A Jew hating Catholic and a Catholic hating Protestant walk into a bar; bartender says. . .

yawny06 said:

---

So this thread has devolved into a couple of posters trying to lecture each other over how to be a Christian by

1.) Condemning each other to hell
2.) Wanting to fold someone
3.) Challenging one to a boxing match

Yep, that is exactly what Jesus wanted us to do…

---

Boxing is a fantastic sport and it is very masculine. That's how men settle things; when they reach an impasse. BG Knocc Out has disparaged my faith that is the most important thing of my life; and he has said he could fold me up easily. I responded. There's no hate. I'm a boxing enthusiast, if you look at my posting history you'll see I post from all the boxing matches I attend. I also hate a boxing club with 3-4 texags members who are also Catholic.

Dies Irae said:

---

My late father spoke both Koine Greek and could converse intellectually about Aramaic; he was a Catholic Deacon and lectured at St.Mary's Seminary in his retirement, I am lucky that I was able to attend his classes.

Again, the Biblical canon wasn't accepted until the year 400 or so (the Synod of Carthage actually has in the notes that the canon is only confirmed once the Church of Rome confirms), so it's well after the period of the Early Church you mentioned.

---

It's just crazy how out of lockstep the modern Catholic church is with the actual word of God that they were instrumental in assembling. Baptizo clearly means to immerse, but Catholics, at some point, decided "sprinkling" was the way...prob some council of xxx in 1300AD or something. Adults were baptized in the Bible of their own choosing because of their faith...there is no scripture that tells us children go straight to hell if not baptized, much less sprinkled. A baby can't even comprehend more than it's basic needs...how could it possibly face judgment? ...do Catholics think a 1 year old who passes goes to hell? A one week old? A baby aborted at 8 months?

At one point, weren't indulgences allowed? That is EVIL imo. Jesus would have flipped over tables and driven so many Catholic leaders out with whips over time.

There are so many man made practices and beliefs that just do not have any basis in scripture that the modern Catholic church has tacked on over the centuries. "Elders in the church" for instance, isn't talking about some elaborate powerful hierarchy...it's just calling for church leaders to act as shepherds over the flock and to oversee managerial church matters within that church.

There is ZERO basis for a pope in the bible. ZERO. Follow scripture and not man and one day you may see the light.

Quote:

---

Boxing is a fantastic sport and it is very masculine. That's how men settle things; when they reach an impasse.

---

Really?

Love thy neighbor as thyself unless we disagree on the Bible. Then we box.

What impact do you think the Church organization has on a daily basis above the Diocesan level? For the vast majority of Catholics, 95% of their interactions with clergy is at the Parish level. Occasionally the Diocese may dictate something. Above that it is mostly the Church administrating itself and very rarely does the higher levels of the Church change much of anything that affects the members at the base level, The Catholic church is a very slow turning ship.

For most of us, it is the parishioners and the Parish priest, not unlike any Protestant church and its minister except that the teachings are far less subject to the personal interpretations of said priest. Having a consistent Orthodox church teaching is a very valuable thing that shouldn't be so easily overlooked. I can go into any Catholic Church anywhere in the world and hear the same readings, recognize the same rituals, and engage in the same sacraments. Who the priest is doesn't matter.

You place so much emphasis on the clergy and the hierarchy, while the Church itself de-emphasizes the importance of specific clergy in the parish. It is one of the reasons priests are moved around a lot. It shouldn't matter who the priest is, what matters is what happens in the church, the Mass, the Scripture, the Eucharist, the sacraments, etc.

It is one of the great problems I see with modern Protestant churches, too much of a particular church is built around the person leading that particular church. There is no consistency. When a problem with that person arises or they just leave for whatever reason, the church flounders because the new guy has his own version of things, and the people leave to find somewhere else that fits their personal version of what their church should teach. I've watched this happen repeatedly with protestants I know. I am not trying to be overly critical, there are a lot of things these churches do that I think are admirable and do better than Catholics, engaging their youth for example.

Dies Irae said:

---

yawny06 said:

---

So this thread has devolved into a couple of posters trying to lecture each other over how to be a Christian by

1.) Condemning each other to hell
2.) Wanting to fold someone
3.) Challenging one to a boxing match

Yep, that is exactly what Jesus wanted us to do…

---

Boxing is a fantastic sport and it is very masculine. That's how men settle things; when they reach an impasse. BG Knocc Out has disparaged my faith that is the most important thing of my life; and he has said he could fold me up easily. I responded. There's no hate. I'm a boxing enthusiast, if you look at my posting history you'll see I post from all the boxing matches I attend. I also hate a boxing club with 3-4 texags members who are also Catholic.

---

I don't hate you FWIW but I am tempted to box, even with zero training, only relying on my SEC linebacker physique and an extraordinarily high God-given IQ. I do get p*ssed when people hint at imposing Catholicism on me or my country (which many of us know that is what you want) or telling me I'm going to hell or that I do not know scripture. I have not studied the history of the Catholic church, but I have studied the heck out of the Bible.

We will never convert one another, I do apologize for getting so pissed. Some of it probably stems from past BS.

i also don't like your views on race, having a mixed race child who I am raising to be a God fearing Christian.

American Hardwood said:

---

What impact do you think the Church organization has on a daily basis above the Diocesan level? For the vast majority of Catholics, 95% of their interactions with clergy is at the Parish level. Occasionally the Diocese may dictate something. Above that it is mostly the Church administrating itself and very rarely does the higher levels of the Church change much of anything that affects the members at the base level, The Catholic church is a very slow turning ship.

For most of us, it is the parishioners and the Parish priest, not unlike any Protestant church and its minister except that the teachings are far less subject to the personal interpretations of said priest. Having a consistent Orthodox church teaching is a very valuable thing that shouldn't be so easily overlooked. I can go into any Catholic Church anywhere in the world and hear the same readings, recognize the same rituals, and engage in the same sacraments. Who the priest is doesn't matter.

You place so much emphasis on the clergy and the hierarchy, while the Church itself de-emphasizes the importance of specific clergy in the parish. It is one of the reasons priests are moved around a lot. It shouldn't matter who the priest is, what matters is what happens in the church, the Mass, the Scripture, the Eucharist, the sacraments, etc.

