Proof that Catholicism is true

[Tragi-Chan]

Explain the arrow of time and the problem of causality if there is no God you edgy little fedora totting atheist.

I don't see how God explains either of those things. Can you point to specific, objective scientific evidence that says that God and only God explains these things? Because "You don't know? Then it must be God!" is a non-sequitur.

You faggots think science is on your side, but science and education in general came from theologians, the Bible was ahead of it's time describing several physical properties of objects that we're not discovered till later. You atheists are dumb children not even capable of arguing this but you've got your head so far up your dyel ass that you don't realize you're being mogged by a crusader like me

A crusader? Like Richard the Lionheart? Or is it the kind of crusade that doesn't involve leaving the house?

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

You edgelords need to stop thinking science is on your side University was created to further the pursuits of theologians.

And the OT was created to further the pursuits of the Jews.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

And the OT was created to further the pursuits of the Jews.

As was the Catholic Church, according to Stormfront and some super fundie Protestant sects.

 

[MW 590]

Uhh... dude resurrection is like the biggest deal there is in the bible. Animal ghosts, in fact, all ghosts (except the holy ghost/spirit, but that's a translation thing) are not real. You must have been under the influence of satan, perhaps you performed some witchcraft to see the soul of your dead cat?

Hey, here's a question for you, since you brought up original sin.

Original sin was committed when Satan, in the form of a talking snake (with legs) convinced Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. She did so. However, before eating from the tree, she didn't have knowledge of good and evil! How is it her fault? God's the one who made Satan, why didn't he do something to prevent this sequence of events? And how does an all knowing god get fooled by a mischievous angel he created?

So then, to punish the humans for listening to the evil snake that he created, a bunch of other evil shit was created, pretty much everything bad is because of this (except satan?).

Sorry man, in that story, God is lying about being all knowing, or he's lying about being completely benevolent. Otherwise, he should have known exactly what was going to happen from the first moment he willed himself into existence.

That suggests God is more of an experimenter with incomplete knowledge. In which case, why would we listen to a lying alien scientist who has shown he's willing to murder us?

1. There have been visitations from the saints and remember that we don't get new bodies until judgement day, so until then, the dead are ghosts.
2. As Bleachedanoos said, while Adam Eve did not have knowledge of the greater concept good and evil, they still knew that they were not allowed to eat the fruit. A good analogy is that young children do not have a greater concept of morality, but they still know what they should and should not do based on what their parent's command them to do. God forbidden Adam and Eve from eating from the tree but did not prevent Satan from tempting Eve to do so because that would be interfering with her free will.

 

[Tragi-Chan]

1. There have been visitations from the saints and remember that we don't get new bodies until judgement day, so until then, the dead are ghosts.
2. As Bleachedanoos said, while Adam Eve did not have knowledge of the greater concept good and evil, they still knew that they were not allowed to eat the fruit. A good analogy is that young children do not have a greater concept of morality, but they still know what they should and should not do based on what their parent's command them to do. God forbidden Adam and Eve from eating from the tree but did not prevent Satan from tempting Eve to do so because that would be interfering with her free will.

Why put the tree there in the first place?

 

[Bleachedanoos]

I don't see how God explains either of those things. Can you point to specific, objective scientific evidence that says that God and only God explains these things? Because "You don't know? Then it must be God!" is a non-sequitur.

A crusader? Like Richard the Lionheart? Or is it the kind of crusade that doesn't involve leaving the house?

Certainly, here is the problem, every single effect has a cause that it stems from. similarly with the arrow of time time has a beginning point that extends infinitely in one way. You can say that time is a construct of humanity, certainly on a subatomic level each particle acts in tandem but on a macro molecular level objects move sequentially, rather than thinking of time as a set of numbers think of it sequentially. In other words CECECECECECECE extending to this point, in order for the universe to exist there needs to be a start point which none of you edgy retard atheists ever address, you just say nothing exploded and created matter. You dont even have a comprehension of what nothing is, it would be impossible for you to comprehend nothing because the second you do it becomes something. So you need an external force one that is not subjected to the laws of causality a being that exists in a different physical plane who has always existed to act as the first domino to start both time and the universe. In the philosophical sense that being (the first cause) is called God.

