/lit/ - Literature

Like actual arguements against the theology of the Catholic Church, not just examples of when fallible humans in the church did messed up stuff.

reading martin luther is probably a start

>>12545087
God can't be physical, multiple. Jesus didn't fulfill the requirements to be messiah. God's commandments delivered by Moses are eternal and irrevocable, as is his covenant with the children of Israel.

>>12545228
>Jesus didn't fulfill the requirements to be messiah.
calm down chaim

>>12545232
Stay mad Goy.

>>12545087
The Orthodox Church.
>God's commandments delivered by Moses are eternal and irrevocable
Each and every one of them broken by the Hebrews the moment he brought them down the mountain.
>, as is his covenant with the children of Israel.
Children of Israel is not a genetic link. Christian aliens will be proof of that, if Christian (Israelite) Goyim won't do it for you. Judah is treacherous, and the earthly Jerusalem will be purged by Christ.

>>12545228
God can be whatever he wants if he’s all powerful

>>12545087
Here's a simple one that refutes one of their common arguments. Specifically regarding Peter and the "keys." The passage they normally reference:
>Mt. 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
>19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Let's disregard the issue of what the "rock" as that isn't the point here. Peter is given the "keys." Now what do "keys" do? They lock and unlock things, or in other words "bind" and "loose." Therefore the "binding" and "loosing" signifies the power of the "keys." Is this language used anywhere else? Two chapters later:
>Mt. 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
>19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
>20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
I used the King James version because it makes the distinction between singular and plural second person pronouns, which is important here. In the first quote, when Christ is speaking to Peter, he uses the singular "thou/thee," so he is speaking to one person only. In the later passage Christ uses the plural form "ye/you," so he is speaking to multiple people, in this case all of the Apostles. So he is giving all of the Apostles the power of "binding" and "loosing." Therefore he is giving the "keys" to all of the Apostles. Peter is not given some sort of special power which the other Apostles are not.
One may object that Christ places a limit on the later Apostles because he says "if two of you shall agree," in v. 19, but this is nonsense, since this would apply to Peter as well, because Peter was there among those he was addressing. In the very next verse:
>Mt. 18:21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
Their argument about the "keys" is nonsense as the "keys" simply refer to the authority given by Christ to the Apostles.

>>12545245
>Can God create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift

>>12545245
When we say God is omnipotent we mean that he is infinitely powerful insofar as it accords with his nature, not that he can do anything, which is why this question >>12545263 is nonsense.

>>12545247
The King James Bible is notoriously innaccurate for translations. It used the word unicorn instead of rhino (an understandable mistake)

>>12545291
Douay-Rheims:
First passage, Peter (thou/thee)
>Mt. 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Second passage, all Apostles (ye/you)
>Mt. 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
Try your stupid FUD "argument" somewhere else.

>>12545263
Why shouldn't he be able to?

>>12545316
If God did not have power over his own creation he would not be God, therefore creating something more powerful than himself would be impossible and contrary to his own nature.

>>12545228
>God can't be physical
Why can God not unite to himself a human nature?

>>12545306
Still built the church upon peter as it’s ruler. Cardinals to this day still discuss matters and make votes.

>>12545235
>Stay mad Goy
Says the happy merchant who got assblasted for being hated by literally everyone everywhere.

>>12545263
Yes.

>>12545335
Scripturally speaking, the Bible is explicit that God has no form and there is nothing that can remotely be compared to it. We also understand that God exists out of time, God has no beginning and end, he is unchanging. In this sense we can't apply concepts such as time and space to him.

>>12545324
A rock isn't powerful at all though it's just a stupid rock

>>12545346
>Still built the church upon peter
The most common interpretation of the "rock" by the Church Fathers is that it refers to Peter's confession of faith in v. 16. The verse is a pun, as Peter in Greek is Petros, and "rock" in Greek is petros/petra, so Christ is making a play on words and is not actually referring to Peter. But even if he were, that brings us to:
>as it’s ruler.
Where's that "rulership" given? What does it mean? The power of the "keys"? I already demonstrated that wasn't given specifically to Peter at all. You have nothing to go on here.
>Cardinals to this day still discuss matters and make votes.
What have cardinals to do with this? The office of cardinal is a medieval invention and is open to laypeople.