It is one of the great problems I see with modern Protestant churches, too much of a particular church is built around the person leading that particular church. There is no consistency. When a problem with that person arises or they just leave for whatever reason, the church flounders because the new guy has his own version of things, and the people leave to find somewhere else that fits their personal version of what their church should teach. I've watched this happen repeatedly with protestants I know. I am not trying to be overly critical, there are a lot of things these churches do that I think are admirable and do better than Catholics, engaging their youth for example.

---

All I will say is this...there are a lot of crappy churches Protestant/Non-denominational and Catholic. Regardless of where people fall, they should do their due diligence and choose wisely...make sure that church follows scripture as closely as possible imo.

And yes, if our current preacher resigned and was replaced by someone who took extra liberties or came from a liberal angle or was not very effective at conveying the message, I would probably consider finding another church. But look at your own liberal marxist Pope as well. He makes "Dr. money" and spreads vile filth ideology.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

My late father spoke both Koine Greek and could converse intellectually about Aramaic; he was a Catholic Deacon and lectured at St.Mary's Seminary in his retirement, I am lucky that I was able to attend his classes.

Again, the Biblical canon wasn't accepted until the year 400 or so (the Synod of Carthage actually has in the notes that the canon is only confirmed once the Church of Rome confirms), so it's well after the period of the Early Church you mentioned.

---

It's just crazy how out of lockstep the modern Catholic church is with the actual word of God that they were instrumental in assembling. Baptizo clearly means to immerse, but Catholics, at some point, decided "sprinkling" was the way...prob some council of xxx in 1300AD or something. Adults were baptized in the Bible of their own choosing because of their faith...there is no scripture that tells us children go straight to hell if not baptized, much less sprinkled. A baby can't even comprehend more than it's basic needs...how could it possibly face judgment? ...do Catholics think a 1 year old who passes goes to hell? A one week old? A baby aborted at 8 months?

At one point, weren't indulgences allowed? That is EVIL imo. Jesus would have flipped over tables and driven so many Catholic leaders out with whips over time.

There are so many man made practices and beliefs that just do not have any basis in scripture that the modern Catholic church has tacked on over the centuries. "Elders in the church" for instance, isn't talking about some elaborate powerful hierarchy...it's just calling for church leaders to act as shepherds over the flock and to oversee managerial church matters within that church.

There is ZERO basis for a pope in the bible. ZERO. Follow scripture and not man and one day you may see the light.

---

Baptizo has many meanings, it used in the Bible during hand washing for example; or metaphorically when it speaks of being "Baptized in the Holy Spirit" baptizo is also used. The Catholic Church also is fine with immersion, affusion (pouring) and aspersion (sprinkling) all that matters is that water is used, so again the idea that the Catholic Church uses sprinkling is incorrect; it uses all 3, with pouring being the most commonly used.

The Catholic Church does also not teach that children go straight to hell if not baptized. Baptism is critical with both the Gospel of John speaking to the necessity of being born of both water and spirit; and of being re-born; which is baptism. Either way, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear on the following:

This affirmation [the necessity to be baptized] is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church (CCC 847).

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 (CCC 848; cf. 1260).

Indulgences are still allowed, they are a common practice; there is nothing wrong with indulgences. Selling indulgences is the sin of Simony, that was the problem. It was already a sin, sinful men doing sinful things.

Explain to me why the early church councils, including the one in ACTS were made up of the Apostles and their descendants. Why not just random people who were "elders" in church.

Again, where does your information come from? Both Orthodoxy and Catholicism speak to the Primacy of Peter. It is very obvious from the Gospels that Christ has a special charge for Peter; in giving him the keys to the kingdom; in singling him out saying he will pray from him, etc etc. As I mention, from the earliest records of our history, we see Councils needing approval from Rome to cement their findings. Why is this done?

yawny06 said:

---

Quote:

---

Boxing is a fantastic sport and it is very masculine. That's how men settle things; when they reach an impasse.

---

Really?

Love thy neighbor as thyself unless we disagree on the Bible. Then we box.

---

Have you had your testosterone levels checked? Do you think boxing is some inherently wicked or brutish endeavor?

You seem to be so much more focused on telling everyone what Catholics do wrong than what your faith does right. Seems kind of telling me. I am filled with the love of my faith while you seem to be filled with despising another. It feels like you are dangerously close to making statements quoted in the OP that got this thread kicked off.

You seem to have a lot of questions about why Catholics believe what they do. It isn't arbitrary. For the example of infant baptism you can find the answer here as it appears you are misconceived about the practice:

Infant baptism

Here is another one regarding the vestments you showed by graphic depiction:

Vestments

You can disagree with these explanations and others, but do so with theological reasoning. Provide some scriptural counterpoints. However, this discussion should probably be moved to the religion board. Though I do think that it does, to a great degree, fall under the umbrella of the freedom of religion topic of the OP.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

yawny06 said:

---

So this thread has devolved into a couple of posters trying to lecture each other over how to be a Christian by

1.) Condemning each other to hell
2.) Wanting to fold someone
3.) Challenging one to a boxing match

Yep, that is exactly what Jesus wanted us to do…

---

Boxing is a fantastic sport and it is very masculine. That's how men settle things; when they reach an impasse. BG Knocc Out has disparaged my faith that is the most important thing of my life; and he has said he could fold me up easily. I responded. There's no hate. I'm a boxing enthusiast, if you look at my posting history you'll see I post from all the boxing matches I attend. I also hate a boxing club with 3-4 texags members who are also Catholic.

---

I don't hate you FWIW but I am tempted to box, even with zero training, only relying on my SEC linebacker physique and an extraordinarily high God-given IQ. I do get p*ssed when people hint at imposing Catholicism on me or my country (which many of us know that is what you want) or telling me I'm going to hell or that I do not know scripture. I have not studied the history of the Catholic church, but I have studied the heck out of the Bible.

We will never convert one another, I do apologize for getting so pissed. Some of it probably stems from past BS.

i also don't like your views on race, having a mixed race child who I am raising to be a God fearing Christian.

