Topic: I don’t think I believe anymore
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc started this discussion 2 weeks ago #138,042
Guys, I was out today, and I was looking up at the bright sun in the sky, it’s a clear day, and I really thought about it, that’s not real. The sun isn’t a star. It’s an LED put out there in the sky by the government so their space satellites can see us. Our ancestors had no concept of a sun. That’s why they worshiped the moon.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #1,460,898
Like, come on. When we were kids, and they told us there’s a bright ball of fire in space, and we’re going in circles around it, when you were a little itty bitty kid and they told you about Santa and they told you about the sun, you were so naive you probably believed it. But the sun isn’t real. If the sun is real, how come humans have never been to the sun, but they sent people to the moon? If the sun is real, surely you could walk on it.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 10 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,899
Like seriously, if the sun is real, why does it turn off at night? How can a star turn off? That doesn’t even make sense.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 42 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,916
The Romanist heretics tried to silence Galileo for saying the sun was bigger than the earth, just far away.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,923
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,924
Outer space isn't real
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,926
@1,460,916 (B)
This is a myth by the way. They did try to silence him by not publishing his books but the reason is that the church acted as a peer review platform at the time and Galileo was unable to satisfactory prove his hypothesis
Later on when it was proven properly the church accepted it
This is a myth by the way. They did try to silence him by not publishing his books but the reason is that the church acted as a peer review platform at the time and Galileo was unable to satisfactory prove his hypothesis
Later on when it was proven properly the church accepted it
Anonymous B replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,929
@1,460,923 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
When a minority of Christians, and 1 of 5 patriarchs split off to form their own church so they can snuggle up with the boys, that's heresy.
The majority of Christians and patriarchs knew that type of behavior was reserved for an ADULT woman in a marriage.
When a minority of Christians, and 1 of 5 patriarchs split off to form their own church so they can snuggle up with the boys, that's heresy.
The majority of Christians and patriarchs knew that type of behavior was reserved for an ADULT woman in a marriage.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) replied with this 2 weeks ago, 23 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,945
@previous (B)
You were talking about Galileo and the Catholic Church, not the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, Galileo wasn’t Orthodox. Heretic means different thinker. You used the word in the wrong context.
You were talking about Galileo and the Catholic Church, not the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, Galileo wasn’t Orthodox. Heretic means different thinker. You used the word in the wrong context.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 37 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,946
Anyway, this thread is intended to be funny, but I guess some people can’t take a joke.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 weeks ago, 52 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,963
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,964
@previous (B)
Everybody in Italy was Catholic. In the context you used the world it didn’t make any sense.
Everybody in Italy was Catholic. In the context you used the world it didn’t make any sense.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 15 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,965
I swear, some people are just stupid.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,966
Heretic is a relative term, it’s someone who goes against the commonly accepted religious dogma. If you’re Orthodox in Italy, you’re a heretic because Orthodoxy isn’t the commonly accepted religious dogma in Italy. And it this Orthodox explanation just makes you sound even dumber because Galileo was a Roman Catholic.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 weeks ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,967
@1,460,964 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Everyone in Italy was a heretic, following a heretical bishop.
Everyone in Italy was a heretic, following a heretical bishop.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 32 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,968
@1,460,966 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
That's moral relativism, and it's one of the central flaws in Catholic ideology.
That's moral relativism, and it's one of the central flaws in Catholic ideology.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 49 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,969
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 42 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,970
This dictionary literally uses not adhering to Catholicism as an example of being a heretic.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heretic
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heretic
Anonymous B replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,971
@1,460,969 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Heretics reject Jesus and try to substitute him with idols. That's Romanism.
