What being a Christian "Was" like

[reasonist]

My response was 'mindless'??  :)))))))))  Okay.  You quote a so called book, that is called The Word of God, all with not a shred of factual foundation evidence to support it.  And I'm the 'mindless' one, say the brainwashed disciple of a fictional religion.  :)))))))))))))))))))))

The three stages of a discussion with the pious. It happens every time I debate a self deceiver;

A) Denial         whatever fact is brought up, it is readily dismissed or ignored
B) Accusations     the moral inferiority of non believers, Hitler, Stalin etc. etc. same old same old
C) Insults          when everything else fails to convince, personal attacks follow

This Carson poster is a prime example of this. Arrogance, insults and avoidance mark his posts. Maybe he is related to Ben Carson, the neurosurgeon that ran for POTUS, who said that the Egyptians built the pyramids to hold their grain.
What else is there for these folks? Their arguments by nature are thousands of years old. I feel like we are on the winning side intellectually and on the losing side politically. It is however a very interesting social study to follow someone like Carson, the wiggling, the change of subjects, the ignoring of facts. The progress in science has made religion obsolete in terms of explanations. Now faith is just a personal crutch for the insecure and frightened. And it surely shows.
Don't mind the insults Mike, you know the source...

[Randy Carson]

My response was 'mindless'??  :)))))))))  Okay.  You quote a so called book, that is called The Word of God, all with not a shred of factual foundation evidence to support it.  And I'm the 'mindless' one, say the brainwashed disciple of a fictional religion.  :)))))))))))))))))))))

Yes, your response was mindless...the product of a complete lack of thought.

First, there is ample "factual foundation evidence" to support Christianity. Whether you find it compelling or not is another matter.

Second, your comment was that the resurrection was the beginning of "the big lie". Really, Mike?

So, what you are saying is that the apostles and authors of the New Testament KNEW that Jesus did not actually rise from the dead and that they agreed to engage in a massive conspiracy to establish their new religion.

Is that your position?

[Absurd Atheist]

Yes, your response was mindless...the product of a complete lack of thought.

First, there is ample "factual foundation evidence" to support Christianity. Whether you find it compelling or not is another matter.

Second, your comment was that the resurrection was the beginning of "the big lie". Really, Mike?

So, what you are saying is that the apostles and authors of the New Testament KNEW that Jesus did not actually rise from the dead and that they agreed to engage in a massive conspiracy to establish their new religion.

Is that your position?

That sounds more plausible then him actually rising from the dead. It wouldn't be the first time religions lied about stories to make their fables make sense.

[Randy Carson]

Catholicism branched off from Orthodox, not the other way around. The Pope didn't like being subordinate to the Emperor, and the Ecumenical Patriarch was getting tired of his shit.

Granted, I can certainly understand not wanting to take orders from Constantinople, but at least be honest about where the branching off occurred.

You've spent a lot of time studying the Great Schism, have you?

Sorry, but no. Jesus established PETER as the head of the Church and the Early Church Fathers are unanimous in their belief that unanimity with Rome was a sure test of orthodoxy. So, while the Orthodox are orthodox doctrinally, they are not in formal communion with the head of the Church established by their savior, Jesus Christ (cf. Mt. 16:18-19).

[Randy Carson]

That sounds more plausible then him actually rising from the dead. It wouldn't be the first time religions lied about stories to make their fables make sense.

So, I can put you down as a supporter of the Conspiracy Theory, then?

[Randy Carson]

The three stages of a discussion with the pious. It happens every time I debate a self deceiver;

A) Denial         whatever fact is brought up, it is readily dismissed or ignored
B) Accusations     the moral inferiority of non believers, Hitler, Stalin etc. etc. same old same old
C) Insults          when everything else fails to convince, personal attacks follow

This Carson poster is a prime example of this. Arrogance, insults and avoidance mark his posts. Maybe he is related to Ben Carson, the neurosurgeon that ran for POTUS, who said that the Egyptians built the pyramids to hold their grain.
What else is there for these folks? Their arguments by nature are thousands of years old. I feel like we are on the winning side intellectually and on the losing side politically. It is however a very interesting social study to follow someone like Carson, the wiggling, the change of subjects, the ignoring of facts. The progress in science has made religion obsolete in terms of explanations. Now faith is just a personal crutch for the insecure and frightened. And it surely shows.
Don't mind the insults Mike, you know the source...

Hillarious.

I'm posting basic facts about the dating of the gospels and the reasons why we can be confident that we have accurate texts (most of which you ignored, btw), and your response (after having been boxed in at every turn) is to follow the very steps you laid out above.

[Blackleaf]

So, I can put you down as a supporter of the Conspiracy Theory, then?

You are such an idiot. Do you believe what all the other religions' ridiculous claims too? No, of course not, because you've convinced yourself that your religion is somehow special. It's not.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

You've spent a lot of time studying the Great Schism, have you?

Sorry, but no. Jesus established PETER as the head of the Church and the Early Church Fathers are unanimous in their belief that unanimity with Rome was a sure test of orthodoxy. So, while the Orthodox are orthodox doctrinally, they are not in formal communion with the head of the Church established by their savior, Jesus Christ (cf. Mt. 16:18-19).

So the Catholic Church thinks that the Catholic Church has taken the correct stance concerning the standing of the Catholic Church with regard to the Bible. I see no conflict of interests here.