---

You have zero ideas of my views on race. I can tell you from a person that has studied the Bible, personally, communally and in higher education; you have no idea about what you've been told. You're like a person who has watched Happy Gilmore and played some Tiger Woods on playstation lecturing people about the finer points of golf; it is somewhat comical. I don't meant that to be rude, but saying that the first century Church was biblically based is hilarious; there wasn't a bible at the time; and as mentioned several of the books hadn't even yet been written. Can you see how dumb that sounds?

You know so many things that aren't true; you just said many of them in your diatribe against sprinkling and the necessity of baptism.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

What impact do you think the Church organization has on a daily basis above the Diocesan level? For the vast majority of Catholics, 95% of their interactions with clergy is at the Parish level. Occasionally the Diocese may dictate something. Above that it is mostly the Church administrating itself and very rarely does the higher levels of the Church change much of anything that affects the members at the base level, The Catholic church is a very slow turning ship.

For most of us, it is the parishioners and the Parish priest, not unlike any Protestant church and its minister except that the teachings are far less subject to the personal interpretations of said priest. Having a consistent Orthodox church teaching is a very valuable thing that shouldn't be so easily overlooked. I can go into any Catholic Church anywhere in the world and hear the same readings, recognize the same rituals, and engage in the same sacraments. Who the priest is doesn't matter.

You place so much emphasis on the clergy and the hierarchy, while the Church itself de-emphasizes the importance of specific clergy in the parish. It is one of the reasons priests are moved around a lot. It shouldn't matter who the priest is, what matters is what happens in the church, the Mass, the Scripture, the Eucharist, the sacraments, etc.

It is one of the great problems I see with modern Protestant churches, too much of a particular church is built around the person leading that particular church. There is no consistency. When a problem with that person arises or they just leave for whatever reason, the church flounders because the new guy has his own version of things, and the people leave to find somewhere else that fits their personal version of what their church should teach. I've watched this happen repeatedly with protestants I know. I am not trying to be overly critical, there are a lot of things these churches do that I think are admirable and do better than Catholics, engaging their youth for example.

---

All I will say is this...there are a lot of crappy churches Protestant/Non-denominational and Catholic. Regardless of where people fall, they should do their due diligence and choose wisely...make sure that church follows scripture as closely as possible imo.

And yes, if our current preacher resigned and was replaced by someone who took extra liberties or came from a liberal angle or was not very effective at conveying the message, I would probably consider finding another church. But look at your own liberal marxist Pope as well. He makes "Dr. money" and spreads vile filth ideology.

---

Yes, this particular Pope is off the reservation in many regards but understand that there is not a lot he can do unilaterally to change Church doctrine. There have been many bad Popes in the past, some much, much worse than Francis. The Pope is not a king and we are not his subjects.

American Hardwood said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

What impact do you think the Church organization has on a daily basis above the Diocesan level? For the vast majority of Catholics, 95% of their interactions with clergy is at the Parish level. Occasionally the Diocese may dictate something. Above that it is mostly the Church administrating itself and very rarely does the higher levels of the Church change much of anything that affects the members at the base level, The Catholic church is a very slow turning ship.

For most of us, it is the parishioners and the Parish priest, not unlike any Protestant church and its minister except that the teachings are far less subject to the personal interpretations of said priest. Having a consistent Orthodox church teaching is a very valuable thing that shouldn't be so easily overlooked. I can go into any Catholic Church anywhere in the world and hear the same readings, recognize the same rituals, and engage in the same sacraments. Who the priest is doesn't matter.

You place so much emphasis on the clergy and the hierarchy, while the Church itself de-emphasizes the importance of specific clergy in the parish. It is one of the reasons priests are moved around a lot. It shouldn't matter who the priest is, what matters is what happens in the church, the Mass, the Scripture, the Eucharist, the sacraments, etc.

It is one of the great problems I see with modern Protestant churches, too much of a particular church is built around the person leading that particular church. There is no consistency. When a problem with that person arises or they just leave for whatever reason, the church flounders because the new guy has his own version of things, and the people leave to find somewhere else that fits their personal version of what their church should teach. I've watched this happen repeatedly with protestants I know. I am not trying to be overly critical, there are a lot of things these churches do that I think are admirable and do better than Catholics, engaging their youth for example.

---

All I will say is this...there are a lot of crappy churches Protestant/Non-denominational and Catholic. Regardless of where people fall, they should do their due diligence and choose wisely...make sure that church follows scripture as closely as possible imo.

And yes, if our current preacher resigned and was replaced by someone who took extra liberties or came from a liberal angle or was not very effective at conveying the message, I would probably consider finding another church. But look at your own liberal marxist Pope as well. He makes "Dr. money" and spreads vile filth ideology.

---

Yes, this particular Pope is off the reservation in many regards but understand that there is not a lot he can do unilaterally to change Church doctrine. There have been many bad Popes in the past, some much, much worse than Francis. The Pope is not a king and we are not his subjects.

---

He's not a King, but he is the Vicar. Never forget that. He has his authority delegated to him BY the King.

Quote:

---

Have you had your testosterone levels checked? Do you think boxing is some inherently wicked or brutish endeavor?

---

No.

However, in the context of this "argument", I find hilariously ironic.

American Hardwood said:

---

You seem to be so much more focused on telling everyone what Catholics do wrong than what your faith does right. Seems kind of telling me. I am filled with the love of my faith while you seem to be filled with despising another. It feels like you are dangerously close to making statements quoted in the OP that got this thread kicked off.

You seem to have a lot of questions about why Catholics believe what they do. It isn't arbitrary. For the example of infant baptism you can find the answer here as it appears you are misconceived about the practice:

Infant baptism

Here is another one regarding the vestments you showed by graphic depiction:

Vestments

You can disagree with these explanations and others, but do so with theological reasoning. Provide some scriptural counterpoints. However, this discussion should probably be moved to the religion board. Though I do think that it does, to a great degree, fall under the umbrella of the freedom of religion topic of the OP.

---

What our faith does right, imo, is make every effort to follow scripture as closely as possible and not add onto it. I feel like the Catholic church has taken a lot of liberties here. I know I am not alone.

