Religious vigilantes. Wonderful.
2 Likes
Who are these âtheyâ that you speak of? The ONLY wrongfully attested is the Pope! All others, or the âtheysâ, are minions/puppets.
BTWâŚCatholics are not Christian (by definition).
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOT CHRISTIAN!
NEITHER ARE THE MORMANS OR SCIENTO0OLGY!! 
Please, at least start from a position of truth!
That is demonstrably false.
âRoman Catholicism is the largest of the three major branches of Christianity. Thus, all Roman Catholics are Christian, but not all Christians are Roman Catholic.â
You seem to want to reel off strident unevidenced claims, ranging from bizarre to demonstrably erroneous. What did you want to debate exactly?
You will need to offer some clue who this is aimed at, preferably using the quote function for context, just highlight any text and a quote icon will appear.
You seem to be irony impaired, both Mormonism and Catholicism are Christian denominations. There are over 45k different Christian sects and denominations globally.
3 Likes
Why do you consider the Catholic Church non-Christian?
1 Like
This is a frequently parroted assertion by various American fundamentalists and Christian Nationalist mouthpieces. Itâs basically the âNo True Scotsmanâ fallacy in a particularly infantile form.
If these twonks are going to toss out the Catholics as purportedly ânot Christianâ, then theyâre going to have to do the same to a whole brace of Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Methodists, the Quakers and those odd minority sects the USA plays host to, such as the Amish and the Mennonites.
But one of the nastier aspects of American evangelicalism, has for some time been the obsession with ideological purity over both practical and human concerns. An obsession which has led to it becoming what I described about a decade ago elsewhere as âChristofascistâ.
Incidentally, UK posters who were teenagers when The Tomorrow People was being broadcast on TV, might remember a set of episodes devoted to a cult called The First Church of Christ, Psychopath. American evangelicalism is straying dangerously close to being a model for that cult.
2 Likes
So youâre saying that the Bible used today was largely compiled by non christians?
1 Like
Curious minds are poised for worldly fertilization.
Yes, my interactions, thus far, are chaotic and ill placed. Please understand that my understanding of exactly how this forum works isâŚmaturing. I apologize for any misplaced comments. As for my commentsâŚthey stand!
If a requirement to participate in this forum is to debateâŚthen many will be disappointed. I intend to state facts, correct misunderstandings, expose willful ignorance and learn from the forum participants.
Given time everyone will learn to love me and my opinions.
NO! I never mentioned the Bible! BUTâŚNO, no Christian compiled/pinned any of the Old Testament. That is not debatable. There were no Christians when the TORAH was pinned.
The New Testament, pinned by men, inspired by God and compiled by The Holy Spirit. While it is debatable whether all of the inspired authors of the New Testament were in fact âChristianâ it is not debatable that they were followers of Christ.
The Catholic Bible has literal changes from the Old and New Testaments as well as added Books (The Apocrypha). It is different.
All modern bibles (and even some of the ancient texts used to compile it ) have literal changes TO the the Septuagint and New Testament. It was the Protestant Reformists who REMOVED many of the âoriginalâ books of the bible entirely. You would know them as the Apocrypha.
It is strange that the modern Protestant Bibles still contain known forgeries like 2 Timothy, Titus and 2 Peter, and other known interpolated and altered texts, but point fingers at the Catholics.
Which particular version of the 100âs in circulation do you think is the âcorrectâ version of the bible?
4 Likes
I am less concerned about your ability to use the the quote function, than your vapid cryptic comments, which have all the appearance of trolling, and certainly show no interest in honest debate.
Two mutually exclusive positions.
Youâre in the debate forum genius, with your grasp of English one wonders how you failed to read the word debate in the title? So if youâre stating you have zero interest in debate, then your stay here will likely be brief, since this forum is a not a medium for anyone to preach from. I suggest you find a pulpit, or a site for religious zealots, who want to preach their propaganda in an echo chamber that never subjects it to critical scrutiny.
Not so far, cryptic vapid one liners and unevidenced claims are all I see.
Like your unevidenced claims about a deity, and you;re bizarre and cryptic political assertions, I am dubious, In fact I am dubious you will be here very long if you want to preach, and Iâve seen nothing else so far.
Straw man fallacy, deliberate mendacity is no more impressive than sweeping unevidenced and erroneous claims; and others will note you ignored the evidence presented that contradicts your no true Scotsman fallacy about catholics.
Another straw man fallacy, and an irrelevant one as it does not evidence your no true Scotsman fallacy about catholics.
