>sin is good
ok anon

>>41084998

3 Catholics probably have to believe in an eternal hell, which strikes me as very implausible. https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/08/popes-creeds-councils-and-catechisms.html
https://benthams.substack.com/p/should-believers-in-eternal-hell?utm_source=publication-search
https://benthams.substack.com/p/universalism-a-comprehensive-defense?utm_source=publication-search
https://benthams.substack.com/p/why-i-disagree-with-gavin-ortlund?utm_source=publication-search

4 Catholics are committed to scriptural inerrancy. https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/08/popes-creeds-councils-and-catechisms.html I think the bible is riddled with clear errors concerning morality (e.g. pretty much the entire book of Joshua, stuff about slavery), authorship (it seems to affirm the false doctrine of mosaic authorship), and more. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLe1tMOs8ARn3Uy9dvxyqhBvEldBgkqtN5 When reading the Bible, it seems riddled with nutty holdovers of a barbaric and prescientific age, as well as contradictions and duplicate stories. https://benthams.substack.com/p/50-lifetimes-to-babylon?utm_source=publication-search
https://benthams.substack.com/p/why-im-not-a-christian?utm_source=publication-search

>>41085014
5 Catholics must believe in divine simplicity which I think is very implausible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhke5_tk6N0 [Open] (it might be that they can believe some more watered down version of it, but various authoritative teachings seemed to have in mind a more aggressive version of the doctrine).

6 The Catholic Church in Exsurge domine https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10exdom.htm which I think there’s a good case to be made for Catholics being infallibly committed to because of a bit at the end which I’ll include in a footnote 2—condemned as an error Martin Luther’s notion “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” But plainly this is not an error if Christianity is true! I know there’s some controversy about whether exsurge domine is infallible, so I don’t want to make it the main point in my case, but it’s at least something of a problem for Catholicism.

2
"For, according to these errors, or any one or several of them, it clearly follows that the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit is in error and has always erred. This is against what Christ at his ascension promised to his disciples (as is read in the holy Gospel of Matthew):

“I will be with you to the consummation of the world”; it is againstthe determinations of the holy Fathers, or the express ordinances andcanons of the councils and the supreme pontiffs. Failure to complywith these canons, according to the testimony of Cyprian, will be thefuel and cause of all heresy and schism. With the advice and consentof these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each andevery one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God,the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, wecondemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses orerrors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious earsor seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth.

>>41085023
By listingthem, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes mustregard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrainall in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of anautomatic major excommunication."

This seems to meet the requirements for an Ex Cathedra statements which are nicely summarized by Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#:~:text=the%20Roman%20Pontiff%20(the%20Pope,is%20outside%20the%20Catholic%20Church.

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vatican_Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra papal teaching are as follows:[12]

1 the Roman Pontiff (the Pope alone or with the College of Bishops) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_of_Bishops

2 speaks ex cathedra – that is, when (in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles_in_the_New_Testament he defines a doctrine:

A. concerning faith or morals, and

B. To be held by the whole Church.

The terminology of a definitive decree usually makes clear that this last condition is fulfilled, as through a formula such as "By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We declare, pronounce and define the doctrine [...] to be revealed by God and as such to be firmly and immutably held by all the faithful," or through an accompanying anathema https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissent is outside the Catholic Church

Article linked here https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-miracle-of-catholicism#_

>>41085038
7 As my friend Gavin Ortlund argues persuasively, https://www.amazon.com/What-Means-Be-Protestant-Always-Reforming/dp/0310156327 Catholic teachings about Mary and icons don’t go back to the apostles and were made up hundreds of years later. The Catholic Church claims only the authority to interpret and develop scripture and apostolic teachings, not make up entirely new teachings out of whole cloth—so if these teachings are made up later, as the historical record seems to suggest, that’s a big problem for Catholicism. Similar things seem true of the Papacy, but I haven’t looked into that one as much. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG6pnAjHX1k [Open]

8 It also seems like Catholic Church teaching on whether there’s salvation outside the Church and usury has flipped. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus

>>41084998
We just had this same thread, fuck off

>>41085060
No one debunked it.
Catholics took the L
I'm giving them a second chance

>catholicism is false because [anti christian moralism]
God cares not for the world.

>>41085074
Can you give me a hint?

