Proof that Catholicism is true

[Splendid]

I'm a Catholic, and this thread is still based on a retarded premise and you should stop.
God clearly didn't give you the wisdom to know the difference between things you can and can't change buddy.

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

Well just on this thread alone you said you believe animals go to heaven, they don't. Only creatures made in imago dei can go to heaven (that's why euthanising your dog is okay, it doesn't have an immortal soul, only a material one that perishes at death), and "going to heaven" is partaking in the "Beatific vision". I.e: You see everything as god sees it, your will is one with Gods. You've said elsewhere in this thread that relatives might not be watching you all the time, if they're partaking in the beatific vision they are taking part in Gods omiscience.

You flap between arch liberalism and arch conservatism at the drop of a hat. Some of your proposals conflict with each other, that's why Theologians tend to fall in lines of different "schools" such as Scholastics and Thomists. You're darting all over the place.

TL;DR: There is no afterlife for anything but humans. No doggie heaven or hell, and Grandma is watching you wank off.

 

[MW 590]

I'm a Catholic, and this thread is still based on a exceptional premise and you should stop.
God clearly didn't give you the wisdom to know the difference between things you can and can't change buddy.

How do I not know the difference between those things. I know I cannot change anything about God.

Well just on this thread alone you said you believe animals go to heaven, they don't. Only creatures made in imago dei can go to heaven (that's why euthanising your dog is okay, it doesn't have an immortal soul, only a material one that perishes at death), and "going to heaven" is partaking in the "Beatific vision". I.e: You see everything as god sees it, your will is one with Gods. You've said elsewhere in this thread that relatives might not be watching you all the time, if they're partaking in the beatific vision they are taking part in Gods omiscience.

You flap between arch liberalism and arch conservatism at the drop of a hat. Some of your proposals conflict with each other, that's why Theologians tend to fall in lines of different "schools" such as Scholastics and Thomists. You're darting all over the place.

TL;DR: There is no afterlife for anything but humans. No doggie heaven or hell, and Grandma is watching you wank off.

The fact that the Pope believes that animals go to heaven shows that it is not heresy. And it is not Catholic doctrine that the saints are omniscient, it is just that they know all the prayers of people on Earth. https://forums.catholic.com/t/mary-and-the-saints-are-omniscient/205575

 

[MrTroll]

“There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28 Douay Rheims version

No Jews or Greeks? Okay, you've just made your first sale. Sign me up and give me my membership packet.

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

The fact that the Pope believes that animals go to heaven shows that it is not heresy. And it is not Catholic doctrine that the saints are omniscient, it is just that they know all the prayers of people on Earth. https://forums.catholic.com/t/mary-and-the-saints-are-omniscient/205575

The Pope can be a heretic according to Catholicism, as we saw several times in history. Even Peter needed to be corrected by Paul, you said this yourself elsewhere. All he supposedly can't do is declare heresy infalliably, and unless he directly contradicts an earlier statement we have proof of that's basically impossible to even test.

But it shows what shite the idea of declaring or "using the teaching office" is, because the Pope believes animals go to heaven and openly states it when it's clearly heresy said directly to the worlds mass media.

If that's not "declaring", what is really?

https://www.osv.com/Article/TabId/493/ArtMID/13569/ArticleID/16633/Do-animals-go-to-heaven.aspx

No other earthly creature has an immortal spirit for a soul. Their souls are not immortal, but mortal; it’s their nature to come to an end when they die.

Among earthly creatures, then, only humans are truly able to love in the fullest sense of the word. Humans can know and love God and enter into friendship with him in a way that no other earthly creature can.

Through sanctifying grace, the human soul is capable of what we call the Beatific Vision in heaven. That is, it’s capable of entering so fully into a loving union with God that we can see him and know him as he is (cf. 1 Jn 3:2).

But lower animals don’t have, by nature, that kind of soul. Because the human soul is something much higher and greater, it’s possible for humans to have a deep friendship with God in a way that other earthly creatures cannot.