Regardless of the status of Peter, the Bishop of Rome was appointed by the Emperor. If the Pope was ever the successor to Peter, that certainly stopped being the case when the Chalcedonian Church was established as the state religion of the Empire. Your Pope is the successor only to puppets appointed by the Roman Emperors; one of the few things about your religion that has real historical documentation backing it up.

[reasonist]

Hillarious.

I'm posting basic facts about the dating of the gospels and the reasons why we can be confident that we have accurate texts (most of which you ignored, btw), and your response (after having been boxed in at every turn) is to follow the very steps you laid out above.

Again, I appreciate your sense of humor. A legend in your own mind you are. Funny but still no facts. Repeat after me: 2,000 year old hearsay is not fact! Look up in the dictionary the word fact. Actually I'll do it for you, so you can't ignore it.

"Event, item of information, or state of affairs existing, observed, or known to have happened, and which is confirmed or validated to such an extent that it is considered 'reality."

Not one syllable you posted here meets that criteria. So keep air boxing me in, it's entertaining at least.

P.S. Thank you for proving my point

[Mike Cl]

Riiiiight.

And for an opposing opinion regarding these heresies, some guys who were actually there at the time:

Tertullian

“
Cyprian of Carthage



Augustine



"[T]he very name of Catholic . . . belongs to this Church alone . . . so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘catholic,' when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation' 4:5 [AD 397]).

My, my, my--in all red!  Goodness--must be true then. Since you like red so much, have you read The Five Gospels, by the Jesus Seminar?  The 'true' sayings are highlighted in red and were determined by a panel of expert scholars in this area.  Not many sayings are red--the large majority are in black (not said by Jesus).  So, even in this book, it is evident that the 'followers' and recorders of the sayings of this man could not get it right.

You list sources that are an integral part of your church who have a deeply vested interest in giving history their spin on events.  The victors always get to write the history of whatever event they are writing about.  And the Catholic Church was the victor in these many squabbles.  Labeling yourself 'universal' does not make it so.  And in fact, the Catholic Church was never 'catholic'--not then and not now.

[Randy Carson]

You are such an idiot. Do you believe what all the other religions' ridiculous claims too? No, of course not, because you've convinced yourself that your religion is somehow special. It's not.

No, nothing to see here. Move along.

[Randy Carson]

So the Catholic Church thinks that the Catholic Church has taken the correct stance concerning the standing of the Catholic Church with regard to the Bible. I see no conflict of interests here.

You could substitute just about any proper noun into that sentence with similar results. Big. Whoop.

Regardless of the status of Peter, the Bishop of Rome was appointed by the Emperor. If the Pope was ever the successor to Peter, that certainly stopped being the case when the Chalcedonian Church was established as the state religion of the Empire. Your Pope is the successor only to puppets appointed by the Roman Emperors; one of the few things about your religion that has real historical documentation backing it up.

"If the pope was ever the successor to Peter..."? IF?

"3The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us." (Against Heresies 3.3.3, [A.D. 180])

[reasonist]

OK, so Randy Carson is a 99.9% Atheist. He keeps clinging to the one out of a thousand and claims to be a christian. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are no christians. Only pseudo christians who entered a marriage of convenience with a deity. Not even the Pope is a christian. Nobody gauges their own eyes out or chops their hand off because of some goat herders claim. How many christians kill gays or adulterers, or their cursing children? How many christians claim today that the Earth is flat? Nothing of that sort unless they want to embarrass themselves.
Oh wait..this just in. A direct broadcast from the heavens. Limbo is out. There is no such thing says the Pope. After 2,000 years of inculcating the flock that unbaptised children go into a 'waiting area' or limbo, this claim is out. We stand corrected. We were wrong about that. Now lets move on.                              The mormons had the same direct line in the 60's when telling that blacks are sub human got them into trouble with the gov. So, a quick message from god rectified the situation and blacks are now human after all.
The whole thing is so absurd that it defies any logic or rationality.

Of course no answer to my point that somehow, sometime the doctrine changed from flat Earth to spheric, but not before tens of thousands of people were tortured and roasted for saying just that. And meek and gentle Jesus who found himself compelled to curse a fig tree and told us that he didn't come in peace but with a sword, tells us also to fullfill every 'jot and tittle' of the Torah. Matthew 5:17

And the lord said unto the servant, go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
(Luke 14:23)
This must be the free will the Christians are talking about..or the threat of eternal roasting. It's all free will.

[Baruch]

Given Pope Damasus, explain why all subsequent Popes aren't anti-Popes?  His election was surely invalid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Damasus_I

His supporters were followers of a previous anti-Pope, who committed a three day massacre against the supporters of the other claimant.  Politics intervened, and the other claimant was exiled and denounced.  But it is a good thing that Pope Damasus' thugs were holy thugs.

[Randy Carson]

Given Pope Damasus, explain why all subsequent Popes aren't anti-Popes?  His election was surely invalid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Damasus_I

His supporters were followers of a previous anti-Pope, who committed a three day massacre against the supporters of the other claimant.  Politics intervened, and the other claimant was exiled and denounced.  But it is a good thing that Pope Damasus' thugs were holy thugs.

That's not how the papal succession works. Popes do not receive their succession directly from one another; they are elected.

Therefore, if a pope is invalidly elected or if it takes a long time to pick a winner, the chair of St. Peter is vacant until the election is complete. Once this occurs and any disputes are settled, then the candidate becomes the Bishop of Rome, who is also the Pope.

The Synod of 378 dealt with the dispute you question, and Damasus was exonerated and became Pope.

As this line of discussion is off-topic, I'll let further inquiries wait for another day and thread.