>>12545379
Christians believe that Christ has two two natures, a divine nature and a human nature united in one divine person. So everything that you are saying is true and applicable to him in his divine nature; human aspects regard only his human nature and do not sully the divine as the two are not mingled. Again, I don't see any reason that God could not do this. He is not becoming human in the sense that he ceases to be divine, but is rather a divine being but unites to himself a separate human nature.

>>12545381
You're just equivocating on what "powerful" means and aren't saying anything of meaning.

>>12545385
What’s your point about lay people? A lay person can be a pope if the cardinals ever wanted that again. I’m just saying that like the apostles the cardinals all discussed matters relating to the faithful.

>>12545406
You're trying to say "bishops" not cardinals, but you're too ignorant about your own religion to understand the difference. So let's pretend you said bishops. What is your point? Bishops discussed things, and the Apostles discussed things, therefore Catholicism is true? That's a new one.

>>12545087
>What did Jesus mean when he said that he would build his church upon peter and the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against it?
He obviously meant that Peter and his successors were the supreme Church authority. That's why he said it to Peter and not to the rest. Duh.

Catholicism is the only true religion. Accept that, or burn in hell.

When does the Bible ever talk about papal succession?

>>12545891
What about the Byzantine argument that all the institutions of Rome got packed up and moved to New Rome and therefore the true successor See of Peter is Constantinople?

>>12545925
>all the institutions of Rome got packed up and moved to New Rome

Historically inaccurate. Political institutions may have moved to some degree, but the bishopry stayed there, in an unbroken link to this day.

>>12545923
Jesus confirmed Peter alone in an office as the first of the Apostles. He intended it to be a permanent office transmitted to Peter's successors because Jesus' kingdom will last until the end of time. This office of shepherding the Church is passed on through the sacred office of the bishops. Therefore, the church teaches that "the bishops have by divine institution take place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such a way's that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.

Peter's succession is already intimated when Jesus connected the promise of the keys he will give to Peter with the prime ministerial office in David's kingdom in Isaiah 22. Jesus affirmed that Peter will be given the dynastic office of chief shepherd in Jesus' kingdom.

Apostolic succession is also clearly evident when Peter determined that a successor must be chosen to fill the place vacated by Judas' betrayal and suicide:

Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share of this ministry ... For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and, 'His office let another take" (Acts 1:16-17, 20).

Apostolic succession is evident in the first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas. They "appointed elders [bishops and priests] for them in every church, with prayers and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they believe" (Acts 14:23).

In his second letter to Timothy St. Paul laid out the generational program for apostolic succession that was practiced by the Apostles and their successors, and is continued to the present time: "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you [Timothy was a second generation of Christians] have heard from me [Paul was of the first generation] before many witnesses entrust to the faithful men [the third generation] who will be able to teach others [the fourth generation] also (2 Tim 2:1-2).

By the end of the second century, apostolic succession was understood as the sure indicator of orthodoxy. St. Irenaeus of Lions, writing against the Gnostics around the year 180, affirmed "the tradition of the Apostles," was safeguarded in the unbroken line of succession of those men who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors. He placed the greatest importance on the successors of St. Peter in Rome.

>>12545228
Oh shut up, how do you explain God's pre-incarnate appearances in the old testament then? Like when Moses cooked him a meal. It's just an excuse so your people can keep feeling special. You're not. And you're all going to hell.

>>12545087
Every argument against classical theism or a debunking of an argument for classical theism is by extension an argument against Catholicism. The hitherto history of philosophy of religion is a poking of one giant hole in the intellectually bankrupt case for Abrahamic religions, punctuated every now and then by a fit of retardation like skeptical theism, the modal ontological argument or dressing up fine tuning in new clothes to throw attention away from its inherent flaws.

>>12545087
Should hard-determinismbe the best arguement agaisnt religion? if all our actions are pre-determined or at the will of random forces of the universe then having a godly being on top of the clouds judging our actions as if we have free-will is useless.

>>12546095
Correction, it was Abraham, not Moses. There are more examples of theophanies as well.

