Protestant/Catholic megathread

antiskeptic

lazybones32 wrote: »

13 paragraphs and I disagree with nearly all of them. I won't be writing 13 counter arguments...so which will I choose?

You might pick some core ones.

1. Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence. The RC church makes a remarkable claim. A bind and loose here / on this rock there just doesn't cut it for many. Nor should it.

2. Break out of the circular reasoning. The authority of Rome doesn't come from the word of Christ until such time as the word of Christ is shown to definitively mean such. This ties in with the above: a paucity of evidence



3.The authority of the apostles apostolic succession is another area where there isn't enough of an argument forwaredAgain, you can approach the paucity of evidence angle


4. Your judgement is central to your beliefs. The issue isn't whether or not the church in Rome has authority. It may have, it may not (I think not - my choice). The issue is whether you decide their claim true or not (your choice) This makes you as much an authority on what you believe as I am an authority on what it is I believe. It's not complicated but RC's here tend to duck the fact that they do just as the Protestants do - even if the actual choice plumped for is different than the Proddies. You can't criticise someone for having the audacity to make a choice based on the evidence as they assess it when you have done precisely the same thing. If your content to agree that then we can leave that


You might halt complaining about what I write. You raise points, I answer them. If you want less to read then raise less points yourself. Look at your post and see how many lines of approach you include. Cut some out if you want less reponse.

Otherwise, choose what you'd like to deal with and expect a response to whatever points you make.