>>41085105
>that's not real Christianity
>Real Christianity has never been tried

>>41085179
Christianity has been tried from the death of Christ to the present. It is right here and now. Your rough, copy-pasted "argument" just says that Christian morality is bad and Catholics are bad for upholding that morality. The morals of pro-creation, sexual immorality and not lying "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"

>>41085186
>schizophrenic man comes to your front door
>you are hiding a mailman in your attic
>schizo at front door truly believes without a doubt if he doesn't kill mailman in next five minutes everyone on earth will go to hell, schizo is very empathic and doesn't want everyone on earth to go to hell
>schizo asks you yes or no are you hiding mailman in your house

Do you

1. Lie to the schizophrenic man and tell him the mailman isn't in your home? He'll walk away and give up his search in five minutes

2. Tell the schizophrenic man the mailman is in your attic and allow him to kill him

3. Tell the schizophrenic man the mailman is in your attic and shoot the innocent schizophrenic man to prevent him from killing the mailman

Everyone has heard the Nazi hypothetical at the front door Jews in attic hypothetical. I like this one better because the schizophrenic man at your front door is innocent unlike the national socialists.

>>41085225
I would close the door. But good try at a theological paradox. Maybe one day if you try you'll create one worth arguing about.

>>41084998
Dude. Your number 1 example is basically Catholics saying...

>don't be gay

And that's why you think Catholicism is bad? Hey feds, do your job and track this future school shooter. But let him "ack" if he's harmless to others. Your #2 is....

>its okay to lie to people if they mean you harm and the lie will save you, or the people asking have no right to know your information.

So if some dude who robs me asks me for my credit card pin number and I give him the wrong one so as to not have him injure or kill me if I just say "I won't tell it to you", that means Catholicism bad?

I'm not even Catholic, it's a mixture of Pagan and Jewish beliefs that's communism lite. But your first two examples are so bad and gay that I am not reading anymore of your dribble. You lost me t r o o n i e

>>41085238
Of course you dodge because you know it makes you look retarded. Great job proving my point.
>>41085242
be homophobic if you want. Just don't use retarded reasons like "natural law" which is obviously bullshit

>>41085254
>homophobic
Homophobia implies hate. I actually feel terrible for homosexuals because their sexual appetites amount to nothing once they are old and unaccomplished. They deserve forgiveness. I feel this way for all people who suffer from lust. It has nothing to do with nature. It has to do with sin.

>>41085254
>Of course you dodge because you know it makes you look retarded.
Your scenario was nonsensical. I gave a straight answer.

>>41085242
>So if some dude who robs me asks me for my credit card pin number and I give him the wrong one so as to not have him injure or kill me if I just say "I won't tell it to you", that means Catholicism bad?

You misspelled lie to him
You can do what you suggested and lie to him
Or you can give him your actual pin
Or you can tell him you won't tell him your pin and possibly get shot or tortured or whatever.

>>41085254
Yeah I just think it's disgusting, gross, and degenerate. Can't explain it. Won't even try. I gag at the thought. It's not scary, there's no "phobia", it's just disgusting and most people find it disgusting

>>41085273
I feel this way about black licorice too

this reads more like your personal issues with catholic theology and an attempt to get people to answer them.

what are you struggling with? why do you think you fear that catholicism might be true? why do you take its truth claims seriously enough to feel the need to discredit them? are you jewish?

>>41085225
It is a sin to lie, it is not a sin to defend yourself and others, which is perfectly supported in the catechism of the catholic church.
You need to read these things before you critique them on a korean pottery forum.

>>41085311
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-lowdown-on-lying

>>41085317
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

>>41085322
That's great.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines lying by quoting St. Augustine: “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving” (2482).

Lying to defend yourself is lying. You are engaged in pilpul right now

>>41085329
this might be a bot

no central thesis beyond "not X", scattered arguments, non sequiturs

>>41085329
Inb4
>The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it. Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. the good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. the duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.

not revealing the truth isn't always the same thing as lying.

Not telling the Nazis about the Jews in the basement isn't the same as telling them there are no Jews in the basement when I know there is.

Not Revealing the truth is very different from lying. Not being compelled to reveal the truth means you can stay silent. Lying is knowingly saying something false.

>>41085350
>Catholic cope

>>41085359
i'm not catholic, and i think their theology has flaws.

you're coming from an emotionally desperate place though, your reasoning is obscured by your deep, extremely deliberate motivations

you cannot have an actual argument without providing your grounding first:

are you jewish? do you believe jesus christ is god?

>>41085367
I don't have to give anything about my beliefs. I can just do an internal critique of Catholicism

>>41085374
if your goal is to arrive at truth, you absolutely have to declare your view of what truth is

your arguments look like you asked chatGPT to find contradictions in catholic theology and pasted them as a thread. if you actually invested time and research into these arguments, you wasted your time.

you think all of catholicism is going to be unraveled because God will send you to hell for lying about Anne Frank in the attic? knowing your background would help people understand your arguments, because on their face your argument is ridiculous non sequitur