>>12546101
>what is Calvinism

>>12545087
Jesus never said the Papacy should exist.

>>12546146
Care to give me some explaination on that? please? What does it say about determinism?
God made people pre-determined to sin and do "bad" shit as if was their duty?

>>12545291
no dog in this fight personally, but I can read Greek and >>12545247 is right about the pronouns and verbs in Mt. 18:18.

>>12546189
Read Romans 9 for a good summary of predestination. Everything is for God’s glory. I’ll be on later to discuss, but I’m in class right now

>>12546101
Where has Catholicism/Christianity ever claimed that everything is pre-deremined/fated? I feel that you are arguing against your own poor misinterpretation.

>>12546069
Anna Kommene makes the argument in a long tirade about Latin arrogance in the Alexiad. Agree that it's a bit stupid and would only be plausible if a Roman Pope had actually personally relocated to Constantinople during his reign and said here's the new digs.

>>12546211
Where did i say that?
Why in order to "disprove" or debate religion do i need to mindlessly take their beliefs and kill it from the inside isntead of attacking the reasoning of said beliefs?
I sayed that Christianity evolves around the idea that man has free-will, nothing else. You are the the one arguing agaisnt your poor misinterpretation.
>>12546208
Thanks for the info, will check once i find time to it. Thing is that i've always felt like Protestantism was a massive cope from the "original" religion. Prostetantism always seems to me as an attempt to place god's spirituality in everything and label it as "holy" for the sake of finding no escape or counter agaisnt it.

>>12545247
Peter is from petros, rock. He's saying the church is built upon Peter

>>12545247
Catholics wouldn't disagree that other apostles also have the power to bind and loose so I'm sure what the point is. You disregard this language of rock but it's is the crucial part of the argument being made by Catholics.

Some critics argue that Jesus referred to himself when he spoke of the "rock" on which he would build his church. They point out that the word used for "rock" is the Greek 'petra'--meaning a large rock--whereas the name he gave to Simon was the Greek 'petros', meaning a small rock. The critics say that Jesus meant, essentially, that Peter was a little pebble, and Jesus was the boulder from which the church would rise up.

There are several problems with that interpretation. First of all, Jesus probably did not speak Greek in this exchange. It is very likely that he spoke Aramaic, and his words were later translated into Greek when the gospels were written. In Aramaic there is only one word that could be used for "rock": 'kephas'. In Aramaic, there would have been no distinction between Peter's name and the church's foundation.

Still, critics might press the point, noting that the holy spirit inspired Matthew to employ two different Greek words in his written gospel. But Matthew did not have much choice. Jesus was speaking of a foundation stone, so 'petra' would certainly be the right choice; but 'petra' is a feminine noun, and so it could not have served as Simon's new name. A male could not adopt a feminine name; the name would have to be adapted, be given a masculine form. Thus Matthew, guided by the holy spirit, did something that was obvious and practically necessary: he used the masculine form, 'petros', to render Peter's name, 'Kephas.'

Was Jesus giving Peter a unique role in the church? The answer seems obvious from the remaining pages of the New Testament. Peter is everywhere, shown to be the chief spokesman, preacher, teacher, healer, judge, and administrator in the newborn church.

>>12546262
Christians mistakenly emphasize free will, especially to combat the problem of evil, but free will isn’t supported by the Bible. Nowhere does it say anything along the lines of “God favors our free will over the existence of evil.” But rather it explicitly states many times that God is sovereign and that he plans everything.

>>12546310
I would love to see a protestant respond to this.

There are no good arguments against Catholicism.

>>12545087
I can't believe Christians UNIRONICALLY believe that YHWH of the OT is the same as the Father which Christ spoke of and for. Let's discuss this. Why, if Christ never once mentioned the Father as having made an Earthly visitation, would you believe this? Why, if Christ never mentioned the Father as establishing a pact with Abraham, would you believe this? Why, if Christ said "no man hath seen the Father", would you then believe that Moses and Abraham, who clearly were mentioned to have seen and known YHWH, were in contact with the same Father? Why is the YHWH of the OT completely violent, genocidal, patriarchal, moody, inconstant, jealous, and a whole host of negative traits, entirely opposite to anything Christ described of the Father? If God is immutable, why would he give "unbreakable" commandments that he later sends himself down to break? Clearly immutability is off the table, and you have no basis to say that what you're following today as "God's Law" will not be changed again tomorrow.
I could provide many other points, but this should be a starter.

