes made reference to councils trumping the pope. some popes said they can contradict past popes and their teaching is trumped.
We read in the acts of the seventh Carthaginian synod under Cyprian (and the eighth of which we know), that all were invited to speak freely. This synod is considered by most to be a response to the Pope’s rejection of Cyprian’s logic, sent via two former synods of A.D. 255–256. He gathered together a larger number of Bishops (87 in attendance) and once again set forth in turn, with the Bishops of Africa and Numidia, the declaration that those who were baptised by heretics must be baptised in the “one baptism of the Church”, solemnly repudiating Stephen’s position. The Council declares in the midst of this:
Neither does any one of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. — 7th Synod of Carthage under Cyprian
Cyprian's colleague responded....
I (Firmilian) am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority (Epistle 74.17).
How great sin have you (Stephen) heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all (Epistle 74.24).
----------
a lot of church history and quotes . both for and against the weight of the papacy
Created:
Posted in:
two points to this debate... contradictions in the Catholic church and lack of evidence and contraindications in the early church for infallibility.
CONTRADICTIONS
an infallible church can't contradict itself when the pope teaches on faith and morals. that is self evident. however it contradicted itself on limbo, salvation of non catholics and the death penalty.
-----------------
limbo -
Popes of the Roman Catholic Church have taken four contrary positions regarding the fate of infants who die without baptism. The lot assigned by popes to the infants has gradually changed from including hell fire, through involving the pain of loss only and then no pain at all, to full beatitude in heaven.
The new Catechism, published by John Paul in 1992, encourages us to hope that unbaptized infants go to heaven.
“As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism.”
Answer: The Council of Florence stated the following about hell: The souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straight away to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains (Session 6 — July 6,1439).
The teaching of Carthage was infallibly approved as a rule of the Faith by Pope Zosimus and Pope Innocent I and by the ecumenical councils, which were approved by other popes.
“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions”: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left [cf. Matt. 25:41,46].”
“Babies dead without baptism go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but neither do they suffer, because, having original sin alone, they do not deserve paradise, but neither do they merit hell or purgatory.” ~1905 Catechism of the Catholic Church
The XVI Council of Carthage (418) condemned the Pelagian fable that there is some place anywhere where infants who died without baptism live in happiness (Limbo).
The Council taught the Catholic doctrine that infants go into the fire to be eternally punished with the devil, being on the left hand at the judgement.
Pope Gregory the Great (-604) taught the eternal torment of infants in his Moralia on the Book of Job.
Gregory the Great: “For there be some that are withdrawn from the present light, before they attain to shew forth the good or evil deserts of an active life. And whereas the Sacraments of salvation do not free them from the sin of their birth, at the same time that here they never did aright by their own act; there they are brought to torment. And these have one wound, viz. to be born in corruption, and another, to die in the flesh. But forasmuch as after death there also follows, death eternal, by a secret and righteous judgment ‘wounds are multiplied to them without cause.’ For they even receive everlasting torments, who never sinned by their own will. And hence it is written, Even the infant of a single day is not pure in His sight upon earth. Hence ‘Truth’ says by His own lips, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Hence Paul says, We were by nature the children of wrath even as others. He then that adding nothing of his own is mined by the guilt of birth alone, how stands it with such an one at the last account, as far as the calculation of human sense goes, but that he is ‘wounded without cause?’ And yet in the strict account of God it is but just that the stock of mortality, like an unfruitful tree, should preserve in the branches that bitterness which it drew from the root. Therefore he says, For He shall break me with a tempest, and multiply my wounds without cause. As if reviewing the woes of mankind he said in plain words; ‘With what sort of visitation does the strict Judge mercilessly slay those, whom the guilt of their own deeds condemns, if He smites for all eternity even those, whom the guilt of deliberate choice does not impeach?’” (Moralia 9: 32)
According to Pope Innocent, infants suffer the pain of knowing that they have lost the vision of God but they do not have the pain of fire.
