n8nrgmi

so what have we established? you've established that the bishop of rome thought he was in control in the early church. but other churches like cyprian and augustine and others didn't think that was true. and, nothing can be established in the way of an inerrant papacy as a doctrine, until hundreds of years after Christ. so why not go with 99% of the early church and ignore what the bishop of rome thought of himself? plus it's not like anyone established he was inerrant anyway, so that's just another reason, why bother listening to him? 

you should really ask yourself, with all augustine's works, why is it that all you can find are very obscure quotes and nothing concrete about the bishop of rome as you claim it to be? that is, your quotes are obscure and illustrate nothing more than the bishop of rome was respected. where is the talk of him being supreme leader or infallible and such?

on the 'rome has spoken' quote, here is the actual quote... . . . "for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise." here it is in context...

"What then was said of the Jews, the same altogether do we see in these men now. “They have a zeal of God: I hear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” What is, “not according to knowledge”? “For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and wishing to establish their own, they have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” My Brethren, share with me in my sorrow. When ye find such as these, do not hide them; be there no such misdirected mercy in you; by all means, when ye find such, hide them not. Convince the gainsayers, and those who resist, bring to us. For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue; would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too! Therefore do we advise that they may take heed, we teach that they may be instructed, we pray that they may be changed. Let us turn to the Lord, etc."

seriously though, you have hundreds of years of church fathers to draw on, and you have nothing to show for it. you need to ask yourself why that is. 

repent, ye. repent unto Our Lord and Savior, Donald Trump. 

Pope Gelasius I (492–496) stated: "The see of blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to unbind what has been bound by sentences of any pontiffs whatever, in that it has the right to judge the whole church. Neither is it lawful for anyone to judge its judgment, seeing that canons have willed that it might be appealed to from any part of the world, but that no one may be allowed to appeal from it.[71]

"If Tierney is right in his reconstruction of Pietro Olivi’s thought and fears, then Olivi’s worst premonitions were quickly fulfilled. Pietro Olivi died in 1298. In 1322 Pope John XXII did in fact revoke the teachings of Nicholas III in the bull Exiit of 1279. John XXII, moreover, bitterly resented and strongly attacked the attempts by the Spiritual Franciscans of his own day to deny him the right to overturn the doctrinal position embraced by Nicholas III. The Spirituals, adopting the lead provided for them by Olivi, argued that Pope John could not undo what Pope Nicholas had done because the pope was infallible. Pope John replied in a blistering bull, Quia Quorundam, in which he stigmatized the idea of papal infallibility as a “pestiferous doctrine” and a “pernicious audacity.” We are thus confronted with a striking paradox: on the one side, the Spirituals insisting as vehemently as they could that the pope was infallible; on the other side, the pope protesting as vigorously as he could that he was not infallible at all."

with the trinity and similar doctrines, there are the elements of the teaching in the bible and the early church. you can read it explicitly. with the idea of papal infallibility, there is the key verse you cite, but there should be plenty of corroborating evidence in the bible or the early church, and there isn't. the silence is deafening. 

you can see the lack of that doctrine in the early church, for example....

""Augustine had ample opportunity in his actions and vast literary works to express belief in the supreme jurisdiction of Rome. Of all the Fathers of the Church, Augustine wrote the most on church unity and authority. He wrote 75 chapters to the separated Donatists in "The Unity of the Church", using all sort of arguments to urge them to return to communion. Of the necessity of communion with Rome, or Rome as a centre of unity, or Rome's supreme authority, there is not one single word." (6) The silence is deafening."

jesus later gave all the apostles the power to bind and loose. also, you can search for hundreds of years of early church history/fathers, and you won't find mention of the pope being unable to teach error on faith and morals. it just isn't present in the early church, period. 

id prefer a pussy over a cockatoo.  a pussy would always win in a battle with a cockatoo. 

those quotes that you showed didn't say anything like "the pope cannot err on faith and morals'. at best they showed we should listen to the pope, maybe.  very vague. 

he's a billionaire, which makes him the richest president, and he's a president which is often called the most powerful person in the world, and he's in charge of the us militiary, which is bigger than the next ten militaries combined along with almost the most nukes in the world second only slightly to russia. also the usa economy was the strongest it had ever been under trump. of course, putin has access to more wealth that is hidden and russia is a strong country, just not as strong as the usa, so putin is only a close second. also, this is all based on just what we know, as as of now we dont know if there are other living intelligent beings in the universe. 

i said there's no evidence of infallibility in the early church, and you just posted vague verses about peter's special role. way off the mark, on your part. it appears you have closed yourself off from truth. 

what do you think of those examples of contradictions i posted from the catholic church? 

the idea of an infallible leader wasn't present in the early church. it slowly grew over hundreds of years. if that was a true doctrine it would have been present more explicitly.

another problem is that the church has contradicted itself on the most straightforward looking way. on the issues of 'no salvation outside the catholic church', 'no salvation of unbaptized infants', and the death penalty. i know there are hoops that you could jump through to say there's no contradiction, but these hoops are not the most straightforward way of thinking. 

i suggest you read through this link for a ton more content on why the catholic church isn't what it says it is. 

is there a covid19 patent in that list of patents? i doubt it. just because covid19 evolves doesn't mean anything if all that is patented are past coronaviruses. what are you trying to prove if there's no covid19 patent?

just because there are a bunch of coronavirus patents in the past doesn't mean anything. for one, there are several types of corona viruses in existence, but the covid 19 isn't included and is what is important. 

i notice you can't find any credible sources to back up your conspiracy theories. is that part of the conspiracy? that even a half decent journalist out there can't put together what you've found and come out with it? is the whole media establishment in on it?

forbes says the plandemic videos are bunk. forbes is a credible source, not just random internet riff raff. do you have any sources like forbes? you be the judge of whether its credible, and we all can review your decision. 

do you have any credible sources that back up your views that this was a planned pandemic, or are they just random videos and websites that you have for support?

i'm pretty sure you're jokin, but ya never know these days

harvard journal article states that trump supporters are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories regarding virus

u act like it's a fact that trump isn't even more unfit for office than biden. it's pretty sad when a demented old man like biden is more fit for office than a con man like trump. 

all credible sources say 'plandemic' is bunk. 

i'm guessing there will be support from the trumpians here. anyone stupid enough to support trump is also stupid enough to buy into junk conspiracy theories. 

thanks i was afraid you'd pick a feminine pic. 

go 'head and do me

it also depends on whether u think God can be illogical or not. if he can be illogical, then there's no limit on him and it's not possible to make sense of anything related to God and limits. if God can't be illogical, see my last post. 

this question is another way of asking, 'can an unstoppable force move an immovable object'? it sets up an illogical scenario however you frame it. the way i answer this, is that can make an unstoppable force, or he can make an immovable object, but he can't do both at the same time. so the key is time. God can create a rock he can't lift, or he can lift any rock, but it's illogical to say he can do both at the same time. 

how do you view the story of noah? is it real or a myth? it looks like jesus and peter and folks in the new testament took it literally. but shouldn't there be evidence of all the things that dont add up scientifically? i believe in miracles, but i think when they occur there's scientific evidence to back them up. 

aren't you troubled by verses like noah or the verse where God kills the first born if its parents didn't smear blood on their door?  all the homicide that God does?

i can't say God doesn't kill people in mass, but the science stuff is hard to get past. 

so if bernie was the nominee, and a woman falsely accuses him of rape, but no one knows it's false and it looks like it could be credible, bernie should have to resign? 

so you think moderates and republicans are more progressive than democrats? you must think that, if you think bernie is more electable in the general when he lost so spectacularly in the primary

why does public polling support my views more than yours, if im only part of the 'vast minority'? 

by saying u think he should drop out u r essentially saying u believe the accuser. it's innocent until proven guilty

also, if he dropped out, that would mean bernie would likely to get the nomination, and then lose to trump. i know u like to live in ur alternate reality, but if biden got twice the vote bernie did, it's not possible more independents and conservatives would suddenly do what democrats wouldn't do, and be more likely to vote for bernie than biden if he had the nomination. we need to beat trump. i know u also live in an alternate reality in thinking the progressive agenda is best served by trump winning, but all u will do is ensure conservatives win from now on. dems need to and will cater to moderates, not the far left. besides, biden already has the most progressive agenda in history, and supports much of the left on healthcare and student loans and social security taxes etc. 

+1 on what buff said

i dont automatically trust women. innocent until proven guilty. much of the time i believe the man. plus, trump has more sex assault accusations (plus the admission on access hollywood) anyway, so if anything it's something that factors against him more than anything. 

well, u said anyone who votes biden is irrational, so i guess we are even

do you have any idea how stupid you sound? the government can't stop companies from killing people, because the government is inherently a bad actor at anything it does. yeah, makes a lot of sense. 

there's also an authoritarian government from another perspective contrary to yours, you just side with evil. the government lets people not have enough resources by force of law to afford healthcare, the government lets polluters kill people instead of letting me take a flame thrower to their business given they are killing people. all your examples have the government taking someone's side at the expense of innocent people. you simply choose to side with evil. that's on you. 

here are five reasons it's stupid to vote for trump....

1. he wants to kick millions off their health insurance, and he has no plans to replace it. he's talked about getting people healthcare but is a stooge to the republicans so he won't do it

2. he wants to allow companies to pollute mercury into the environment, which is a serious neurotoxin. among all the other pollutants he's cool with

3. his center piece for legislation that he could actually get through congress, is a give away to the wealthy and tax cuts are stupid to do during good economic times. how is it wise to borrow against your kids to fund the government? 

4. he wants enact no gun control, despite the fact that gun control works according to the best science out there, according to the scientific consensus. he talks like he wants more background checks, but is a stooge to the NRA

5. he has no plan to transition us to alternative energy, and got us out of the Paris accord to reduce air pollution. if carbon dioxide is the highest it's been in millions of years, and twice what it's been for hundreds of thousands of years, and it causes global warming according to the scientific consensus, maybe we shouldn't be putting so much in the air? just a thought. i'm mostly worried about droughts due to global warming. 

u keep on bein' hilarious. so i can't stop laughin'. 

i dont know about anyone else.... but i find this thread highly laugh out loud entertaining. 

i mostly just like his image. he comes off as a reasonable guy. but really, he's a pretty solid conservative. so he should appeal to conservatives. and, he has the immigrant background to bolster that hot button issue. i think he might have some decent views on guns, but like i said he's pretty conservative. 

every criminal deserves social time and recreation time. if they are too violent, maybe they can watch TV instead of socilize. as time goes on, they should get more freedoms if they behave. 

are you trying to justify physical torture for eternity or not? it sure looks like u r. but u appear to be trying to rationalize it. u appear to be emotionally stunted, as are most christians who try to rationalize a literal bible. 

even the worst of criminals do not deserve to be tortured. isolated, yes. 

according to the way fundamentalists talk, God allows satan to torture people for eternity. or, God sentences them to a fire pit. are you seriously trying to justify God allowing that? 

no a life in solitary confinement is too cruel. if people lived forever, putting them in an empty small cell would be too cruel too. i can see isolating people, but give show them some humanity. 

are you really trying to justify physically torturing people for eternity? 

no one deserves to be tortured for eternity. that's sadistic. yet that's what the most straight forward view is from the bible. 

the last novel i read front to back was called 'siddartha'. i also regularly read and study excerpts from 'evidence of the afterlife' and 'God and the afterlife'. i have subscriptions to discover magazine, and fortune. i regularly read 'the atlantic', the new york times, time, the economist, and stuff like that. i spend the large majority of my days reading stuff. 

if you take the bible at face value, i dont know how a sane person wouldn't be uncomfortable by the bible. it looks like God tortures people in fire for eternity if they aren't good enough or christian. isnt this disturbing? yes, to any sane person. God relentlessly killing children and relatively innocent people in the old testament. ie noah's flood, the spirit that killed the first born if you didn't smear blood etc.

only brainwashed people can find these things not troublesome.

and yes i'm a christian, but no where near being a fundamentalist. 

trump supporters and intelligence

low information trump supporters 

i think someone like marco rubio might stand a chance. i probably wouldn't vote for him, but it depends on who he was running against. 

.....

,,,,

only stupid people vote for Trump. why do you think it is that there are studies that show they are both dumber and less informed? it's not some liberal conspiracy... it's the truth.