Explain yourselves.

>>12545087
>I need actual arguements against Catholicism
But such thing doesn't exist?

>>12547408
These books were written by various people at different times in different cultural contexts and so they convey different tones in their language and stories. There's two things you should know when reading the bible. The first is that for whatever reason, God chose to reveal himself progressively throughout history. This is demonstrated by a cohesive narrative thread that exists throughout the entire canon. If we read the bible straight through, we would know more of God after finishing Revelation than we would after only finishing Genesis.

The second is that not every word is meant to be taken literally. When an author is talking about God being angry he's not accusing God of being a moody teenager who can't control his emotions--we know that couldn't be true by considering all of scripture in its entirety--so the author must being saying something much more deeper and meaningful. In most cases of 'angry talk' I would assume the level of anger is representing the degree of sin being committed. Thievery is a sin but not a terrible one, so an author might poetically say God is slightly perturbed at mankind. However, murder is a great sin so it might be fitting to say that God is extremely angry in such a situation.

That aside, the only unbreakable commandments he gave are still in effect. The ones that exist in the OT which Christians don't follow are context sensitive. They might be rules concerning the worship in the temple or the day to day living in the Kingdom but the temple and kingdom don't exist any more so the rules don't apply to the transformed and universal kingdom which exists today.

>>12546095
>cooking god as a meal

Delicious and based.

evil

>>12547408
Jews misinterpreted Jesus. He was actually a Buddhist traveler who traveled west to spread Buddhism. The Jews were so astounded by his knowledge they thought he was god. Jesus was also Kazahkstani-looking and probably Chinese which is why he stood out more than an average Jew.

>>12547550
>God chose to reveal himself progressively throughout history

Hegel was right all along

>>12545228
Oy and vey

>>12545087
Why are you trying to refute Catholicism specifically? Are you an ortholarper who's trying to justify his meaningless conversion into the schismatic church, or a protestant who realizes that his brand of Christianity is absolutely retarded and that no protestant can actually refute Catholicism?

>>12545923
When does the Bible ever say that everything in Christianity must come from the Bible?

>>12545087
>catholic churches are too small to control for growing populations, as we saw in Latin America where the people simply had no room in churches
>the end result is that catholicism gets replaced by protestant organizations
>people expected to relate to virgin priests
>pope is a pathetic excuse of a man who shies away from confronting the persecution of christians all accross the middle easts and worships other religions
>catholic churches fail to provide people with morals, hence why catholic countries are shitholes of debauchery and violence

I could go on.

>>12548291
You can’t go wrong by relying on the Bible. The pope is infallible and can make mistakes. Humans can invent false ideas and put our souls in danger. Why take that risk? Why not trust solely in God’s word?

>>12545087
unironically muh pedos but that's a feature of every domination sadly, so can't hold it against catholicism without the person holding it representing an organization that has it too

>>12548320
>catholic countries are shitholes of debauchery and violence
Where are you from?

>>12545087
The best argument that will deter any potential convert is thus: Are you willing to wake up early every Sunday morning to go to church?

>>12548434
Ever heard of evening Masses? Vesper Mass, maybe?

>>12548443
Who in their right mind would go to church after working a job from 9-to-5? The point of my joke was that mass is boring and people don't like to do boring stuff

>>12548460
>The point of my joke was that mass is boring
>StH I DISLIQE BE BOURIN AND SHIET Xddddd
>Catholics BTFO!
You have to be 18 or older to post in this board.

>>12548478
That's why I stopped being Catholic, you humorless buffoon

>>12548493
You told the oldest and most repeated joke in history so forgive me for not laughing. It may be new to you since you're a child but I've seen it before.

>>12546486
>>12546310
I don't see how any intellectually honest protestant can read this and reject Catholicism. Their interpretations of Matthew 16 make no sense.