 

[Tragi-Chan]

Certainly, here is the problem, every single effect has a cause that it stems from. similarly with the arrow of time time has a beginning point that extends infinitely in one way. You can say that time is a construct of humanity, certainly on a subatomic level each particle acts in tandem but on a macro molecular level objects move sequentially, rather than thinking of time as a set of numbers think of it sequentially. In other words CECECECECECECE extending to this point, in order for the universe to exist there needs to be a start point which none of you edgy exceptional individual atheists ever address, you just say nothing exploded and created matter. You dont even have a comprehension of what nothing is, it would be impossible for you to comprehend nothing because the second you do it becomes something. So you need an external force one that is not subjected to the laws of causality a being that exists in a different physical plane who has always existed to act as the first domino to start both time and the universe. In the philosophical sense that being (the first cause) is called God.

Well, that’s kind of moving the goalposts, isn’t it? Your initial claim was that the Christian version of God, the one talked about in the Bible, who has very specific qualities and attributes ascribed to Him, is real. But when I ask you what the evidence is, you say basically that there must be a first cause for the universe, and you call that God. Which is not the same thing at all - all you’ve argued is that a concept exists, and you choose to call that concept God. I could call the same concept “Cthulhu” and thus prove that Cthulhu exists. It’s just word games.

What is lacking is specific, objective evidence that God, specifically the God as described in the Bible, is that first cause.

 

[MW 590]

I wish I never started on these. Now I feel like I have to answer.


The Bishops have approved the bible. Your opinions are irrelevant. Catholicism is not a buffet, it's all or nothing.

Obedience to the Successor of the Apostles in both the Pope and his fellow Bishops is not optional. You are in heresy and have incurred Latae sententiae excommunication and should not take communion, otherwise, you would be committing the additional mortal sin of sacrilege for receiving Christ in a state of mortal sin.

I don't make the rules or follow them, but I do know them as should you.


We were not talking about Sixtus. We were talking about the sanction from the American Bishops to use a bible that you do not approve of. You are not a successor of the apostles. The Vulgate is still in use by the Catholic Church, so is the NAB, so is the Douay-Rheims and many others.

Also, please cite your sources rather than Plagerise Jacob. http://art-of-attack.blogspot.com/2007/06/are-there-errors-in-latin-vulgate.html

Maybe if you actually did do some reading yourself, you'd actually know why the Vulgate is only used by the Pontifical college and not Biblical studies, Even by the Catholic Church itself!

While it is true that Catholics should generally obey the church, God's authority is higher than the church's so when the church defies the will of God, then Catholics must put obedience to God first. That is the argument that Marcel Lefebre of the Society of Saint Pius X used when he defied the church.

And I never said that the Latin Vulgate does not have errors. As the article says St. Jerome did the best job possible for his time. What makes a "good" Biblical translation changes from one time period to another and what works in one period may not work as well in another. And as I said, the Latin Vulgate was revised during the Renaissance to make it even better. As shown by wikipedia. the infallible Council of Trent said that only the Latin Vulgate and it's translations are authentic. By using the New American Bible as authentic, the bishops are defying a holy ecumenical council.

Moreover, this sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.[61]

The Remnant can claim to be the Pope, it is not an approved apostolate neither does it hold an Nihil Obstat or an Imprimatur. The Remnant supports sects not in full communion with the Pope and teaches that the Church has somehow been corrupted; that the gates of hell have prevailed. This is heresy, and anyone who contributes and belives in it is in a state of mortal sin.

