The only factual thing that points to the end of our species is science. If anything religion selling this comic book doomsday bullshit gang mentality is sucking resources away from solving climate change, and that ignorance can needlessly shorten our species ride or at a minimum knock us back into the stone age.

(August 19, 2015 at 12:16 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Geez, I'm arguing with an atheist about the errors of Protestantism. Weird.

Anyway, yeah, there is a true Church, and your former congregation ain't it. My argument for Catholicism runs like this (better get out your Bible and take off your atheist hat for just a moment, okay?):

What's really weird is how little most Catholics or Protestants really know of their own religion. That Catholic followers never even read their own holy book at all is bizarre.

Your assertion that you are part of "The True Church" is nothing more than a petty, rivalry-fueled argument from the position of authority. When people in different cultures than Rome decided that their interpretations of Peter and Jesus's words were more accurate than that of the notoriously corrupt Romans, the reigning pope threw a big hissy-fit and excommunicated them all because he was too proud to deal more productively with the challenge to his authority. Well, anybody who responds that way in the face of a challenge deserves no respect from anybody. Fuck those popes, fuck those who perpetuate their lies to this day, and fuck anybody, including you, when they assert themselves as the only people who are right just because some squalling, crowned infant said so from his throne!

(August 20, 2015 at 1:02 pm)NoFaith2Burn4 Wrote: Well, anybody who responds that way in the face of a challenge deserves no respect from anybody. Fuck those popes, fuck those who perpetuate their lies to this day, and fuck anybody, including you, when they assert themselves as the only people who are right just because some squalling, crowned infant said so from his throne!

Yes, but... tell us how you really feel.

(August 20, 2015 at 1:27 pm)TRJF Wrote:

(August 20, 2015 at 1:02 pm)NoFaith2Burn4 Wrote: Well, anybody who responds that way in the face of a challenge deserves no respect from anybody. Fuck those popes, fuck those who perpetuate their lies to this day, and fuck anybody, including you, when they assert themselves as the only people who are right just because some squalling, crowned infant said so from his throne!

Yes, but... tell us how you really feel.

I think I should spare you that. You don't want to know how I really feel about the ignoramuses who think their sectarian division, one out of over 4,000 is the only good one, or necessarily any good at all.

(August 20, 2015 at 3:34 pm)NoFaith2Burn4 Wrote:

(August 20, 2015 at 1:27 pm)TRJF Wrote: Yes, but... tell us how you really feel.

I think I should spare you that. You don't want to know how I really feel about the ignoramuses who think their sectarian division, one out of over 4,000 is the only good one, or necessarily any good at all.

Maybe 4000 a hundred years ago, we're up to 40,000 or so now I believe.

Rapture on the 15th?

I'll have to start helping my Christian patients by getting them away early, before the rush...

(August 19, 2015 at 12:35 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Braveheart. Your bagpipes. Dispense with them. Your fallacy is not a True Scotsman no matter how many Wholly Babble verses you plaster on the screen.

Anybody ever notice that it's called "apologetics," and yet they never seem to actually apologize for anything?

I'm sorry you feel that way.

(August 19, 2015 at 2:36 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(August 19, 2015 at 12:16 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Geez, I'm arguing with an atheist about the errors of Protestantism. Weird.

Anyway, yeah, there is a true Church, and your former congregation ain't it. My argument for Catholicism runs like this (better get out your Bible and take off your atheist hat for just a moment, okay?):

Peter – The Royal Steward

Here are two questions that need to be answered:

1. Is Jesus a king?
2. Did He re-establish the office of the Royal Steward?

In your former life, Redbeard, you probably would have said “Yes” quickly to the first question, but you may have hesitated or even answered “No” to the second. Let’s take a look at what scripture and history tell us about the office of the Royal Steward.

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In the passage above, God is speaking to Shebnah, an unfaithful steward serving King Hezekiah. God is telling Shebnah that he is about to be replaced by Eliakim, and this confirms the existence of the office, the key worn as a symbol of the office, and the continuation of the office in perpetuity -- despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the perpetual office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter to the office of Royal Steward granting him the authority to speak universally in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter could not teach error. God’s protection of His own flock by preventing the formal teaching of error in His name is referred to as “infallibility”.

Therefore, if Jesus, our eternal king, established Peter as His first Royal Steward in a perpetual office, then don't Peter's successors, the Bishops of Rome, continue to serve in that office today?

You've already posted that.   http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=918231

Got anything new since then?

Why would I need anything new when the argument above has never been refuted in either forum? It's a "rock" solid argument.

I can give you half a dozen Protestant scholars acknowledging the connection between Mt. 16:18 and Is. 20:22 if you need to see them.

(August 20, 2015 at 1:02 pm)NoFaith2Burn4 Wrote:

(August 19, 2015 at 12:16 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Geez, I'm arguing with an atheist about the errors of Protestantism. Weird.

Anyway, yeah, there is a true Church, and your former congregation ain't it. My argument for Catholicism runs like this (better get out your Bible and take off your atheist hat for just a moment, okay?):

What's really weird is how little most Catholics or Protestants really know of their own religion. That Catholic followers never even read their own holy book at all is bizarre.

Try me.

(August 20, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 19, 2015 at 12:35 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Braveheart. Your bagpipes. Dispense with them. Your fallacy is not a True Scotsman no matter how many Wholly Babble verses you plaster on the screen.

Anybody ever notice that it's called "apologetics," and yet they never seem to actually apologize for anything?

I'm sorry you feel that way.

*Snort*