Zone1 rcc vs the bible wow look at the difference!

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Ah, the atheist double standard strikes again. "Since atheist school districts don't claim to be moral centers, then it's OK if they sexually abuse kids".

You are not a stupid Catholic bot, but you sound like one.

Take a logic course.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

So 22 allegations of abuse nationwide in one year for the Church? Compare that to Chicago alone, which reported 470 cases in 2022. The RCC's record sounds pretty darn good to me.

Report: 500 sexual misconduct complaints against Chicago Public School employees

Chicago Public Schools’ top watchdog reported 470 sexual allegations from students against employees.

www.illinoispolicy.org

1. There should not be any record of abuse, period.

2. Yes, it is getting better. 22 is unacceptable.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You are proving my point that you don't know the first thing about this if you believe there were 4200 pedophiles or instances of pedophilia. Read the report. Because this is just sad how ignorant your beliefs are and by association, you are too.

Your opinions don't count. Your belief does not count. They are not facts.

You are unable to argue the facts and the numbers.

You can't do that, so you have no validity when you do.

 

[ding]

Your opinions don't count. Your belief does not count. They are not facts.

You are unable to argue the facts and the numbers.

You can't do that, so you have no validity when you do.

Read the John Jay report. It has the facts.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Read the John Jay report. It has the facts.

It has unproven allegations and surmises.

 

[LibertyKid]

Know what solves all the debate? Christians technically don't need a "Bible" as it stands today. Whether protestant or RCC, not once, spoken or written, have Christians ever been told that they need a Bible or are commanded to believe in a Bible. The scriptures for Christians today should be the gospel accounts when it comes to understanding and believing the Gospel of Christ. The epistles are good for historical understanding of the early church.

Think about it. If one consolidates Christianity to the Gospels, separation from the OT means that Christians don't need to explain the OT warring God and the difficult questions and actions wrongly attributed to God. One doesn't have to explain the OT stories like Noah and Flood. We don't have theologians and modern pastors trying harmonize theology and beliefs from the OT with the Life of Christ and Epistles. The primary purpose of the OT then is to point to Jesus. That's it. If someone asks you if the Flood was a literal historical event, the answer now becomes, "Who cares, Jesus never said a belief in the flood was necessary for salvation", and you move on. Period.
One doesn't have to worry about eschatology, Calvinism vs Arminianism, baptist vs. methodist and all the other junk that has come out of the need to have an infallible "Word of God".

Instead the only doctrine is Jesus and his example. The first century Christians never had a bible. Most couldn't read or write. Their belief was only in Jesus. Why should it be any different today? Unfortunately, "The Bible" has caused more division in the "Church" than was ever intended; denominations, theology, executions, crusades, inquisitions, etc., all over a book that Christians were never told to make or have to believe in.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Liberty Kid thinks sensible talking to the true believers will bring them around. Nokey Dokey, it won't.

 

[ding]

It has unproven allegations and surmises.

It details the timing, numbers and circumstances. Read it or remain ignorant.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It details the timing, numbers and circumstances. Read it or remain ignorant.

It makes allegations of those subject but offers no evidence.

 

[Libby von H]

Unless you were schooled in Latin, the whole church would just sit there wondering what the hell the priest was talking about because they didn't speak the language. So the church came up with pictures and statues. Then they came up with prayers to go with the pictures. Since not all of the pictures were biblical, a new set was instituted in the 20th century.

The early Catholics were not allowed to own a Bible or have it translated into a language they could understand:
Decree of the (1229 C.E.): "We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."

Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating it into English. With the advent of the printing press, the church lost control in preventing the reading of the bible by the masses, so they came up with their own Catholic version.

All false and easily refuted.
Toulouse did not say all Bibles , it said translation. The official Bible was the Vulgate.
The council forbade lay people to read vernacular translations of the Bible.

 

[The Irish Ram]

All false and easily refuted.
Toulouse did not say all Bibles , it said translation. The official Bible was the Vulgate.
The council forbade lay people to read vernacular translations of the Bible.

Vernacular ~ the language or dialect spoken by the ordinary people in a particular country or region.

The translations didn't interpret the Bible, it translated it into a language people could understand. And that was the problem. It gave people the ability to rely more on the Bible and less on the Catholic Church.
If I gave a speech in Swahili, would you be edified by it? Neither was anybody that didn't understand Latin.

 

[Libby von H]

Your opinions don't count. Your belief does not count. They are not facts.

You are unable to argue the facts and the numbers.

You can't do that, so you have no validity when you do.

That is your OPINION, That is your BELIEF. they are not FACTS
Validity never has to do with truth (which cascades from the Truth of the major and minor premise) os you don't know what you are talking about . A perfectly valid syllogism can be factually wrong (and often is) and an invalid syllogism can have a true conclusion

There ,that's you done for.

 

[ding]

It makes allegations of those subject but offers no evidence.

You haven't read it. You know nothing about what it contains or doesn't contain. You are literally ignorant about it until you read it.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I have read what it applies, and you don't have a clue what is going on.

This is an argument of infallible inerrancy opposed to infallible teachings of the early Fathers, traditions, and a priesthood leadership..

 

[Blackrook]

I have a Bible that was produced by the Catholic Church so that lie is disproved.

 

[Blackrook]

Also, the Bible does not include everything that happened in the early days of the Church, and it wasn't meant to.

 

[hadit]

No the bible you read was created by the RCC.

you don't have access to all the religious writings that the RCC decided not to include

Are you trying to say that God cannot protect His Word?

 

[Blues Man]

Are you trying to say that God cannot protect His Word?

I'm saying the bible was not written by any god and men decided what was going t be included and excluded from it therefore it is the word of men

 

[ding]

Not one comment catholics? On the comparison? You can clearly see the differences

Here's a comment... you're a moron.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Also, the Bible does not include everything that happened in the early days of the Church, and it wasn't meant to.

You don't know that.