I also don't know why the Catholic faith does not follow the baptism blueprint outlined in the Bible. Jesus was literally dunked/immersed under the water. So were his followers. To everyone alive back then, "Baptizo" meant to fully immerse...not to trickle water. One of my protestant buddies once told me it was because some Catholic leader centuries ago fell gravely ill and they could not properly baptize him so they ran water over his head, later declaring that this was sufficient. Sounds like lore to me, but I am curious as to how some council centuries later had authority to change something that is so clearly laid out in the Bible.

I also do not believe there is biblical basis to elevate ANY man between us and Christ...even if symbolically. The catholic church has taken an extraordinary amount of liberties in adding onto the Bible over the centuries imo.

Dies Irae said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

What impact do you think the Church organization has on a daily basis above the Diocesan level? For the vast majority of Catholics, 95% of their interactions with clergy is at the Parish level. Occasionally the Diocese may dictate something. Above that it is mostly the Church administrating itself and very rarely does the higher levels of the Church change much of anything that affects the members at the base level, The Catholic church is a very slow turning ship.

For most of us, it is the parishioners and the Parish priest, not unlike any Protestant church and its minister except that the teachings are far less subject to the personal interpretations of said priest. Having a consistent Orthodox church teaching is a very valuable thing that shouldn't be so easily overlooked. I can go into any Catholic Church anywhere in the world and hear the same readings, recognize the same rituals, and engage in the same sacraments. Who the priest is doesn't matter.

You place so much emphasis on the clergy and the hierarchy, while the Church itself de-emphasizes the importance of specific clergy in the parish. It is one of the reasons priests are moved around a lot. It shouldn't matter who the priest is, what matters is what happens in the church, the Mass, the Scripture, the Eucharist, the sacraments, etc.

It is one of the great problems I see with modern Protestant churches, too much of a particular church is built around the person leading that particular church. There is no consistency. When a problem with that person arises or they just leave for whatever reason, the church flounders because the new guy has his own version of things, and the people leave to find somewhere else that fits their personal version of what their church should teach. I've watched this happen repeatedly with protestants I know. I am not trying to be overly critical, there are a lot of things these churches do that I think are admirable and do better than Catholics, engaging their youth for example.

---

All I will say is this...there are a lot of crappy churches Protestant/Non-denominational and Catholic. Regardless of where people fall, they should do their due diligence and choose wisely...make sure that church follows scripture as closely as possible imo.

And yes, if our current preacher resigned and was replaced by someone who took extra liberties or came from a liberal angle or was not very effective at conveying the message, I would probably consider finding another church. But look at your own liberal marxist Pope as well. He makes "Dr. money" and spreads vile filth ideology.

---

Yes, this particular Pope is off the reservation in many regards but understand that there is not a lot he can do unilaterally to change Church doctrine. There have been many bad Popes in the past, some much, much worse than Francis. The Pope is not a king and we are not his subjects.

---

He's not a King, but he is the Vicar. Never forget that. He has his authority delegated to him BY the King.

---

Even this Pope? If he wasn't Catholic you would hate him.

Quote:

---

We will never convert one another, I do apologize for getting so pissed. Some of it probably stems from past BS.

---

Maybe you two should stop trying to convert one another (convert to what, I am not sure), and understand that:

1.) If you both believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior, and part of the Triune God
2.) That He died for not just your sins, but the sins of the whole world
3.) And that on the 3rd day He was resurrected

Then you are both brothers in Christ, and what you are both arguing about on an internet politics forum is, frankly, quite silly.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

What impact do you think the Church organization has on a daily basis above the Diocesan level? For the vast majority of Catholics, 95% of their interactions with clergy is at the Parish level. Occasionally the Diocese may dictate something. Above that it is mostly the Church administrating itself and very rarely does the higher levels of the Church change much of anything that affects the members at the base level, The Catholic church is a very slow turning ship.

For most of us, it is the parishioners and the Parish priest, not unlike any Protestant church and its minister except that the teachings are far less subject to the personal interpretations of said priest. Having a consistent Orthodox church teaching is a very valuable thing that shouldn't be so easily overlooked. I can go into any Catholic Church anywhere in the world and hear the same readings, recognize the same rituals, and engage in the same sacraments. Who the priest is doesn't matter.

You place so much emphasis on the clergy and the hierarchy, while the Church itself de-emphasizes the importance of specific clergy in the parish. It is one of the reasons priests are moved around a lot. It shouldn't matter who the priest is, what matters is what happens in the church, the Mass, the Scripture, the Eucharist, the sacraments, etc.

It is one of the great problems I see with modern Protestant churches, too much of a particular church is built around the person leading that particular church. There is no consistency. When a problem with that person arises or they just leave for whatever reason, the church flounders because the new guy has his own version of things, and the people leave to find somewhere else that fits their personal version of what their church should teach. I've watched this happen repeatedly with protestants I know. I am not trying to be overly critical, there are a lot of things these churches do that I think are admirable and do better than Catholics, engaging their youth for example.

---

All I will say is this...there are a lot of crappy churches Protestant/Non-denominational and Catholic. Regardless of where people fall, they should do their due diligence and choose wisely...make sure that church follows scripture as closely as possible imo.

And yes, if our current preacher resigned and was replaced by someone who took extra liberties or came from a liberal angle or was not very effective at conveying the message, I would probably consider finding another church. But look at your own liberal marxist Pope as well. He makes "Dr. money" and spreads vile filth ideology.

---

Yes, this particular Pope is off the reservation in many regards but understand that there is not a lot he can do unilaterally to change Church doctrine. There have been many bad Popes in the past, some much, much worse than Francis. The Pope is not a king and we are not his subjects.

---

He's not a King, but he is the Vicar. Never forget that. He has his authority delegated to him BY the King.

---

Even this Pope? If he wasn't Catholic you would hate him.

---

Yes, Even this Pope. Barack Obama was President of the United States. You can hate him, but you can't say he wasn't President.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

You seem to be so much more focused on telling everyone what Catholics do wrong than what your faith does right. Seems kind of telling me. I am filled with the love of my faith while you seem to be filled with despising another. It feels like you are dangerously close to making statements quoted in the OP that got this thread kicked off.

