re: Evangelicals turning on Catholics all of a sudden.

quote:

---

You don’t see evidence of Christ or God in your studies.

---

Correct but it’s more than that. I see positive evidence Jesus - the man, the firstborn son and archangel and logos of the most high God - is mythology and legend cobbled together from earlier myths and legends.

quote:

---

Given your interest in the subject I’m sure you’ve thought/read a bit about objective moralism

---

I don’t believe there is such a thing. There is no objective morality, which is why the field of study - Ethics - exists in the first place and philosophers argue back and forth in circles. It’s fun to argue whether one should switch the trolley car track or not based on different scenarios but philosophy as a topic isn’t something I care to study more than I already have in school.

quote:

---

metaphysics

---

Nah, but actual physics yes.

quote:

---

Have to ask though… why the interest of its all a bunch of bologna?

---

I simply find it interesting and entertaining. I find much of the mythology and literature of the ancient world fascinating.

Did you know the first recorded monotheistic religion was created by a Pharoah named Amenhotep IV, who renamed himself Ahkenaten after the single deity he worshipped - named Aten. In Egyptian hieroglyphics the letter (consonant) sounds were A-T-N. At that time, Egypt owned Canaan as a possession. So a few decades later, in Canaan, a group of Canaanites identified as “IsraEl” started to call their single deity A-T-N. They often used the possessive form putting what in English is an “i” sound at the end of the word. In English it is written “Adonai”. I don’t think that is coincidental.

You also have the Amun (Egyptian deity) linked with the Israelite Amen (in prayer).

What we call Abraham in English was in Hebrew written in equivalent English consonants B-R-H-M. In English we call the Hindu deity Brahma but in equivalent English consonants, the way to write Brahma in Sanskrit was B-R-H-M. Both mythical characters are considered a father figure of their respective people groups. You might not find that interesting but I do.

Have you read the Odyssey? There are some gospel stories of Jesus and his disciples that are simply re-worked Homeric epic.

It’s fun to make the connections.

quote:

---

I don’t know why I’m engaging with you again considering all you do is talk in circles and platitudes…

---

I beg to differ. I provide my reasoning for my conclusions; they aren't platitudes, and the "circles" you are referring to are logical.

quote:

---

maybe it’s because you’re at least cordial unlike many on here.

---

I appreciate that. I do try to be respectful of the one I'm debating. The 9th commandment requires it, I beliee.

quote:

---

You’re still measuring the wrong thing. The Magisterium isn’t meant to guarantee that every individual agrees or obeys, it guarantees that there is a fixed, authoritative teaching that doesn’t change. Disagreement doesn’t erase that, it just shows people can reject it. That’s very different from a system where the standard itself is debated.

---

Protestants are not debating the standard (Scripture), but what the standard is saying or teaching. The same occurs with the Catholic Magisterium.

Most Protestants aren't arguing about the infallibility of Scripture, or that it is the highest authority, (which is what sola scriptura is all about). They are arguing over what they believe that standard is teaching.

The same thing is happening with the Catholic Magisterium, at least to a degree. The teaching on papal infallibility, for instance, is dogmatic, and defined by the Church, and yet there is still debate and disagreement on exactly what that looks like in practice, and when the Pope is actually speaking ex cathedra.

quote:

---

Saying “the end result looks the same” ignores that distinction.

---

No, it's calling attention to the false claim of unity. The standard and the arbiter of truth are the Scriptures, not fallible human beings. It's our job to rightly understand and believe what the Scriptures teach, and when we reject it or justify a false understanding, the problem is with the person, not the standard and arbiter.

It's the same thing you claim: you say that the standard and arbiter is ultimately the Magisterium, and if someone disagrees with it, believes something different, or rejects it entirely, it's not the fault of the standard, but the person. It's the same result.

quote:

---

In Protestantism, disagreement produces new doctrines because there’s no final arbiter. In Catholicism, disagreement happens against a defined teaching that you can actually point to. One system fragments the standard, the other preserves it even when people dissent from it…

---

Again, in Protestantism (at least historically; there are some liberals that exist today that have rejected the Bible and don't really have a standard to adhere to other than personal feelings) holds to a single standard (the Bible) and isn't fragmenting because the standard is fragmented, or because there isn't an arbiter, but because people's understanding of the standard is clouded by sin and ignorance, same as with Catholics who disagree with the Magisterium.