The Church thanks to Benedict XVI allows for certain sects like the SSPX to hold the traditional Latin mass and still be in communion with the church. Furthermore, they do not believe that the gates of hell have prevailed because they believe that there is still a faithful remnant of the church which they are part of.

Only animals made in Gods image have immortal souls. To say God has given an immortal soul to a cow, or a pig, or a cockroach is heresy and blasphemy against God.

You're saying other animals are as important as humans, this is heresy and you should refrain from communion as only humans were created to be lord over all animals and the stewards of creation. You contradict Genesis, let alone the piles of material that come later.

The highest virtue behind holiness for a Catholic, and a requirement for holiness is obedience to Jesus in the form of his successors. You seem to be struggling with this.

If you are actually doing your own work for a degree in the sciences, you might be reasonably intelligent (not necessarily, I've met plenty of morons with degrees too). But as arrogant, pig-headed and as large as your inquisitorial rage boner might be; you do not know as much about religion as the American Bishops or someone who actually has qualified in Theology, Religious Anthropology or the like.

From your copypastes and what you've said, you knowing basically nothing about your faith at all. Which hardly suprises me, nothing cures Catholic faith faster than actually reading the bible, Papal decrees like Dum Diversias and Syllabum Errorum or the history of the Catholic Church.

I never said that animals are important as humans. They are not because they do not have a relationship with God. However how can humans be lords of all the animals and the stewards of creation in heaven if there are no animals there?

And actually nothing brings someone to Catholic faith faster than reading the bible and researching the history of the Catholic Church. Jesus Christ gave supreme authority to Saint Peter by telling him that he is the rock on which the church was built, and the church fathers recognized the supremacy of the bishops of Rome as the successors to Saint Peter.

Ignatius of Antioch: "… to the Church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

Cyprian of Carthage: "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?"

Cyprian of Carthage: "the Lord says to Peter; ’I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt 16:18-19])…On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

This is the source. http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-infallibility.html

And it is also the same article that contains undeniable proof of papal infallibility that I mentioned in my previous comment. How do you explain the fact that Pope Sixtus V suddenly and unexpectedly died before he could teach error if it was not God who struck him dead before he could proclaim error to the entire church?

Why put the tree there in the first place?

God put the tree there so that he could establish a rule for Adam and Eve to obey since he wanted his creation to obey him, but at the same time wanted them to have the free will to obey him or not.

 

[Bleachedanoos]

Well, that’s kind of moving the goalposts, isn’t it? Your initial claim was that the Christian version of God, the one talked about in the Bible, who has very specific qualities and attributes ascribed to Him, is real. But when I ask you what the evidence is, you say basically that there must be a first cause for the universe, and you call that God. Which is not the same thing at all - all you’ve argued is that a concept exists, and you choose to call that concept God. I could call the same concept “Cthulhu” and thus prove that Cthulhu exists. It’s just word games.

What is lacking is specific, objective evidence that God, specifically the God as described in the Bible, is that first cause.

No it wasnt not being able to read kun, my point was you atheists have nothing, the idea that nothing exists and there is no metaphysical force that created the world is dumber than santa claus, and I know you and several other retarded losers in this thread thought you were so cool because you heard of Dawkins, but you just got mogged stomped. Like I said science is not on your side, because using a simple proof we can ascertain an existence of some form of God.

Now as for the catholic god of course I believe but it takes several more arguments to get to that and a bit of faith, none of them are as strong as the cosmological argument, which i just consider to be a point of fact.

 

[Tragi-Chan]

God put the tree there so that he could establish a rule for Adam and Eve to obey since he wanted his creation to obey him, but at the same time wanted them to have the free will to obey him or not.

I once dated someone like that. I dumped her because she was obviously way psycho.

No it wasnt not being able to read kun, my point was you atheists have nothing, the idea that nothing exists and there is no metaphysical force that created the world is dumber than santa claus, and I know you and several other exceptional losers in this thread thought you were so cool because you heard of Dawkins, but you just got mogged stomped. Like I said science is not on your side, because using a simple proof we can ascertain an existence of some form of God.