You seem to have a lot of questions about why Catholics believe what they do. It isn't arbitrary. For the example of infant baptism you can find the answer here as it appears you are misconceived about the practice:

Infant baptism

Here is another one regarding the vestments you showed by graphic depiction:

Vestments

You can disagree with these explanations and others, but do so with theological reasoning. Provide some scriptural counterpoints. However, this discussion should probably be moved to the religion board. Though I do think that it does, to a great degree, fall under the umbrella of the freedom of religion topic of the OP.

---

What our faith does right, imo, is make every effort to follow scripture as closely as possible and not add onto it. I feel like the Catholic church has taken a lot of liberties here. I know I am not alone.

I also don't know why the Catholic faith does not follow the baptism blueprint outlined in the Bible. Jesus was literally dunked/immersed under the water. So were his followers. To everyone alive back then, "Baptizo" meant to fully immerse...not to trickle water. One of my protestant buddies once told me it was because some Catholic leader centuries ago fell gravely ill and they could not properly baptize him so they ran water over his head, later declaring that this was sufficient. Sounds like lore to me, but I am curious as to how some council centuries later had authority to change something that is so clearly laid out in the Bible.

I also do not believe there is biblical basis to elevate ANY man between us and Christ...even if symbolically. The catholic church has taken an extraordinary amount of liberties in adding onto the Bible over the centuries imo.

---

This sounds like where you get most of your information on Church history and Catholicism.

True, but my response was directed at those that seem to misconceive what the Pope is. For the record, I think a lot of Catholics misconceive the Pope's role too. It's kind of funny really, non-Catholics spend far more time talking about the higher church order than any Catholic I know. After 12 years of Catholics school education, I can't even recall spending much time getting into the intricacies of higher church hierarchy. My education was far more focused on Christ Himself, the sacraments, and general Catholicism than it ever was on Church hierarchy.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

You seem to be so much more focused on telling everyone what Catholics do wrong than what your faith does right. Seems kind of telling me. I am filled with the love of my faith while you seem to be filled with despising another. It feels like you are dangerously close to making statements quoted in the OP that got this thread kicked off.

You seem to have a lot of questions about why Catholics believe what they do. It isn't arbitrary. For the example of infant baptism you can find the answer here as it appears you are misconceived about the practice:

Infant baptism

Here is another one regarding the vestments you showed by graphic depiction:

Vestments

You can disagree with these explanations and others, but do so with theological reasoning. Provide some scriptural counterpoints. However, this discussion should probably be moved to the religion board. Though I do think that it does, to a great degree, fall under the umbrella of the freedom of religion topic of the OP.

---

What our faith does right, imo, is make every effort to follow scripture as closely as possible and not add onto it. I feel like the Catholic church has taken a lot of liberties here. I know I am not alone.

I also don't know why the Catholic faith does not follow the baptism blueprint outlined in the Bible. Jesus was literally dunked/immersed under the water. So were his followers. To everyone alive back then, "Baptizo" meant to fully immerse...not to trickle water. One of my protestant buddies once told me it was because some Catholic leader centuries ago fell gravely ill and they could not properly baptize him so they ran water over his head, later declaring that this was sufficient. Sounds like lore to me, but I am curious as to how some council centuries later had authority to change something that is so clearly laid out in the Bible.

I also do not believe there is biblical basis to elevate ANY man between us and Christ...even if symbolically. The catholic church has taken an extraordinary amount of liberties in adding onto the Bible over the centuries imo.

---

Also, this is from the Didache; in 70 AD (does this count as early church)?

"Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

You seem to be so much more focused on telling everyone what Catholics do wrong than what your faith does right. Seems kind of telling me. I am filled with the love of my faith while you seem to be filled with despising another. It feels like you are dangerously close to making statements quoted in the OP that got this thread kicked off.

You seem to have a lot of questions about why Catholics believe what they do. It isn't arbitrary. For the example of infant baptism you can find the answer here as it appears you are misconceived about the practice:

Infant baptism

Here is another one regarding the vestments you showed by graphic depiction:

Vestments

You can disagree with these explanations and others, but do so with theological reasoning. Provide some scriptural counterpoints. However, this discussion should probably be moved to the religion board. Though I do think that it does, to a great degree, fall under the umbrella of the freedom of religion topic of the OP.

---

What our faith does right, imo, is make every effort to follow scripture as closely as possible and not add onto it. I feel like the Catholic church has taken a lot of liberties here. I know I am not alone.

I also don't know why the Catholic faith does not follow the baptism blueprint outlined in the Bible. Jesus was literally dunked/immersed under the water. So were his followers. To everyone alive back then, "Baptizo" meant to fully immerse...not to trickle water. One of my protestant buddies once told me it was because some Catholic leader centuries ago fell gravely ill and they could not properly baptize him so they ran water over his head, later declaring that this was sufficient. Sounds like lore to me, but I am curious as to how some council centuries later had authority to change something that is so clearly laid out in the Bible.

I also do not believe there is biblical basis to elevate ANY man between us and Christ...even if symbolically. The catholic church has taken an extraordinary amount of liberties in adding onto the Bible over the centuries imo.

---

This sounds like where you get most of your information on Church history and Catholicism.

---

Here for more on immersive or pouring for Baptism.

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

yawny06 said:

---

So this thread has devolved into a couple of posters trying to lecture each other over how to be a Christian by

1.) Condemning each other to hell
2.) Wanting to fold someone
3.) Challenging one to a boxing match

Yep, that is exactly what Jesus wanted us to do…

---

Boxing is a fantastic sport and it is very masculine. That's how men settle things; when they reach an impasse. BG Knocc Out has disparaged my faith that is the most important thing of my life; and he has said he could fold me up easily. I responded. There's no hate. I'm a boxing enthusiast, if you look at my posting history you'll see I post from all the boxing matches I attend. I also hate a boxing club with 3-4 texags members who are also Catholic.

