If you were not to follow....

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Are you going to apply that at the microscopic level as well?

I can't. The book is written and done. Anything that is not specifically written in the book of wisdom is pure nonsense. You need nothing more than "Stockenism - the book of wisdom" to see the whole truth to existence.

For all I care, there is no microscopic level of existence. It only appear that way to us.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Lucifershammer: "So, objectively speaking, yes - rejecting Catholicism entails rejecting Christ."

You are impossible to argue with because you change your position or equivocate with every post.

I am neither changing my position nor equivocating.

Come on, Doctor - don't give up so easily. What are you missing?

Originally posted by stocken
Funny. I always considered the followers of abrahamistic religions to live in fear of their God; constantly trying to lead their lifes so as not to bring the wrath of God upon them.

That is funny because most followers (even Muslims) of the Abrahamic religions would disagree.

Originally posted by stocken
Funny. I always considered the followers of abrahamistic religions to live in fear of their God; constantly trying to lead their lifes so as not to bring the wrath of God upon them. Not much difference between them and people sacrificing animals really. They all have their ideas on how to please their god(s).

Of course, sacrificing a living thing to impro ...[text shortened]... is horrible, one is silly and the third is just plain stupid.

From my point of view that is.

I disagree.

Originally posted by Halitose
I disagree.

Do you agree with LH that rejection of Catholicism entails a rejection of Christ?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you agree with LH that rejection of Catholicism entails a rejection of Christ?

Being a non-Catholic Christian, I would have to disagree. That being said, I'm willing to consider (and/or defend) any contradictions LH maintains are in my predominantly protestant beliefs.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I think I have adequate justification to believe in papal infallibility; another person (like you) may very well not.

OK, here is my problem with that:

Lets assume the REAL pope is infallible.

The question I have is this: Has every person in history that has been believed to be the pope by members of the church AT THE TIME been eventually shown to not be infallible? If so, how do you know that THIS pope is infallible?

In other words, IF the real pope is infallible, is your ability to know that the current pope you follow is the valid pope also infallible?

I have a similar problem with religion: I have no problem with trusting God, my problem is with how much I can trust my own concepts of what God wants.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I am neither changing my position nor equivocating.

Come on, Doctor - don't give up so easily. What are you missing?

Presumably you're still hung over from winning the Goldman-Rand (or should I just say Rand?) debate. Congratulations, by the way.

Look at what I have asserted so far:

1. Rejecting Catholicism entails rejecting Christ.
2. Lutherans do not reject Christ.

Now do you see?

Originally posted by JadeMantis
Lets assume the REAL pope is infallible.

Are you a sedevacantist?

The question I have is this: Has every person in history that has been believed to be the pope by members of the church AT THE TIME been eventually shown to not be infallible? If so, how do you know that THIS pope is infallible?

Not sure what you're talking about here. Are you referring to the Anti-Popes?

In other words, IF the real pope is infallible, is your ability to know that the current pope you follow is the valid pope also infallible?

No, my ability to assess the validity of the current Pope is not infallible. Nevertheless, based on all the evidence, I am certain that my judgment that this Pope was validly elected is correct.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Presumably you're still hung over from winning the Goldman-Rand (or should I just say Rand?) debate. Congratulations, by the way.

Look at what I have asserted so far:

1. Rejecting Catholicism entails rejecting Christ.
2. Lutherans do not reject Christ.

Now do you see?

Therefore Lutherans do not reject Catholiscism?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Are you a sedevacantist?

The question I have is this: Has every person in history that has been believed to be the pope by members of the church AT THE TIME been eventually shown to not be infallible? If so, how do you know that THIS pope is infallible?

Not sure what you're talking about here. Are you referring to the Anti-Popes?

[ ...[text shortened]... e evidence, I am certain that my judgment that this Pope was validly elected is correct.[/b]

Are you a sedevacantist?
Had to look that one up.
Nope. Firstly, I am not catholic and secondly I do not really have any position on the validity or not of the current pope.

My approach ito life\religion\science is that people have been wrong in the past, so I have no basis for a certainty that I am right now.

Are you referring to the Anti-Popes?
Yes, also any pope who made declarations which were later changed as having been mistakes.

No, my ability to assess the validity of the current Pope is not infallible. Nevertheless, based on all the evidence, I am certain that my judgment that this Pope was validly elected is correct.

Fair enough. Unfortunately I cannot be so certain about anything. I get as far as " GOD IS ", after that its all pretty much conjecture to me.

Originally posted by JadeMantis
Therefore Lutherans do not reject Catholiscism?

That is what the Doctor is missing.

EDIT: That's the source of incoherence in Lutheranism. It claims to reject the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, but simultaneously accepts several doctrines that can be justified (either logically or historically) only on the basis of that authority.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That is funny because most followers (even Muslims) of the Abrahamic religions would disagree.

So you're saying that you follow the commandments, and avoid anything that would displease your God, not because you're afraid of his punishment; going to hell, but because?..

If God's punishment is not a deterrent to his "children", then what's the point with having a hell in the first place? No, I think the only reason religions like that has prevailed for so long is that the majority of it's followers are scared to death (ts-ts) of the punishment come judgement day.

Of course, according to most believers it doesn't really mean anything unless you accept whomever in your heart as your saviour and whatever. That usually is no problem when you're scared shitless of the consequences of not accepting his "love". I mean, if you actually believe there is a punishing God to begin with, why would it be a problem for you to accept him? Doh...

The more I learn about religions like that, the more I realize that whether or not he really exists, I can never serve under him.

Originally posted by JadeMantis
Are you a sedevacantist?
Had to look that one up.
Nope. Firstly, I am not catholic and secondly I do not really have any position on the validity or not of the current pope.

My approach ito life\religion\science is that people have been wrong in the past, so I have no basis for a certainty that I am right now.

Are you referring to the A bout anything. I get as far as " GOD IS ", after that its all pretty much conjecture to me.

I have to appreciate your honesty here.

Yes, also any pope who made declarations which were later changed as having been mistakes.

Do you have any specifics?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
EDIT: That's the source of incoherence in Lutheranism. It claims to reject the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, but simultaneously accepts several doctrines that can be justified (either logically or historically) only on the basis of that authority.

What are those doctrines and why can they only be justified on the basis of Catholic authority?