The article in question does point out that the Nouvelle Theologie that claims animals might be granted a place in the afterlife is special pleading based on a lack of comment in the OT (which isn't a suprise, considering Judaism doesn't have a heaven or hell afterlife), but contradicts centuries of Sacred Tradition.

St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, taught that animal “souls” cannot by their nature survive death. Unlike human souls, they are perishable when separated from their proper bodies.

St Thomas Aquinas is the official chief Theologian of the Catholic Church. Who knows better, him or you? I thought Catholics were all about submission to authority.

As for the prayers, you contradict yourself. To know the prayers they would have to know that the prayers were taking place, and where/why. They can sense things from "outside eternity" (more Catholic word salad) automatically even when they're not there. If your apparitions are anything to go by, they also know and weep when people do bad things like masturbate (See "Our Lady of La Salette" about how much Mary cries and how hard she fights to stop Jesus killing everyone).

 

[Splendid]

How do I not know the difference between those things. I know I cannot change anything about God.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

That's what I was referencing.

Anyways, you're probably just trying to troll or whatever, but if you aren't then this shit makes Catholics look bad. You really, really need to go back to square one with this.
If you're dead set on converting people through internet forums (which I highly recommend against, especially since here since now you will always be seen as an outsider who just came here for his own purposes instead of someone who's actually a member of the community who tries to fit in,) you'll need to reconsider everything from your tone in your posting to your selection of forum.

 

[Theolology]

Let's go ahead and throw gas on this dumpster fire and see where it goes.

It's disgusting to conflate a man made political institution with Christ's sacrifice for us, and assume God somehow needs your corrupt organization to thrive.

The catholic church is fully reprobate at this point. Mary worship and idolatry, you can call it 'reverence' all you want, but praying to bathtub statues and the marian processions with incense and chanting shows it for the goddess worship it is.

Mary isn't mentioned that much, and it includes explicit rebuke of propping her up:

“Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed” Luke 11:27
“On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it” Luke 11:28​

Also Peter who is supposed to be the 'rock' of your organization is specifically called out for having Satanic thoughts right after. There is no clear scripture for a pope, several layer deep church hierarchy, and Mary 'reverence'. Go ahead and find something outside the man-directed encyclicals that supports those views.

Your leaders are in clear violation of scripture:

1 Tim 3:
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)​

So a leader in the Church should be married with kids. Not 'celibate', not locked up in a monastery. Instead it should be an even tempered normal head of his household.

Also the whole concept of the pope is completely against scripture:

Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.​

This is specifically talking about giving someone on earth the title 'Father' (i.e. not just your dad), such as your Papas you bow down to.

That's not even getting into the fact that most 'miracles' are akin to voodoo fetishes. Bleeding statues, corpse skin, burial shrouds, etc. Nor the literal hocus pocus (which comes from catholicism) of holy water.

So it's your choice, you can believe in Jesus and the Holy Spirit to guide you. Just like the Bible, that the catholic church has actively prevented people from reading and translating, says to do. Or follow a satanic man-made organization that protects homosexual pedos and leads millions of people to practice idolatry.

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

Fuck it, why not.

So it's your choice, you can believe in Jesus and the Holy Spirit to guide you. Just like the Bible, that the catholic church has actively prevented people from reading and translating, says to do. Or follow a satanic man-made organization that protects homosexual pedos and leads millions of people to practice idolatry.

>Complains about Catholics but still uses the book they/the Orthodox compiled.

Don'tcha think J.K Rowling might know more than anyone else about Harry Potter mate? Why's this any different other than you can pick out the bits you like and interpret them however you want? That and Christians operated without a bible for a good three hundered years mostly using now defunct books.

Protestantism is cherry picking, the whole idea of private interpretation is heretical and blasphemy against the Kingship of Christ and his delegate the Pontifex Maximus/Byzantine Emperor/The Bishops as Successors of the Apostles in far older thought closer to the source. To Jacob's credit he's trying to drink the Kool aid as pure and concentrated as he can.

I love it when religious people don't actually know their own religion.

 

[MW 590]

The Pope can be a heretic according to Catholicism, as we saw several times in history. Even Peter needed to be corrected by Paul, you said this yourself elsewhere. All he supposedly can't do is declare heresy infalliably, and unless he directly contradicts an earlier statement we have proof of that's basically impossible to even test.