---

I don't hate you FWIW but I am tempted to box, even with zero training, only relying on my SEC linebacker physique and an extraordinarily high God-given IQ. I do get p*ssed when people hint at imposing Catholicism on me or my country (which many of us know that is what you want) or telling me I'm going to hell or that I do not know scripture. I have not studied the history of the Catholic church, but I have studied the heck out of the Bible.

We will never convert one another, I do apologize for getting so pissed. Some of it probably stems from past BS.

i also don't like your views on race, having a mixed race child who I am raising to be a God fearing Christian.

---

You have zero ideas of my views on race. I can tell you from a person that has studied the Bible, personally, communally and in higher education; you have no idea about what you've been told. You're like a person who has watched Happy Gilmore and played some Tiger Woods on playstation lecturing people about the finer points of golf; it is somewhat comical. I don't meant that to be rude, but saying that the first century Church was biblically based is hilarious; there wasn't a bible at the time; and as mentioned several of the books hadn't even yet been written. Can you see how dumb that sounds?

You know so many things that aren't true; you just said many of them in your diatribe against sprinkling and the necessity of baptism.

---

The earliest church had the direct letters and teachings of the apostles (and Jesus), which would later comprise a lot of the Bible. That better? My only point was that most Protestant churches more closely resemble early pre-Catholic and Catholic groups of Christ followers (churches) than the modern Catholic church does.



What do you think Jesus was doing on the Sermon on the Mount...just a self-rehearsal? What about the apostles risking their lives traveling to foreign hostile lands to spread Jesus's message through spoken and written word/letters?

I am glad the early organized church was able to organize these types of documents for our use today.

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

You seem to be so much more focused on telling everyone what Catholics do wrong than what your faith does right. Seems kind of telling me. I am filled with the love of my faith while you seem to be filled with despising another. It feels like you are dangerously close to making statements quoted in the OP that got this thread kicked off.

You seem to have a lot of questions about why Catholics believe what they do. It isn't arbitrary. For the example of infant baptism you can find the answer here as it appears you are misconceived about the practice:

Infant baptism

Here is another one regarding the vestments you showed by graphic depiction:

Vestments

You can disagree with these explanations and others, but do so with theological reasoning. Provide some scriptural counterpoints. However, this discussion should probably be moved to the religion board. Though I do think that it does, to a great degree, fall under the umbrella of the freedom of religion topic of the OP.

---

What our faith does right, imo, is make every effort to follow scripture as closely as possible and not add onto it. I feel like the Catholic church has taken a lot of liberties here. I know I am not alone.

I also don't know why the Catholic faith does not follow the baptism blueprint outlined in the Bible. Jesus was literally dunked/immersed under the water. So were his followers. To everyone alive back then, "Baptizo" meant to fully immerse...not to trickle water. One of my protestant buddies once told me it was because some Catholic leader centuries ago fell gravely ill and they could not properly baptize him so they ran water over his head, later declaring that this was sufficient. Sounds like lore to me, but I am curious as to how some council centuries later had authority to change something that is so clearly laid out in the Bible.

I also do not believe there is biblical basis to elevate ANY man between us and Christ...even if symbolically. The catholic church has taken an extraordinary amount of liberties in adding onto the Bible over the centuries imo.

---

Also, this is from the Didache; in 70 AD (does this count as early church)?

"Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

---

Sounds unbiblical...like a random first century man just making things up.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

yawny06 said:

---

So this thread has devolved into a couple of posters trying to lecture each other over how to be a Christian by

1.) Condemning each other to hell
2.) Wanting to fold someone
3.) Challenging one to a boxing match

Yep, that is exactly what Jesus wanted us to do…

---

Boxing is a fantastic sport and it is very masculine. That's how men settle things; when they reach an impasse. BG Knocc Out has disparaged my faith that is the most important thing of my life; and he has said he could fold me up easily. I responded. There's no hate. I'm a boxing enthusiast, if you look at my posting history you'll see I post from all the boxing matches I attend. I also hate a boxing club with 3-4 texags members who are also Catholic.

---

I don't hate you FWIW but I am tempted to box, even with zero training, only relying on my SEC linebacker physique and an extraordinarily high God-given IQ. I do get p*ssed when people hint at imposing Catholicism on me or my country (which many of us know that is what you want) or telling me I'm going to hell or that I do not know scripture. I have not studied the history of the Catholic church, but I have studied the heck out of the Bible.

We will never convert one another, I do apologize for getting so pissed. Some of it probably stems from past BS.

i also don't like your views on race, having a mixed race child who I am raising to be a God fearing Christian.

---

You have zero ideas of my views on race. I can tell you from a person that has studied the Bible, personally, communally and in higher education; you have no idea about what you've been told. You're like a person who has watched Happy Gilmore and played some Tiger Woods on playstation lecturing people about the finer points of golf; it is somewhat comical. I don't meant that to be rude, but saying that the first century Church was biblically based is hilarious; there wasn't a bible at the time; and as mentioned several of the books hadn't even yet been written. Can you see how dumb that sounds?

You know so many things that aren't true; you just said many of them in your diatribe against sprinkling and the necessity of baptism.

---

The earliest church had the direct letters and teachings of the apostles (and Jesus), which would later comprise a lot of the Bible. That better? My only point was that most Protestant churches more closely resemble early pre-Catholic and Catholic groups of Christ followers (churches) than your church does.



What do you think Jesus was doing on the Sermon on the Mount...just a self-rehearsal? What about the apostles risking their lives traveling to foreign hostile lands to spread Jesus's message through spoken and written word/letters?

I am glad the early organized church was able to organize these types of documents for our use today.

---

The early church had an absolute ton of letters, epistles, stories, parables and the like; many of which like the Gospel of Thomas or the Protoevangelium of James did not make it into the Biblical canon.

Apostolic Succession was instituted to make sure that the teachings were passed on from one generation to the next in an unbroken line to assure Orthodoxy. This is why the Apostles passed on their teachings to the Bishops.

The rite of the Church is ancient. Mass has been celebrated the same way for 2,000 years. What is it about my church, which you claim to not have studied that makes you believe that it's less authentic than most Protestant Churches?

Quote:

---

I also do not believe there is biblical basis to elevate ANY man between us and Christ...even if symbolically. The catholic church has taken an extraordinary amount of liberties in adding onto the Bible over the centuries imo.