Now as for the catholic god of course I believe but it takes several more arguments to get to that and a bit of faith, none of them are as strong as the cosmological argument, which i just consider to be a point of fact.

Why do you think we believe that “nothing exists?” Because plainly things do exist. It seems to me that you’re deliberately mischaracterising the atheistic world view because that’s the only way you can argue against it.

 

[Bleachedanoos]

I once dated someone like that. I dumped her because she was obviously way psycho.

Why do you think we believe that “nothing exists?” Because plainly things do exist. It seems to me that you’re deliberately mischaracterising the atheistic world view because that’s the only way you can argue against it.

the atheist view is that there is no God, in the philosophical sense where god is a first cause, you know how i know that because they have another word for some form of belief in God called agnosticism. Atheists dont believe in anything metaphysical they are complete brainlets. Me and my boy JC will be roasting marshmellows over your hell fire ladened bodies

 

[Tragi-Chan]

the atheist view is that there is no God, in the philosophical sense where god is a first cause, you know how i know that because they have another word for some form of belief in God called agnosticism. Atheists dont believe in anything metaphysical they are complete brainlets. Me and my boy JC will be roasting marshmellows over your hell fire ladened bodies

You’re deliberately mischaracterising atheism. The atheist does not believe in the supernatural concept of God or gods. That’s all.

If you choose to take something other than the supernatural all-powerful being described in the Bible and call that God, which is what you’re doing here, then you’re changing the argument.

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

While it is true that Catholics should generally obey the church, God's authority is higher than the church's so when the church defies the will of God, then Catholics must put obedience to God first. That is the argument that Marcel Lefebre of the Society of Saint Pius X used when he defied the church.

Lefebre died a heretic and is near enough an apostate. He was condemned by John Paul and John.

It remains at best a near occasion of sin to this day for a Catholic to attend an SSPX Mass, and to let other Catholics know would be a sin. You are a heretic Jacob.

And I never said that the Latin Vulgate does not have errors. As the article says St. Jerome did the best job possible for his time. What makes a "good" Biblical translation changes from one time period to another and what works in one period may not work as well in another.

You claimed the mistakes were good and part of Sixtus' infalliability. Being able to excommunicate everyone who disagrees with you, as Sixtus did with the college regarding his translation does not mean it is correct.

And as I said, the Latin Vulgate was revised during the Renaissance to make it even better. As shown by wikipedia. the infallible Council of Trent said that only the Latin Vulgate and it's translations are authentic. By using the New American Bible as authentic, the bishops are defying a holy ecumenical council.

Again, you affirm you are a heretic for denying the decree of both the Catholic Church and the Bishops.

Moreover, this sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.[61]

See Ursury, and any of the others already mentioned in this thread how things "To be held for now and for all time" are basically held until it becomes inconvenient for Catholic leaders.

The Church thanks to Benedict XVI allows for certain sects like the SSPX to hold the traditional Latin mass and still be in communion with the church. Furthermore, they do not believe that the gates of hell have prevailed because they believe that there is still a faithful remnant of the church which they are part of.

No it doesn't. It is permissible to attend the "Valid, but Illicit" Masses of the SSPX if there are no alternatives available. They are not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Francis has thrown them a bone in the form of granting them "faculties" to hear confessions, but it is not possible for a SSPX cleric to perform a wedding, extreme unction or the like.

To attend an SSPX Mass is to risk the sin of scandal.

I never said that animals are important as humans. They are not because they do not have a relationship with God. However how can humans be lords of all the animals and the stewards of creation in heaven if there are no animals there?

For the same reason there are no marriages in the Catholic heaven, the role has become defunct and obsolete.

And actually nothing brings someone to Catholic faith faster than reading the bible and researching the history of the Catholic Church. Jesus Christ gave supreme authority to Saint Peter by telling him that he is the rock on which the church was built, and the church fathers recognized the supremacy of the bishops of Rome as the successors to Saint Peter.

