1) The differences must be core differences, not peripheral differences (this point has been repeated to death)
The RCC holds, as core doctrine, that they have final authority in the matters of god as it pertains to man.  Protestants disagree, they see the New Testament as final authority.


2) The differences must involve what Christianity teaches, NOT how individuals practice (your brother preferring a certain kind of preaching is reflective of preference, not teaching, and it's of one person).
see above.

3) The differences must be widespread (one weird bro does not widespread make)
33,000 sects of protestants disagree......

Are you done embarrassing yourself?

(October 26, 2015 at 1:59 am)Delicate Wrote:

(October 26, 2015 at 1:48 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Pearls, swine, etc etc.

You continue to ignore points that are relevant, such as what SD linked you to, because they're pretty corrosive to your argument.

Pseudointellectual egotism coupled with sneering condescension lost its charm years ago, kid ... but hey, whatever you have to do to prop up your self-esteem is worthwhile, I suppose.

Please look at my last post to Esquilax, because odds are, if you think SD's post was good, you're confused.

I have. I'm underwhelmed by your insistence upon ignoring the real-world practice of the Christian faith, a dodge which indicates to me that you know that your point (that atheists are ignorant of religion) is certainly indefensible. Atheists see how various Christians interpret and put into practice different passages of the Bible. Whether or not you feel that they are core values is irrelevant, because those Christians do.

In essence, you "point", such as it is, relies upon the tedious application of a variation of the No True Scotsman error. Not that you'll admit as much, but don't worry, it's plain for all to see, and becomes clearer with every post you make.

Appeal to "core doctrine" all you want. The idea that you, of all people, determine what is and isn't "core doctrine" is laughably self-centered and should be beneath you ... but clearly isn't.

Until you address the points made upthread with substantive replies rather than hand-waving, you won't get any of the credibility you so clearly crave.

(October 26, 2015 at 1:59 am)Delicate Wrote:

(October 26, 2015 at 1:48 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Pearls, swine, etc etc.

You continue to ignore points that are relevant, such as what SD linked you to, because they're pretty corrosive to your argument.

Pseudointellectual egotism coupled with sneering condescension lost its charm years ago, kid ... but hey, whatever you have to do to prop up your self-esteem is worthwhile, I suppose.

Please look at my last post to Esquilax, because odds are, if you think SD's post was good, you're confused.

Coming from the twat that can't understand that he is not the arbiter of what constitutes variation among core beliefs. 

If we're all so badly informed about this true religion with a true omnipotent God that is trying to communicate with us, how come he is failing so miserably?

I'll tell you what most arrogant thing you can do: presume to speak for God.

Why does he need so much help?

(October 26, 2015 at 2:06 am)Rhythm Wrote: 1) The differences must be core differences, not peripheral differences (this point has been repeated to death)
The RCC holds, as core doctrine, that they have final authority in the matters of god as it pertains to man.  Protestants disagree, they see the New Testament as final authority.


2) The differences must involve what Christianity teaches, NOT how individuals practice (your brother preferring a certain kind of preaching is reflective of preference, not teaching, and it's of one person).
see above.

3) The differences must be widespread (one weird bro does not widespread make)
33,000 sects of protestants disagree......

Are you done embarrassing yourself?

Only on an atheist forum can you embarrass yourself by using reason and evidence well.

Nice try with (1). Desperate, but funny in its own little way. : It doesn't understand what core doctrine refers to. Doesn't provide any citations. Appeals to an incredibly vague "matters of God as it pertains to man." And contrasts it, mistakenly, with sola scriptura. 

Want me to show you why it's a fail? Two words: Citation please. 

(Hint: Don't try and cite it, you'll only end up proving that you were wrong)

(October 26, 2015 at 2:35 am)Delicate Wrote: Only on an atheist forum can you embarrass yourself by using reason and evidence well.

Tell us what you know about reasoning and evidence ... Christian.

Now, excuse me while I point and laugh.

(October 26, 2015 at 2:10 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(October 26, 2015 at 1:59 am)Delicate Wrote: Please look at my last post to Esquilax, because odds are, if you think SD's post was good, you're confused.

I have.  I'm underwhelmed by your insistence upon ignoring the real-world practice of the Christian faith, a dodge which indicates to me that you know that your point (that atheists are ignorant of religion) is certainly indefensible. Atheists see how various Christians interpret and put into practice different passages of the Bible.  Whether or not you feel that they are core values is irrelevant, because those Christians do.

In essence, you "point", such as it is, relies upon the tedious  application of a variation of the No True Scotsman error. Not that you'll admit as much, but don't worry, it's plain for all to see, and becomes clearer with every post you make.

Appeal to "core doctrine" all you want.  The idea that you, of all people, determine what is and isn't "core doctrine" is laughably self-centered and should be beneath you ... but clearly isn't.

Until you address the points made upthread with substantive replies rather than hand-waving, you won't get any of the credibility you so clearly crave.

I've mentioned elsewhere why the real world practices of individual Christian persons and groups don't necessarily constitute Christian teaching, and often go above and beyond teaching to conform to preferences and customs, ultimately being convenient but unnecessary for Christianity.

If you can't engage with this point you can keep doggie-paddling in your own underwhelms. Unless you come up with reason and evidence I couldn't care less.

(October 26, 2015 at 2:41 am)Delicate Wrote: I've mentioned elsewhere why the real world practices of individual Christian persons and groups don't necessarily constitute Christian teaching, and often go above and beyond teaching to conform to preferences and customs, ultimately being convenient but unnecessary for Christianity.

You've mentioned that you don't think their practices are core to their faith, but you've yet to justify your dismissal. And until you do, you won't gain any traction.

I'm just trying to help you, bud -- you're obviously in over your head, and unaccustomed to having to actually support your points.

(October 26, 2015 at 2:41 am)Delicate Wrote: If you can't engage with this point you can keep doggie-paddling in your own underwhelms.

At that rate you're going, I'm going to be drowning in 'em.

(October 26, 2015 at 2:41 am)Delicate Wrote: Unless you come up with reason and evidence I couldn't care less.

lol, the only claim I've made is that Christian sects practice those elements of faith which are important to them -- their core considerations.

Do you really need me to spell out my reasoning? You'd need evidence to regard those core practices as, well, core practices?

If so, I've clearly overestimated your intelligence, if not your haughty pretentiousness. Pardon my chuckling.

Yes, it is condescension.

Citations can't be that important to a person who hasn't offered any themselves.  I did, of course, provide both protestant and catholic commentaries on the issue in my last post.  I could quote the catechism, or the second vatican council.....but clearly there's no need, your interest in citations will drop as sharply and as swiftly as it cropped up. Do you accept the catechism as authoritative? Do you hold to the pronouncements of the Vatican?

(October 26, 2015 at 2:48 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: If so, I've clearly overestimated your intelligence, if not your haughty pretentiousness. Pardon my chuckling.

Yes, it is condescension.

Dunno why but this line made me think of this gif.