But it shows what shite the idea of declaring or "using the teaching office" is, because the Pope believes animals go to heaven and openly states it when it's clearly heresy said directly to the worlds mass media.

If that's not "declaring", what is really?



The article in question does point out that the Nouvelle Theologie that claims animals might be granted a place in the afterlife is special pleading based on a lack of comment in the OT (which isn't a suprise, considering Judaism doesn't have a heaven or hell afterlife), but contradicts centuries of Sacred Tradition.



St Thomas Aquinas is the official chief Theologian of the Catholic Church. Who knows better, him or you? I thought Catholics were all about submission to authority.

While Theologians have made speculations, the Church has never made an official teaching on the subject. Even the chief theologians can be incorrect. While Thomas Aquinas knows a lot about theology, I think he is wrong about animals, because Isaiah 11:6-9 talks about animals being in heaven.

“[6] The wolf shall dwell with the lamb: and the leopard shall lie down with the kid: the calf and the lion, and the sheep shall abide together, and a little child shall lead them. [7] The calf and the bear shall feed: their young ones shall rest together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. [8] And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp: and the weaned child shall thrust his hand into the den of the basilisk. [9] They shall not hurt, nor shall they kill in all my holy mountain, for the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the covering waters of the sea.”

As for the prayers, you contradict yourself. To know the prayers they would have to know that the prayers were taking place, and where/why. They can sense things from "outside eternity" (more Catholic word salad) automatically even when they're not there. If your apparitions are anything to go by, they also know and weep when people do bad things like masturbate (See "Our Lady of La Salette" about how much Mary cries and how hard she fights to stop Jesus killing everyone).

That is a good point. I should confess for teaching error.

That's what I was referencing.

Anyways, you're probably just trying to troll or whatever, but if you aren't then this shit makes Catholics look bad. You really, really need to go back to square one with this.
If you're dead set on converting people through internet forums (which I highly recommend against, especially since here since now you will always be seen as an outsider who just came here for his own purposes instead of someone who's actually a member of the community who tries to fit in,) you'll need to reconsider everything from your tone in your posting to your selection of forum.

But this site is full of nonbelievers, so God’s word must be spread here, because how else can the people here learn about it?

 

[Splendid]

That is a good point. I should confess for teaching error.

> Going to confession for a harmless mistake
Holy roller confirmed.

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

While Theologians have made speculations, the Church has never made an official teaching on the subject. Even the chief theologians can be incorrect. While Thomas Aquinas knows a lot about theology, I think he is wrong about animals, because Isaiah 11:6-9 talks about animals being in heaven.

“[6] The wolf shall dwell with the lamb: and the leopard shall lie down with the kid: the calf and the lion, and the sheep shall abide together, and a little child shall lead them. [7] The calf and the bear shall feed: their young ones shall rest together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. [8] And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp: and the weaned child shall thrust his hand into the den of the basilisk. [9] They shall not hurt, nor shall they kill in all my holy mountain, for the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the covering waters of the sea.”

Aquinas wasn't right on everything, in fact, some of his ideas such as that fetuses do not have souls from the moment of conception is heresy too, but this is what Catholic Theology describes as being a heretic "after the fact". In other words, Aquinas could not have been aware he was a heretic because the science of the age suggested that fetuses did not all have souls. At least, this is the excuse given for how he can be both a heretic and a saint.

This particular situation is more complicated still, because the Church of his day and prior did condemn abortion. It's not a sin to destroy creatures that don't have immortal souls, so why wasn't the Church up in arms about abortion being murder if the main theologian of the day was teaching error when the Aristotelianism of the day taught that Semen contained Homunculi (tiny men) which presumably would have had souls.

However, for animals there no historical precedent in sacred tradition to speak for their survival after death. There's also the ethical problem that for an animal to have an immortal soul, it would have to be made imago dei. And if cows are made imago dei, it means it would be a sin to kill and eat them.