I know a hell of a lot more about the Catholic faith than you will ever know , as demonstrated by your incopetence in this thread alone. I think Catholicism is horseshit. Probably worth less, because at least manure can be used in agriculture.

And it is also the same article that contains undeniable proof of papal infallibility that I mentioned in my previous comment. How do you explain the fact that Pope Sixtus V suddenly and unexpectedly died before he could teach error if it was not God who struck him dead before he could proclaim error to the entire church?

Bullshit. Hans Kung wrote a book that slamdunked Papal Infalliability so hard it's still a mortal sin for Catholics to even mention it outside of academia or condemnation when asked and it's banned in every Catholic state in Europe.

Now despite being banned, Hans Kung is still a Catholic priest in good standing and still teaches Theology. Would you like to know why?

To defrock a cleric, you have to prove they are a heretic and they're telling lies.

More than four decades later, nobody has ever been able to do it. The Vatican has tried, many times, and still can't debunk him.

But of course, you won't read it. It doesn't come with pictures or the ability to shriek about Jews. https://www.amazon.com/Infallible-Hans-Kung/dp/0002153432

I'm bored . At least Catholics who actually believe, know and follow their own rules are able to respond fairly. I feel like I'm kicking a blind man at this point.

 

[Bleachedanoos]

You’re deliberately mischaracterising atheism. The atheist does not believe in the supernatural concept of God or gods. That’s all.

If you choose to take something other than the supernatural all-powerful being described in the Bible and call that God, which is what you’re doing here, then you’re changing the argument.

again the laws of the physical universe dictate that every effect had a cause, in order for the universe to have any starting point you would need to believe in the supernatural, and if you do you arent an atheist which makes you even MORE fucking dumb because you dont even know how to identify yourself. It'd be like calling yourself an athlete when you meant that you're a furry.

 

[Tragi-Chan]

again the laws of the physical universe dictate that every effect had a cause, in order for the universe to have any starting point you would need to believe in the supernatural, and if you do you arent an atheist which makes you even MORE fucking dumb because you dont even know how to identify yourself. It'd be like calling yourself an athlete when you meant that you're a furry.

I’m not arguing that the universe came from nothing. Do you understand that? Please answer either “yes” or “no,” and I will explain my argument further.

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

I’m not arguing that the universe came from nothing. Do you understand that? Please answer either “yes” or “no,” and I will explain my argument further.

As someone whose gone to deep in trying to reason with a cow, I really advise fleeing while you can.

 

[Bleachedanoos]

I’m not arguing that the universe came from nothing. Do you understand that? Please answer either “yes” or “no,” and I will explain my argument further.

then you're wrong, there is nothing until the start point, so technically yes the universe came from nothing. If you want to say everything always existed you're wrong because you have a (ECE)x inifnity scenario and youre also wrong.

 

[Tragi-Chan]

then you're wrong, there is nothing until the start point, so technically yes the universe came from nothing. If you want to say everything always existed you're wrong because you have a (ECE)x inifnity scenario and youre also wrong.

Irrelevant. Did you understand my previous post, yes or no?

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

then you're wrong, there is nothing until the start point, so technically yes the universe came from nothing. If you want to say everything always existed you're wrong because you have a (ECE)x inifnity scenario and youre also wrong.

You'd think the ultimate life form and the creator of all things could afford a better PR team.

 

[Ijime]

Catholicism is an insanely amazing supplement for your life so you can live a responsible life as a decent human being. Sadly in the current moment, I'm not converting since the Vatican is riddled with faggots (especially the Pope) and I'm scared of going to Catholic Hell if convert at this very moment. Someone needs to shoot up the place or something to kill all the faggot priests and re-institute people and powers more adequate for the Church. When that happens, convert and raise your children Catholic with Christ and Love in your heart and they'll grow healthy.