âRoman Catholicism is the largest of the three major branches of Christianity. Thus, all Roman Catholics are Christian, but not all Christians are Roman Catholic.â
2 Likes
Thus far, youâre doing an extremely bad job on all of these fronts âŚ
5 Likes
The fact of whether you are more or less concerned doesnât concern me in the least! Your concern has no bearing on my forum participation nor the structure, content or subject matter of my posts.
Granted I am new to this forum but I have spent enough time here to identify an âhonest debateâ. While I am hoping that there is one somewhere in this forumâŚas of this post, I have not seen one. My experience thus far has been repeated threats, name calling and delusional immature responses to my posts.
Please donât misunderstandâŚI expected no less! It has been my experience that self professed honesty can be veiled by willfully imposed ignorance.
Now, if you are a ModeratorâŚspank me and move on.
Which dictionary are you using which defines Catholics as not Christian? I couldnât find one with a definition like you described.
4 Likes
Youâve not provided one either. Is it your plan to do so?
Are you suggesting that is the case here? If so, please provide evidence for it.
Well, I am a mod. Either pose a comprehensive, sensible argument or you move on.
4 Likes
Why would I care? Are you sure English is your first language?
Straw man fallacy, normally Iâd link an explanation, but since your posts so far are dishonest strident erroneous and vapid zealotry, you can do your own leg work.
No you havenât, but I flatter myself that I have, and your strident unevidenced assertions thus far have not attempted honest debate.
Ouch, I canât tell you how unconcerned I am by your vapid generic ad hominem, but I bet every poster here is shaking like a shitting dog at this claim. Did you have an original thought, or is the âno you areâ argument to be the apotheosis of your tantrum?
Thatâs a lie, but since you set this very mendacious bar champ, cry me a riverâŚ
The negative expectations of closed minded bigots, is of little interest, since it is utterly predictable. If all you have are vapid strident and unevidenced assertions, some of which are demonstrably risible and erroneous nonsense, then it is hardly news that even you have learned to expect most reasonable people will not accept your wild, unevidenced, and idiotic assertions. For example your claim that catholics are not christians is demonstrably and stupidly wrong, at best it is a rather puerile use of a no true Scotsman fallacy. That you expected your claim would fall on deaf ears, is hardly a profound observation, and all it tells us about the posters here is they can smell a bullshitter plainly evidenced in front of their eyes.
Like you claiming to âonly deal in factsâ for example, but refusing to evidence any of your assertions when asked, even making assertions that are demonstrably wrong. You seem again to be telling us what we already know. Honesty is manifest, or not, in the content of the post, not in a bare assertion that one is âdealing in factsâ as you claimed to be.
All anyone need do is read your posts thus far, to see that you have made no attempt at honest debate.
I am not, but since youâve just pulled down your own pants, and spanked yourself, in just about every post, then I need do nothing. The moderators on this site are very good, and will give most visitors a deal of rope to assess if they intend offering honest debate, or anything of value, or if they are here to troll and disrupt, so all I need do is sat back and watch to see if your posts change from the latter to the former, if they donât then the outcome will be inevitable, I believe this has been explained to you more than once.
2 Likes
Last call before I conclude you just made that shit up. 
4 Likes
Please Demonstrate how you have excluded them from the Christian faith.
You are asserting, The Catholics, ⌠the people who wrote your bible⌠are not Christian. "The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. (*And you assert they were wrong and not Christian for doing so?)
The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. (*But these were not Christians, and their book was not divinely inspired by God?)
Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther." (Over fifteen-hundred years later, someone clarifies things and begins a new religion that is more correct than the old religion? Really? Wasnât Martin Luther just the Mormon of his time?)
You would not even have a bible if the Catholic Church had not thrown it together from the hundreds of available Christian religious texts of the time.
Are you aware of the fact that Martin Luther was insane? The man is a nutjob from the word go⌠but your text was rewritten by King James to meet his own needs. In 1604, Englandâs King James I authorized a new translation of the Bible aimed at settling some thorny religious differences in his kingdom âand solidifying his own power. In seeking to prove his own supremacy, King James ended up democratizing your version of the Bible. So how are you Christian but the inventors of the religion are not?
Where is this magic line in the sand that omits the Mormons? Scientologists do not profess to be Christian. They follow Lord Xeno and are only interested in freeing you from the Thetans infesting your mind and body.
2 Likes
There, fixed that for youâŚ
2 Likes