---

One Mediator Between God and Men

Perhaps this will help.

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

You seem to be so much more focused on telling everyone what Catholics do wrong than what your faith does right. Seems kind of telling me. I am filled with the love of my faith while you seem to be filled with despising another. It feels like you are dangerously close to making statements quoted in the OP that got this thread kicked off.

You seem to have a lot of questions about why Catholics believe what they do. It isn't arbitrary. For the example of infant baptism you can find the answer here as it appears you are misconceived about the practice:

Infant baptism

Here is another one regarding the vestments you showed by graphic depiction:

Vestments

You can disagree with these explanations and others, but do so with theological reasoning. Provide some scriptural counterpoints. However, this discussion should probably be moved to the religion board. Though I do think that it does, to a great degree, fall under the umbrella of the freedom of religion topic of the OP.

---

What our faith does right, imo, is make every effort to follow scripture as closely as possible and not add onto it. I feel like the Catholic church has taken a lot of liberties here. I know I am not alone.

I also don't know why the Catholic faith does not follow the baptism blueprint outlined in the Bible. Jesus was literally dunked/immersed under the water. So were his followers. To everyone alive back then, "Baptizo" meant to fully immerse...not to trickle water. One of my protestant buddies once told me it was because some Catholic leader centuries ago fell gravely ill and they could not properly baptize him so they ran water over his head, later declaring that this was sufficient. Sounds like lore to me, but I am curious as to how some council centuries later had authority to change something that is so clearly laid out in the Bible.

I also do not believe there is biblical basis to elevate ANY man between us and Christ...even if symbolically. The catholic church has taken an extraordinary amount of liberties in adding onto the Bible over the centuries imo.

---

This sounds like where you get most of your information on Church history and Catholicism.

---

It honestly would be half believable given some of the antics of the Catholic church over the centuries. Screw it, I believe him.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

You seem to be so much more focused on telling everyone what Catholics do wrong than what your faith does right. Seems kind of telling me. I am filled with the love of my faith while you seem to be filled with despising another. It feels like you are dangerously close to making statements quoted in the OP that got this thread kicked off.

You seem to have a lot of questions about why Catholics believe what they do. It isn't arbitrary. For the example of infant baptism you can find the answer here as it appears you are misconceived about the practice:

Infant baptism

Here is another one regarding the vestments you showed by graphic depiction:

Vestments

You can disagree with these explanations and others, but do so with theological reasoning. Provide some scriptural counterpoints. However, this discussion should probably be moved to the religion board. Though I do think that it does, to a great degree, fall under the umbrella of the freedom of religion topic of the OP.

---

What our faith does right, imo, is make every effort to follow scripture as closely as possible and not add onto it. I feel like the Catholic church has taken a lot of liberties here. I know I am not alone.

I also don't know why the Catholic faith does not follow the baptism blueprint outlined in the Bible. Jesus was literally dunked/immersed under the water. So were his followers. To everyone alive back then, "Baptizo" meant to fully immerse...not to trickle water. One of my protestant buddies once told me it was because some Catholic leader centuries ago fell gravely ill and they could not properly baptize him so they ran water over his head, later declaring that this was sufficient. Sounds like lore to me, but I am curious as to how some council centuries later had authority to change something that is so clearly laid out in the Bible.

I also do not believe there is biblical basis to elevate ANY man between us and Christ...even if symbolically. The catholic church has taken an extraordinary amount of liberties in adding onto the Bible over the centuries imo.

---

Also, this is from the Didache; in 70 AD (does this count as early church)?

"Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

---

Sounds unbiblical...like a random first century man just making things up.

---

Again, this is from AD 70, so it would likely be considered unbiblical, given that it predates the Bible by 330 years. Is this the first you've heard of the Didache?

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

You seem to be so much more focused on telling everyone what Catholics do wrong than what your faith does right. Seems kind of telling me. I am filled with the love of my faith while you seem to be filled with despising another. It feels like you are dangerously close to making statements quoted in the OP that got this thread kicked off.

You seem to have a lot of questions about why Catholics believe what they do. It isn't arbitrary. For the example of infant baptism you can find the answer here as it appears you are misconceived about the practice:

Infant baptism

Here is another one regarding the vestments you showed by graphic depiction:

Vestments

You can disagree with these explanations and others, but do so with theological reasoning. Provide some scriptural counterpoints. However, this discussion should probably be moved to the religion board. Though I do think that it does, to a great degree, fall under the umbrella of the freedom of religion topic of the OP.

---

What our faith does right, imo, is make every effort to follow scripture as closely as possible and not add onto it. I feel like the Catholic church has taken a lot of liberties here. I know I am not alone.

I also don't know why the Catholic faith does not follow the baptism blueprint outlined in the Bible. Jesus was literally dunked/immersed under the water. So were his followers. To everyone alive back then, "Baptizo" meant to fully immerse...not to trickle water. One of my protestant buddies once told me it was because some Catholic leader centuries ago fell gravely ill and they could not properly baptize him so they ran water over his head, later declaring that this was sufficient. Sounds like lore to me, but I am curious as to how some council centuries later had authority to change something that is so clearly laid out in the Bible.

I also do not believe there is biblical basis to elevate ANY man between us and Christ...even if symbolically. The catholic church has taken an extraordinary amount of liberties in adding onto the Bible over the centuries imo.

---

This sounds like where you get most of your information on Church history and Catholicism.

---

It honestly would be half believable given some of the antics of the Catholic church over the centuries. Screw it, I believe him.

---

You could not be a better spokesperson for modern Protestantism. All hat no cattle; zero clue what he believes in but knows for a fact it's authentic.

Quote:

---

What our faith does right, imo, is make every effort to follow scripture as closely as possible and not add onto it. I feel like the Catholic church has taken a lot of liberties here. I know I am not alone.

---

Scripture alone

Since scripture was not written for a few hundred years following Christ, was Christianity invalid until it was recorded in the Bible. I know you do no think that.

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

You seem to be so much more focused on telling everyone what Catholics do wrong than what your faith does right. Seems kind of telling me. I am filled with the love of my faith while you seem to be filled with despising another. It feels like you are dangerously close to making statements quoted in the OP that got this thread kicked off.