“Pope Innocent’s teaching is to the effect that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer ‘no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God.’ It should be noted, however, that this poena damni incurred for original sin implied, with Abelard and most of the early Scholastics, a certain degree of spiritual torment.” (Toner, Catholic Encyclopedia 1910, Limbo)
-------------
salvation of non catholics
noncatholics aren't saved versus they could be saved. the 'strict' teachings are bolstered by the fact that the laity and people in the church understood that no one could possibly be saved as a noncatholic when those teachings came down.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation", means, if put in positive terms, that "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body", and it "is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church".[34] At the same time, it adds: "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men".[35] The Catechism also states that the Catholic Church "is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter", and that "those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways".[36]
Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the 'eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church". The same council also ruled that those who die in original sin, but without mortal sin, will also find punishment in hell, but unequally: "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains".[26]
Fourth Lateran Council (1215): "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved".[25]
morality of the death penalty
death penalty is admissible and morals versus it is inadmissible and immoral
In 2018, the Catechism of the Catholic Church was revised to read that "in the light of the Gospel" the death penalty is "inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person" and that the Catholic Church "works with determination for its abolition worldwide."[3][4][5]
Pope Innocent I in his letter Ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum (PL 20, 495) defended the death penalty:[11]
It must be remembered that power was granted by God, and to avenge crime the sword was permitted; he who carries out this vengeance is God's minister [Romans 13:1–4]. What motive have we for condemning a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God's authority.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
it's fair to say the shot should be voluntary. but it's still stupid not to take it. the odds of dying from the disease for the average person was 2 in a thousand. that means for every thousand people, two were going to die. that's why hospitals were overflowing with dead bodies and such. the odds of dying after the shot, were next to zero statistically. now, it's true that there could have been a longer period to study the effects on the population... but when pandemics happen, it's rare to have the chance to study the effects long term. that's happened before, too. it's also a pro vax point that the development of the vaccine took many years, if you count the preparatory years before the pandemic. (it wasn't just thrown together like anti vaxers claim) and finally, the point that we use credible sources of authority and ya'll do not... if credible sources say it's safe, then it probably is. they know the science better than we do.
if the odds of dying from the disease was way higher, and spreading it far more likely, I wouldn't even say it should be voluntary. I'd have argued to either take the shot or forfeit your citizenship, and get deported.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Where on earth did you get evidence that the covid Vax was bad? There r claims that the Vax causes heart swelling but the odds r super low and the odds of heart swelling r way higher for patients who get covid. Ive done lots of fact checks like this when idiotic claims r made by anti vaxers and using credible sources I see they r mistaken. The best I can surmise is that you all r too incompetent to interpret science and the main point is that you don't know how to find or use credible sources of info
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I have an honors degree in science from a competitive major university. So yes ive done labs and I'm way over educated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So a third graders understanding of science is just as good as doctors and consensus scientists? Yes even a third grader can understand the scientific method... so if by a third grader estimation the covid Vax isn't studied enough, the third grader shouldn't listen to the experts? Do you see why there's so much lunacy out there, with conspiracy theories that say the earth is flat for example? If the third grader can't understand it, it's OK to believe whatever feels best?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Whats your basis of authority if you don't trust doctors and consensus scientists? Like the republican party, you r good at criticizing but not finding finding credible alternatives
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I know a lot about Catholic apologetic s. you interested in debating the legitimacy of the Catholic church?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
unless you're an expert in virology, you must appeal to authority at least as much, but actually more than, someone who trusts consensus. we listen to our doctors and to consensus scientists. you appeal to some schmuck you heard somewhere, maybe after watching two half baked YouTube videos? if you ain't an expert and you appeal to someone who supports your biases, you are much more appealing to authority.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
girl I'm not your puppet. girl I'm not your puppet, puppet, puppet
Created:
here is an article describing his supporters being low information
it also seems like they might have lower intelligence and critical thinking skills. i cant prove this point, but the low information thing looks to be true if you google credible google websites. now, trump supporters are disproportionately low formal education and blue collar. can people like me pick up on this via their poor reasoning and education? i think it's probably a noticeable thing if these facts are all true.
so it seems trump largely relies on low information voters, poorly educated voters, and his cult of personality and demagoguery.
what do we see on this website? a whole heck of a lot of poor reasoning ability from trump supporters. irrelevant arguments and denying all terms and conditions even when they are veritably true. a lot of alternative realities and 'alternative facts'.