Heretics reject Jesus and try to substitute him with idols. That's Romanism.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 48 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,972
Galileo by definition was a heretic. He was a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who thought differently from the majority of Roman Catholics. In the context you used the word heretic, you used the word incorrectly.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 25 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,973
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 23 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,974
You can’t just make shit up as an argument.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 16 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,976
Tbh this is one of the reasons why I don’t find anti Catholic arguments convincing. They all start with a confident assertions that Catholics believe something I’ve never heard any Catholic ever say they believe.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 17 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,977
I also know you won’t like this, but the primacy of Rome existed before the East / West split of the original Church, and even the modern Orthodox Churches acknowledge that Rome did have primacy, although they interpret it differently, their interpretation is that the pope was first among equals, the Catholic interpretation is that the pope is the legitimate leader of all of Christianity. Either way, your argument about many vs one is illegitimate.
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU replied with this 2 weeks ago, 11 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,978
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,979
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,980
I’ll get back with you on that one, dunno.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,981
@1,460,973 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
The minority splitting off can't claim they are the real church.
The minority splitting off can't claim they are the real church.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,983
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,984
Like when the Soviet Union fell for example, why did Russia inherit the Soviet Union’s UN seat? Because Russia was running the show before the Soviet Union broke up.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,985
I have some audacity using the Soviet Union to defend the church holy…
Anonymous B replied with this 2 weeks ago, 12 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,987
@1,460,983 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
They didn't quit lol, they did the exact same thing they had always done.
It was Rome that suddenly insisted they had primacy and decided they would execute that authority for the first time. There was never an attempt at that before the great schism because no one had ever accepted that idea.
They didn't quit lol, they did the exact same thing they had always done.
It was Rome that suddenly insisted they had primacy and decided they would execute that authority for the first time. There was never an attempt at that before the great schism because no one had ever accepted that idea.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,992
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,993
"Historically, the bishop of Rome was considered the first among equals of the pentarchy. The rising amount of power claimed by the pope, along with other factors, was the ecclesiological reason for the Great Schism. After the Schism, however, the role of first among equals fell to the patriarch of Constantinople."
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Primus_inter_pares
I found an Orthodox source backing up my claim.
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Primus_inter_pares
I found an Orthodox source backing up my claim.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,995
Even Orthodoxy admits that prior to the schism the bishop of Rome had a special place, only they consider it to be "first among equals" rather than the Catholic understanding of the primacy of Rome, which is that the bishop of Rome / pope (same person) is the leader of all of Christianity. The concept predates the schism, but the interpretation of the concept of Rome’s primacy caused the schism.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,996
That said, I don’t think that the Orthodox churches weren’t founded by Jesus, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches are two halves of one whole original church. I’m just defending the legitimacy of the pope.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,997
@1,460,992 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
> That’s not true, Rome had primacy before the schism.
Then why can't you name one time they ever used the power lol
> That’s not true, Rome had primacy before the schism.
Then why can't you name one time they ever used the power lol
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 33 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,460,999
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,461,001
@1,460,997 (B)
It’s more of a process of decision making. Each of the patriarchs were free to make decisions although when there was some conflict "first among equals" meant that Rome would basically act as a tie breaker. Although after the schism, the Orthodox churches gave the role to another patriarch. But that doesn’t change the fact that Rome originally held the position within the entirety of Christianity.
It’s more of a process of decision making. Each of the patriarchs were free to make decisions although when there was some conflict "first among equals" meant that Rome would basically act as a tie breaker. Although after the schism, the Orthodox churches gave the role to another patriarch. But that doesn’t change the fact that Rome originally held the position within the entirety of Christianity.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 41 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,461,002
@1,460,999 (B)
That’s the Orthodox interpretation. But "first among equals" is a contradiction. If one is first, they’re not truly equal.
That’s the Orthodox interpretation. But "first among equals" is a contradiction. If one is first, they’re not truly equal.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,461,005
FYI the Catholic Church is the largest denomination of Christianity. The number of patriarchs doesn’t have anything to do with the total number of believers.Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,461,006
That’s also why all the other denominations tend to be anti Catholic, because if Catholicism is true they feel like that would make them illegitimate.