You seem to have a lot of questions about why Catholics believe what they do. It isn't arbitrary. For the example of infant baptism you can find the answer here as it appears you are misconceived about the practice:

Infant baptism

Here is another one regarding the vestments you showed by graphic depiction:

Vestments

You can disagree with these explanations and others, but do so with theological reasoning. Provide some scriptural counterpoints. However, this discussion should probably be moved to the religion board. Though I do think that it does, to a great degree, fall under the umbrella of the freedom of religion topic of the OP.

---

What our faith does right, imo, is make every effort to follow scripture as closely as possible and not add onto it. I feel like the Catholic church has taken a lot of liberties here. I know I am not alone.

I also don't know why the Catholic faith does not follow the baptism blueprint outlined in the Bible. Jesus was literally dunked/immersed under the water. So were his followers. To everyone alive back then, "Baptizo" meant to fully immerse...not to trickle water. One of my protestant buddies once told me it was because some Catholic leader centuries ago fell gravely ill and they could not properly baptize him so they ran water over his head, later declaring that this was sufficient. Sounds like lore to me, but I am curious as to how some council centuries later had authority to change something that is so clearly laid out in the Bible.

I also do not believe there is biblical basis to elevate ANY man between us and Christ...even if symbolically. The catholic church has taken an extraordinary amount of liberties in adding onto the Bible over the centuries imo.

---

Also, this is from the Didache; in 70 AD (does this count as early church)?

"Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

---

Sounds unbiblical...like a random first century man just making things up.

---

Again, this is from AD 70, so it would likely be considered unbiblical, given that it predates the Bible by 330 years. Is this the first you've heard of the Didache?

---

I have heard of the Didache but do not believe it to be divinely inspired or legitimate part of the Bible. I only follow the word of God, no matter when it was all aggregated and assembled. I really don't care what non-apostles were saying in the interim. I'll put more trust in the blueprint offered by Jesus and John the Baptist.

American Hardwood said:

---

Quote:

---

What our faith does right, imo, is make every effort to follow scripture as closely as possible and not add onto it. I feel like the Catholic church has taken a lot of liberties here. I know I am not alone.

---

Scripture alone

Since scripture was not written for a few hundred years following Christ, was Christianity invalid until it was recorded in the Bible. I know you do no think that.

---

No, they had the message and raw materials and enough to follow "The Way". When Jesus was evangelizing and performing miracles he was obviously creating Christ followers, even though they didn't have the fully assembled KJV or NIV or anything close to it.

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

You seem to be so much more focused on telling everyone what Catholics do wrong than what your faith does right. Seems kind of telling me. I am filled with the love of my faith while you seem to be filled with despising another. It feels like you are dangerously close to making statements quoted in the OP that got this thread kicked off.

You seem to have a lot of questions about why Catholics believe what they do. It isn't arbitrary. For the example of infant baptism you can find the answer here as it appears you are misconceived about the practice:

Infant baptism

Here is another one regarding the vestments you showed by graphic depiction:

Vestments

You can disagree with these explanations and others, but do so with theological reasoning. Provide some scriptural counterpoints. However, this discussion should probably be moved to the religion board. Though I do think that it does, to a great degree, fall under the umbrella of the freedom of religion topic of the OP.

---

What our faith does right, imo, is make every effort to follow scripture as closely as possible and not add onto it. I feel like the Catholic church has taken a lot of liberties here. I know I am not alone.

I also don't know why the Catholic faith does not follow the baptism blueprint outlined in the Bible. Jesus was literally dunked/immersed under the water. So were his followers. To everyone alive back then, "Baptizo" meant to fully immerse...not to trickle water. One of my protestant buddies once told me it was because some Catholic leader centuries ago fell gravely ill and they could not properly baptize him so they ran water over his head, later declaring that this was sufficient. Sounds like lore to me, but I am curious as to how some council centuries later had authority to change something that is so clearly laid out in the Bible.

I also do not believe there is biblical basis to elevate ANY man between us and Christ...even if symbolically. The catholic church has taken an extraordinary amount of liberties in adding onto the Bible over the centuries imo.

---

This sounds like where you get most of your information on Church history and Catholicism.

---

It honestly would be half believable given some of the antics of the Catholic church over the centuries. Screw it, I believe him.

---

You could not be a better spokesperson for modern Protestantism. All hat no cattle; zero clue what he believes in but knows for a fact it's authentic.

---

You have got to be on some sort of spectrum.

yawny06 said:

---

Quote:

---

We will never convert one another, I do apologize for getting so pissed. Some of it probably stems from past BS.

---

Maybe you two should stop trying to convert one another (convert to what, I am not sure), and understand that:

1.) If you both believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior, and part of the Triune God
2.) That He died for not just your sins, but the sins of the whole world
3.) And that on the 3rd day He was resurrected

Then you are both brothers in Christ, and what you are both arguing about on an internet politics forum is, frankly, quite silly.

---

I can't convert anyone. And I will not try to. That is the work of the Holy Spirit.

But it is right and proper for a Christian to publicly state that only those who have repented and trusted in Christ will go the Heaven. All others will not. Jesus said he is THE WAY. Not 'A WAY'.

It would be unloving to not speak the truth of what we know to be true from scripture.

Quote:

---

I feel like the Catholic church has taken a lot of liberties here. I know I am not alone.

---

This herein is the heart of the problem. You feel. I think much of what you state comes from misconception. To tie this back to the OP. Misconception about what freedom of religion lead to making a ridiculous statement on Twitter.

That's why I posted all the links to what Catholics actually believe. I am not here trying to convert, as was suggested, you are free of course to disagree. I would have it no other way. That is what freedom of religion without persecution IS actually about. My only interest though, is that you disagree with what actually is the Catholic belief and not something you just feel.

Have members of the church erred in the past? Yes. Does that invalidate the religion, no. I don't know what flavor of Protestant you might belong too, but can you state that no Protestant of your faith ever erred? Do you believe that invalidates your belief, because someone in your church sinned? As a Catholic, I would not make that claim.