>>12548698
>upon this rock I will build my church
Why would Jesus refer to Peter as “this Peter” ? Why not say,”You are Peter, and I will church upon you” or “I give you the power to be the pope, and afterwards, you will hand down that power to someone else.” When Jesus says “THIS” he is referring to something non-human, Peter’s faith in Jesus. Upon FAITH will Jesus build his church.

>>12548721
Sorry I'm asking for protestants of good sense.

>>12545238
>The Orthodox Church
here we go

>>12545087

>>12545087
>>12545247
>>12545385
>>12546091
>>12546203
>>12546310
>>12548721
http://www.oodegr.com/english/papismos/kleidia1.htm

>>12549358
Nobody is clicking your links. If you want to talk you need to use words.

>>12549371
>I can't read

>>12549380
If you can't read you're on the wrong forum.

>>12549371
>durr reading text on 4chan website good reading text on other website bad
The link I provided contains a fairly definitive treatment of the question at hand for anyone who is interested and not autistic like you.

>>12549400
Use your own words to argue what you believe. That shit is lazy.

>>12545228
Galatians 3:15-17

Brothers and sisters, I give an example from daily life: once a person’s will has been ratified, no one adds to it or annuls it. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, “And to offsprings,” as of many; but it says, “And to your offspring,” that is, to one person, who is Christ. My point is this: the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise; but God granted it to Abraham through the promise

>>12546321
absolute brainlet

>>12545087
Try the entire history of Catholicism. It's nothing but Ye Olde Scientology and if you can't see this, you're friggin' brainwashed.

>>12548951
Kek, hyperdox is pretty cringe

Try listening to The Vortex on YouTube. Ironically its a catholic channel that bashed the catholic church

But the real red pill is orthodoxy

Christ be with you

>>12550518
>the vortex
Ann Barnhardt is better imo

>>12545220
>whiny sperg is mad about the institution of the Church being powerful on earth
>implying this is a theological argument
i don't expect you to be particularly intelligent, given that your hedonistic tendencies have resulted in generations of inbreeding, but this is particularly stupid

I don't even believe in (((god))) but I think the jews BTFO'd catholics centuries ago.

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

>>12545391
>Christians believe that Christ has two two natures, a divine nature and a human nature united in one divine person.

Only Chalcedonian Christians believe that.

>>12550518
Orthodox roleplaying is sad

>>12551743
Not an argument

>>12545087
There are none. I converted when I realized all the Church adversaries have are either strawman, genetic fallacy or ad hominem tu quoque.

>>12553074
You haven't looked very hard then

>>12546100
thread should have just ended here

>>12545087
Determinism and the existence of evil are the two biggest problems with any religions that claim a loving god.

>>12554522
>Blocks your path

>>12548326
>and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

>>12550558
>the same "arguments" Paul BTFO in the first century

>>12554522
Except they aren't. Catholicism doctrine doesn't teach full determinism like Calvinism, and the problem of evil is merely the free choice to oppose the Good.

>>12555320
>For on the day that our teacher Moses was born, he did not come and redeem us. However, when he came before Pharaoh at the command of G-d and said to him: 'these are the words of the Lord -- Send forth My people!' then he may be said to have arrived. Likewise the messiah -- when he shall come before the pope and shall say to him at G-d's command: 'Send forth My people,' then he may be said to have come. However, to this day he has not yet come and is in no sense the messiah. For King David on the day that he was born was not the anointed one. Only when Samuel anointed him was he the anointed one. On the day that Elijah will anoint the messiah at G-d's command may he be called the messiah. On the day that he will subsequently come before the pope to redeem us, then he may be said to have arrived."
How do you dispute this?

>>12555328
>the problem of evil is merely the free choice to oppose the Good.
What loving "father" would allow their sons to suffer and be murdered by their brothers? "free will" is not a justification. Countless times the bible refers to god as a "father" yet I don't think a father would let their children torture each other, do nothing and then say "teehee they are exercising free will lolz"

Also doesn't explain the suffering caused by genetic illness or natural disasters.

Also an interesting questions for christfags. If there is only one true god, what happened to all the millions of people that died believing in gods and religions that predate abrahamic religions by centuries or even milllenia? Was god sleeping on the job or he just forgot to reveal himself to them?