Created:
Posted in:
Dems planted a party shill harris who was super unpopular in 2020. She cares more about the party than the people. She wasn't elected. Republicans r right the only reason she was there was she's a woman and she's black.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
The real question is would trump be where he is without his cult? Is the substance of trump sufficient to justify his status with no cult appeal?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
im unclear. do you deny that trump has a cult of personality? I feel like that should be obvious that he does so I can't wrap my mind around denying it. or, do you deny he is where he is due to his cult? it seems like out of 333 million people that we have, someone as pathetic as trump wouldn't be where he is with all the other options, unless there is a factor like his cult of personality. how do you deny it, if you do?
Created:
here's a study on trump's cult of personality and his supporters
now I know not everyone who votes for trump is part of the cult. there are many who are merely conservative and trump is generally conservative so they vote for him. in the primary, trump's cult and base is the biggest as per mob rule, such that he wins the primary even though he's not too popular overall. after winning the primary, even non cult supporters will pile on.
with all that said, do you who vote for trump acknowledge that trump mostly has been put into his position due to his cult of personality?
I feel like if you denied it, you would be denying reality as per the linked study. so defend the position that trumpism isn't a cult, if that's your position.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
do you guys remember this thread? the lack of a coherent or much of any trump supporter response, was very telling.
Created:
Posted in:
Instead of accepting evidence of the supernatural, many skeptics reject the science and revert to thinking naturalism explains everything. It's nothing more than "science can't explain it, but it WILL". They can then reject anything and everything, and they do. "I don't have an answer... but my answer is right"
Created:
questions, comments, words of wisdom?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
this is a super obtuse/illogical/stupid response. if we observe people describing what happens outside their body, and blind people are seeing for the first time, and there's a whole book 'evidence of the afterlife', and there's the philophsical point that these are coherent elaborate afterlife stories that they have no doubt about and are more real than their earthly life and with common themes like tunnels meeting dead relatives seeing a being a light, speaking telepathically, that doesn't happen anywhere else with drugs dreams and hallucinations... then this is objectively evidence of the afterlife. to say it's all just interesting yet pretend we can't know anything about it is idiotic. these are all evidences of the afterlife, and at least arguably solid points to say God exists. you simply asserting evidence isn't evidence doesn't change anything.... it just shows you are not being rational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
evidence: God, christianity, miracles, NDEs, the afterlife
Created:
Posted in:
the beast is awakening...
destruction is at hand...
let the bodies hit the floor
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
u'd only be paying taxes if you're making profit. if you're making profit, you're gettin ahead in life, and doin what u love
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
...
Created:
U should work yourself up to being a mega farmer and mass produce chickens and eggs
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You are core debateart. Ignore the haters
Created:
Which would you rather have? Im mostly curious how many would say a comfortable lie
Created:
Posted in:
i think it might boil down to whether the ends justify the means. a lot of people stupidly stick to ideology and think the end never justifies the means... they say hitler was at one point just an innocent baby, and that dropping the bomb was a just response to a bad guy. in truth, the moral thing is that we all know hitler was bound to be bad, even if he was innocent at time time. it's like not pushing an innocent person into traffic if it'd save lots of people. it's absolutely immoral not to do what's necessary for the greater good. it's called proportionalism. that's not saying all bad things can be justified, only if it's proportional. i know me being a christian who believes in proportionalism is controversial, but i dont care. there's not clear authoritative teaching on this, so i use the gift of reason that God gave me
Created:
Statement 3: given that trump has sex with porn stars, that makes trump himself a porn star
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
what say you to these charges?
Created:
Posted in:
you worship satan when you should be worshipping carrot God.
blasphemy!
Created:
i know i'm condemned cause i have eaten carrots. but i still have converted to Carrot God. let Carrot God be true, though every man a liar. if Carrot God condemns me, i deserve to be condemned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I have not not not not eaten a carrot.
then Carrot God will not not not not eat you. that's the way it works in this afterlife, right?
Created: