The Westernization of Christianity

Interested, yes. However, you must realize I bring to the the table the sum of 4 volumes of holy writ, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. However, I would be willing to suspend availability of all but the Holy Bible - I would use the KJV [King James]. but it does not really matter, and I would actually prefer the debate not become a Bible-bash wherein we just throw scripture at one another over variable doctrine. I don't think God is pleased by that game.  I would prefer not using the term "Mormonism" but I realize most people do not know how to refer to us, otherwise, so I'll back off that, as well. Do you mean, then, such matters as: was Christ resurrected as a physical body or as a spirit [i.e., what is his form of existence today], which I know we have discussed back and forth, or, does God speak [reveal] to man, i.e., is their divine revelation today. But, again, that looks like a doctrinal debate. What is the primary point of a discussion on the topi?  It seems just saying is Protestant/Orthodoxy a better religion than Mormonism just doesn't seem to resolve well, because "better" has many nuances. Better for what? I' am not as game on dividing Christianity as I am on a subject like I debated with FishChaser earlier in this year, "One should believe in and practice the direct inverse of everything christians believe in and practice." I'm bothered by these suggestions. What would you propose, specifically as subject? I'll be thinking, too.

And, of course, there's still my problem of entry into the argument rounds. Moderators still haven't figured out ghat's going on.

Those are very great points.

I'm thinking about a discussion that talks about which faith is more strongly supported by scientific and historical evidence.

the orthodox have a stronger argument if you look at the early church. catholicism is wrong about papal infallibility and supremeacy. it was absent in the early church, at least papal infallibility was. look at Augustine and iranaeous... these people wronte about church unity and authority, and never talked about needing to be in union with rome or infallibility. there are some decent pro papal quotes, but there are many taken out of context. I think the true nature of the schism is that the pope must accept members who don't believe in infallility and supremechy, even if it's a pius belief that some people are permitted to have. to read about the split in the early church, this is a very important blow by blow of important historical analysis. 

What sort of "scientific support" are you looking for?

What would constitute "historical evidence"?

I think if a Church holds to the Trinity, observes the early creeds, believes Jesus is the Christ, and also God, and in the authority of the Scriptures, that would be a good start. 

 I think a denial of the Trinity puts you outside of the Church. And a denial of Jesus as God puts you outside. And the denial of Jesus' physical resurrection puts you outside of the church. I don't care whether you believe in creation or think that the bible is infallible - I don't care if you speak in tongues or give money to the church. I don't care whether you vote republican or democrat. I don't care if you've been baptised or not. there are some non-negotiables and there are some secondary issues. 

I am Presbyterian and it appeals to me - because it has the best church government which holds local and universal in tension. It subscribes to a reformed doctrine of faith or confession. It adheres to the primary early creeds. It practices the regulative principle.  Having said that - there are pretty dodgy presbyterian churches, and there are some very good churches in other Christian denominations. 

As far as I am aware, this is an open forum.

You've been back a couple of days and are already trying to implement your own rules.

Perhaps Catholicism and Trumpism have gone to your head.

So my simple take was, that Christianity has become a collection of separate theistic/deistic based political clubs, all based upon one interpretation or another of a single archaic MANGOD hypothesis loosely referred to as Abrahamic religion...The specifics of regional interpretation and consequent rituals  is simply a case of saying, look at us, our club is better than yours, Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah...And then they would often fight and do nasty things...In fact they still do.

Notwithstanding, that the  Abrahamic hypothesis was based upon the similar regional theo-politico mangodish  bickerings that preceded it.

So in the words of Harry Hill:

Who has the best decorated churches and priests...The Catholics or the Orthodox?

Only one way to find out.

HaHa..If there does happen to be a mangod somewhere, I'm guessing that he laughs his socks off at some of the theo-politico stuff that humans get up to on his behalf.

Though I'm sure that in terms of material development, and no matter how amusing,  he understands the necessity of everything that we do.

I despise Trump as president of US. He is a degenerate narcissist that violates so many Catholic values.

He was fine as a slimeball crooked businessman. He should go back to that or shoukd get saved by Jesus.

Well, I suppose that Trump could be consigned to other forums.

Though Church and State do still climb into bed with each other.

For example...Putin still needs to fuck the Orthodox Church.

And Trump still needs to fuck with any Christian that will listen.

Where you from Ratman?...Never quite worked that one out.

Where I am from is irrelevant.

It must be a rat infested country.

You are not nearly as funny as you think you are