As for the quote, that isn't a literal statement, but rather a Prophecy of the Davidic Kingship for Jews (Or the coming of Christ if you're a Christian).
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/isaiah/isaiah-11.html

6. wolf . . . lamb--Each animal is coupled with that one which is its natural prey. A fit state of things under the "Prince of Peace" ( Isaiah 65:25 , Ezekiel 34:25 , Hosea 2:18 ). These may be figures for men of corresponding animal-like characters ( Ezekiel 22:27 , 38:13 , Jeremiah 5:6 , 13:23 , Matthew 7:15 , Luke 10:3 ). Still a literal change in the relations of animals to man and each other, restoring the state in Eden, is a more likely interpretation. Compare Genesis 2:19 Genesis 2:20 , with Psalms 8:6-8 , which describes the restoration to man, in the person of "the Son of man," of the lost dominion over the animal kingdom of which he had been designed to be the merciful vicegerent under God, for the good of his animal subjects ( Romans 8:19-22 ).

The Catholic Haydock commentary has additional commentary on how the animals refer to the new millennium as well as pagans and philosophers being subdued. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hcc/isaiah-11.html

That is a good point. I should confess for teaching error.

You don't need to confess to teaching error if you didn't know it was the error when you were teaching it. It's only a sin if you know what you're teaching isn't true. It certainly wouldn't do you any harm in Catholic thought if you did, but you wouldn't have to.

 

[Basketball Jones]

The Old Testament documents the history of God's chosen people before the coming of Christ. Us Catholics do take the 10 commandments as morals to live by and try to be as good as we can by doing good works and preaching the truth to others.

Why are the Jews God’s chosen people? What made them so special, honestly? There was so much other shit going on around the whole planet during the time Abraham was allegedly walking around, and by the time Jesus makes it to the scene Rome was now no longer a republic, but an empire. Why did God specifically single out this one section humans on the planet and determine that he was going to speak solely to them and get them to relay his word?

I use the Douay-Rheims Bible, which is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate. I am a traditionalist Catholic, which means that I oppose the Vatican 2 reforms.

Traditionalist. Oh wow and of course, there’s different flavors of Traditionalist Catholic too. -_- So which brand of TradCath are you?

You know it’s weird. I went to catholic school for 13 years of my life in the Bible Belt and even we didn’t do all that. We thought the Baptist’s that equated dancing to sex were crazy...I knew a girl that thought you could get pregnant from kissing.

And it’s because there’s so many different sects and variants of Catholic, all with their own rules, beliefs, and egos that I left the church. It was crazy that all of them worshiped the same “supreme being” and read from the same book, and yet all of them thought everyone else was stupid because they weren’t doing it the “right way.” They’d read the same passages and came to different conclusions. The “word of God” varies depending on who you asked.

It just sounded like people could easily turn the words to mean whatever they wanted. And how divine can a message be if it’s that easily manipulated by anyone?

People often ask why God won't reveal himself to all of humanity. The reason is because he wants people to believe in him out of their free will.

If it’s our free will, then why are you here? That seems like you’re fucking with the divine plan by not allowing people to freely choose?

He needs to reveal himself enough times so that there will be enough evidence for people in the future to be given the choice to believe in him out of their free will.

But you just said he didn’t... See above quote dude. Lol

Is it true that all my dead relatives up in Heaven watch me when I masturbate?

Cuz that's hot.

They are. And they’re cheering you on.

Spoiler

 

[Randall Fragg]

@Jacob Harrison Lol you worship some dead kike on a cross.
The Great Old Ones were, the Great Old Ones are, and the Great Old Ones shall be again. Humanity rules blindly where they once ruled.
Their long sleep of the aeons is coming to an end, as the stars come right. We all have seen the signs, the general feeling that reality is falling apart, the malaise which infests every waking moment of our lives. They shall return, and all shall be plunged into gribbly madness.
The naive doctrine of Catholicism cannot save you against The Great Old Ones. What is a dead Jew on a stick compared to the squamous tendrils of Great Cthulhu, the blasphemous visage of Foul Tsaggotha, or the incandescent spheres of Yog-Sothoth, The Gate and The Key.
Only those who embrace the madness and help The Great Old Ones return shall be rewarded with a swift and painless death. Those who fight against the darkness shall suffer an unending nightmare of a world ruled by The Things That Should Not Be.
Have you accepted The Great Old Ones as your Lords and Savior? Will you be among The First to Die?
la Cthulhu la.