The functional end result of Catholics who reject or misunderstand the teachings of the Magisterium is that new doctrines are created, too. The difference is that Rome, as an organization, isn't the one creating or holding to those doctrines. But, at the end of the day, the ay people are allowed to believe what is false, which is the same thing Protestants do. Same result. Whether or not the leadership of a particular denomination adds those errors to their doctrine or not is beside the point, because Rome also has added false doctrines to her teaching, as I see it. That's where we differ, obviously, but my point is still that the end result is the same.

quote:

---

And comparing one denomination to Catholicism doesn’t really solve the issue, it just shrinks the scale.

---

What the comparison does is highlight that the RCC is doing the exact same thing it's condemning Protestants for doing, and it highlights that the end result is exactly the same: that there are standards and interpretations that are called out as true and that there may be disagreement about those standards by the members.

The biggest difference, then, is that Rome claims that the infallible standard and arbiter is in the collective voice of the Church rather than in the Scriptures, themselves, as Protestants by and large believe.

quote:

---

The question is still where final authority rests.

---

Yes, this is always the biggest differentiator between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Stated sola scriptura vs. functional sola ecclesia.

quote:

---

If your denomination can be wrong, then you’re back to the individual deciding when it is.

---

Yes and no. The individual makes a decision for themselves as to what they are believing, but they are not the final arbiter of truth. That would be subjectivism, and we do not believe that each person can make up their own beliefs. We believe that each individual Christian is obligated to be conformed to the true teaching of the Scriptures.

Catholics have this same problem, though. When the lay Catholic rejects the Magisterial teaching on abortion, he or she is saying that they are really the final decider of the truth, and they have rejected the teaching of the Magisterium just like Protestants may reject the teaching of the Scriptures, even if they attempt to justify it in various ways in their own minds.

quote:

---

That’s exactly the shift to private judgment that the Magisterium is meant to prevent, even if people don’t always submit to it.

---

I said it a few times previously, but the Magisterium doesn't solve this problem. It just pushes the interpretative problem out by one step.

Instead of misunderstanding or disagreeing with the Bible as many Protestants do, Catholics misunderstand or disagree with the Magisterium.

Again, I've never heard any criticism of the Catholic church in a Protestant church. Not in formal church or among the members.

quote:

---

Catholics are the new whipping post for some reason.

---

Because high-level Catholic leadership is anti-MAGA. Listen to what they have been saying in public lately.

quote:

---

Evangelicals

---

What is your definition of an Evangelical? I am Methodist and can't remember the mention of the Catholic Church by anyone in our Church other than for joint efforts to help homeless, help the soup kitchens, etc. I don't particularly agree with some of their beliefs but that is why we have different denominations. But, I am not here to judge. Some of the history well known to all about the priests and kids is disturbing and I've no agreed with some of the things the Popes have said but I would not call that "turning on" them.

quote:

---

Most Catholics are pretty conservative.

---

Pew research says 45 to 47% vote for democrats.AP said 50% voted for Biden

on top of everything squirrel said you can’t forget the fact that disciples straight up left after Jesus proclaimed this. And trying to draw parallels to him speaking symbolically fall short because he explains those after questioned. After he was questioned on eating his flesh, he kept doubling down.

I don't disagree with you that the Catholic church has become more Anti-Western culture. I was talking about differences in doctrine.

There is the distinction. Doctrine dogma and the church that Christ established hasn’t changed. The people within said institution have. No one is immune to outside influences and evil satanic forces.

quote:

---

They seem to forget that the Jews couldn't kill Christ without a Roman acceding to their wishes. ?

---

Much like today, zionists are very good at pressuring their powerful adversaries to do their dirty work for them. It provides plausible deniability.