 

[Tragi-Chan]

Everyone knows Christianity is a long game plot invented by a small cabal of Jewish bankers to get a monopoly on international finance. That’s why I joined the Church of Scientology (hail Cruise!).

 

[ProgKing of the North]

But this site is full of nonbelievers, so God’s word must be spread here, because how else can the people here learn about it?

If I ever get the urge to fuck an altar boy the priest can fill me in on the details while we’re spitroasting the poor kid

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

True, but it shows that it is a debated subject. I believe that animals go to heaven because I may have seen the ghost of my dead cat out of the corner of my eye indicating that he came from heaven to visit.

Humans would have been prevented from experiencing those things and would have been immortal but humanity has been cursed because of Adam and Eve bringing sin into the world. But these things will end after Satan is defeated and God creates a new heaven and new Earth.

The argument is too long for me to post in my own words but here it is. http://www.clairval.com/lettres/en/textes/preuves_en.htm

We owe God our worship and obedience because he is our creator.

As I said, sin is a crime against an infinite being which makes it an infinite crime. God wants us to live a life of virtue as shown by the fact that the most righteous enter heaven immediately after death while the other righteous have to go through purgatory first. The most abominable sinners who repent before death spend the most time in purgatory and the time is reduced only by prayers for them.

1. You have committed a first-order heresy against the Catholic Church and its doctrine by claiming visitation from spirits. The saints may appear in divine visions to relay messages from God, but the dead do not return to this world for any other reason. Ghosts are deceits by Satan and his angels to tempt mortals into witchcraft. If you are truly faithful, you would recant.
2. If a father is cruel and hateful to his child, ever punishing and torturing him, does the child still owe him love and obedience?
3. Everything regarding your statements RE: Purgatory would have been woefully outdated and in cases heretical 300 years ago. Your understanding of the Catholic faith is a shambol of various era's teachings and your own heretical beliefs meant to justify yourself. This is not your fault: it is the nature of the self to cling to things they desire, such as righteousness. But these things cannot truly satisfy. All things are transient. Your faith is transient, as is your body and mind and self. Even if you are right, the I that arises upon your death will not be the I you are: for how can it be? The soul without the mind and body is not the same thing as you, just as a wheel is not a chariot.

 

[Coldgrip]

Is god an atheist?

What if god was... One of us?

 

[Nekromantik]

I pray that OP learns not to double post any more.

 

[MW 590]

Let's go ahead and throw gas on this dumpster fire and see where it goes.

It's disgusting to conflate a man made political institution with Christ's sacrifice for us, and assume God somehow needs your corrupt organization to thrive.

The catholic church is fully reprobate at this point. Mary worship and idolatry, you can call it 'reverence' all you want, but praying to bathtub statues and the marian processions with incense and chanting shows it for the goddess worship it is.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=A-qsbIwvTMg
Mary isn't mentioned that much, and it includes explicit rebuke of propping her up:

“Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed” Luke 11:27
“On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it” Luke 11:28​

Also Peter who is supposed to be the 'rock' of your organization is specifically called out for having Satanic thoughts right after. There is no clear scripture for a pope, several layer deep church hierarchy, and Mary 'reverence'. Go ahead and find something outside the man-directed encyclicals that supports those views.

Your leaders are in clear violation of scripture:

1 Tim 3:
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)​

So a leader in the Church should be married with kids. Not 'celibate', not locked up in a monastery. Instead it should be an even tempered normal head of his household.

Also the whole concept of the pope is completely against scripture:

Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.​

This is specifically talking about giving someone on earth the title 'Father' (i.e. not just your dad), such as your Papas you bow down to.

That's not even getting into the fact that most 'miracles' are akin to voodoo fetishes. Bleeding statues, corpse skin, burial shrouds, etc. Nor the literal hocus pocus (which comes from catholicism) of holy water.

So it's your choice, you can believe in Jesus and the Holy Spirit to guide you. Just like the Bible, that the catholic church has actively prevented people from reading and translating, says to do. Or follow a satanic man-made organization that protects homosexual pedos and leads millions of people to practice idolatry.

I will be working on a refutation of this heretic.

Aquinas wasn't right on everything, in fact, some of his ideas such as that fetuses do not have souls from the moment of conception is heresy too, but this is what Catholic Theology describes as being a heretic "after the fact". In other words, Aquinas could not have been aware he was a heretic because the science of the age suggested that fetuses did not all have souls. At least, this is the excuse given for how he can be both a heretic and a saint.

This particular situation is more complicated still, because the Church of his day and prior did condemn abortion. It's not a sin to destroy creatures that don't have immortal souls, so why wasn't the Church up in arms about abortion being murder if the main theologian of the day was teaching error when the Aristotelianism of the day taught that Semen contained Homunculi (tiny men) which presumably would have had souls.

However, for animals there no historical precedent in sacred tradition to speak for their survival after death. There's also the ethical problem that for an animal to have an immortal soul, it would have to be made imago dei. And if cows are made imago dei, it means it would be a sin to kill and eat them.

As for the quote, that isn't a literal statement, but rather a Prophecy of the Davidic Kingship for Jews (Or the coming of Christ if you're a Christian).
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/isaiah/isaiah-11.html



The Catholic Haydock commentary has additional commentary on how the animals refer to the new millennium as well as pagans and philosophers being subdued. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hcc/isaiah-11.html




You don't need to confess to teaching error if you didn't know it was the error when you were teaching it. It's only a sin if you know what you're teaching isn't true. It certainly wouldn't do you any harm in Catholic thought if you did, but you wouldn't have to.

Being made in the image of God means being the species that God chose to have a relationship with. Just because God does not have a relationship with animals, does not mean that they don't have immortal souls. And the bible commentary actually says that it is referring to literal animals.

Still a literal change in the relations of animals to man and each other, restoring the state in Eden, is a more likely interpretation

Why are the Jews God’s chosen people? What made them so special, honestly? There was so much other shit going on around the whole planet during the time Abraham was allegedly walking around, and by the time Jesus makes it to the scene Rome was now no longer a republic, but an empire. Why did God specifically single out this one section humans on the planet and determine that he was going to speak solely to them and get them to relay his word?



Traditionalist. Oh wow and of course, there’s different flavors of Traditionalist Catholic too. -_- So which brand of TradCath are you?

You know it’s weird. I went to catholic school for 13 years of my life in the Bible Belt and even we didn’t do all that. We thought the Baptist’s that equated dancing to sex were crazy...I knew a girl that thought you could get pregnant from kissing.

And it’s because there’s so many different sects and variants of Catholic, all with their own rules, beliefs, and egos that I left the church. It was crazy that all of them worshiped the same “supreme being” and read from the same book, and yet all of them thought everyone else was stupid because they weren’t doing it the “right way.” They’d read the same passages and came to different conclusions. The “word of God” varies depending on who you asked.

It just sounded like people could easily turn the words to mean whatever they wanted. And how divine can a message be if it’s that easily manipulated by anyone?



If it’s our free will, then why are you here? That seems like you’re fucking with the divine plan by not allowing people to freely choose?



But you just said he didn’t... See above quote dude. Lol



They are. And they’re cheering you on.

Spoiler

View attachment 655929

1. I am the type of traditionalist Catholic who is not a sedevacantist heretic.
2. The Israelites were God's chosen people because there were going to pave the way for the messiah. But because of Christ, Christians are now God's chosen people.
3. God needs to reveal himself enough times and have enough preachers to make people capable of believing in him but not too much times so that believing in him is still a choice. I am presenting evidence so that you will have the choice to believe in him.

 

[PorcupineTree]

I will be working on a refutation of this heretic.

For all the time you spend arguing with people who have already decided not to listen to you, you could’ve gotten a few hours of volunteer work done and bettered the quality of life for people in your own community.

The fact you think this is the equivalent of some kind of saintly sacrifice is absurd.