Favorite team:
Location:
Biography:
Interests:
Occupation:
Number of Posts:2006
Registered on:11/7/2020
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message
You don’t know what is and is not considered “good training” and therefore what would be considered “good use” of your tax dollars. Leave the flight time to the operators.

re: X community notes for the win

Posted by METAL on 3/31/26 at 10:59 am to
Imaging belonging to Christ’s Church He founded?
-Apostolic Succession
-The Eucharist
-Authority / Councils
-Early Church Fathers

re: X community notes for the win

Posted by METAL on 3/31/26 at 10:49 am to
Imagine being so philosophically, theologically and biblically illiterate that you believe any denomination outside of the Orthodox or Catholic Church.

re: X community notes for the win

Posted by METAL on 3/31/26 at 10:42 am to
BuT wE aRe SuPpOsEd To BlEsS iSrAeL!¡!
You’re throwing a lot out there, but most of it still comes down to the same issue… reading modern assumptions into ancient texts and then acting like that’s what the Bible says.

First, on the “you think you interpret it right and everyone else is wrong” point. That’s actually what you’re doing. The difference is Catholics don’t rely on private interpretation. We rely on Scripture as understood within the Church that produced, preserved, and canonized it. That’s not arrogance, that’s consistency.

Second, the “firmament / flat earth” argument is a category mistake. The Bible uses phenomenological language, describing things as they appear, not giving a modern scientific treatise. You’re taking poetic and observational language and forcing a literalist reading where it was never intended.

Third, on Numbers 5. You’re still asserting something the text never explicitly says. The passage describes a curse resulting from guilt, not a priest performing an abortion. Even your argument admits the outcome is conditional and tied to divine judgment, not a human-controlled procedure. Calling it a “magic abortion potion” is more rhetoric than exegesis.

Fourth, on the Canaanite issue. You keep trying to force a false dilemma: either God is evil or you endorse human violence. That’s not the claim. The claim is that God, as the author of life, has authority over life and death that humans do not. You may not like that distinction, but dismissing it isn’t refuting it.

Fifth, on “God never changes.” Correct. But revelation unfolds. The same God who judged nations in the Old Testament is the one who reveals the fullness of moral teaching in Christ. That’s not contradiction, that’s development. Christianity has always read the Old Testament through the lens of Christ.

Finally, the irony here is strong. You accuse Catholics of picking and choosing while rejecting the authority of the Church, questioning apostolic authorship when it suits you, and redefining passages to fit your framework. That’s not avoiding selection… that is selection.

So no, this isn’t about making excuses. It’s about actually understanding what the text is, how it was written, and how it has been understood historically… instead of forcing it into a modern reading and calling that “plain.”
Saying Catholics aren’t Christians might be the dumbest thing I’ve read on here in months.
I hear you. I stopped being an American, loving the Constitution, supporting state’s rights and loving baseball when Obama was President.
It’s crazy how many people think this just based on what they were taught in elementary school. Sure, some of the crusades were absurd, like the fourth… But overall, they were just and defensive.
That’s not “not picking and choosing.” That’s just confidently misreading the text. Catholics don’t rip isolated verses out of context, flatten them, and pretend every line is a universal moral command. We read Scripture in context, by genre, and through the fullness of revelation in Christ. That’s called actually doing exegesis.

For the Canaanite passages, you’re treating a specific historical judgment as if it’s a standing moral rule. It’s not. God, as the author of life, has authority over life and death in a way we don’t. And nowhere does Scripture give you permission to apply that yourself.

With the Numbers example, there is no “magic abortion potion.” That’s something you’re importing into the text, not drawing from it. The passage never describes killing a child. It’s a trial by ordeal for adultery. Calling it abortion doesn’t make it one.

And most importantly, Christianity doesn’t end in the Old Testament. Christ is the full revelation of God. He explicitly teaches love of enemy, mercy, and restraint. That’s the lens everything is interpreted through.

So no, we’re not “embracing slaughter.” We’re just not forcing modern assumptions onto ancient texts and then acting like that’s what the Bible teaches. That’s the difference between actually understanding Scripture and just quoting it.

2 Peter 1: 19-20
Correct. Orthodox and Catholics do a proper exegesis. Others pick and chose.
This is a very common mistake athiests and Protestants alike will make. They pick and chose verses, ignoring context and believing that if it’s in the Bible, God condones it.

You’re reading that passage as if it’s a command, when it’s actually a lament.

Psalm 137 is written in the context of Israel’s exile in Babylon after horrific violence was done to them. It’s expressing human anguish and a desire for justice… not prescribing moral behavior for believers.

The Psalms contain poetry, emotion, and cries of the heart. Not every line is a moral instruction. If you read it as “God endorses this,” you’re misunderstanding the genre and context.

Also, Christianity doesn’t interpret isolated verses in a vacuum. Christ is the full revelation of God, and He explicitly teaches love of enemy, mercy, and restraint from violence.

So no, that passage is not a justification for harming innocents. It’s a reflection of human pain crying out to God in a broken world.
The evidence is there my friend. I didn’t see it for 20 years. If you approach it with an open mind you will see that the only logical answers are Orthodoxy and Catholicism. After that you get into the nitty gritty
If it’s the Church that Christ started with apostolic succession, the Eucharist and the fullness of truth then yes… yes you do.

You root out the evil and do everything you can to crush it while preserving and building what Christ gave us. His Ecclesia where not even the gates of Hades would prevail.

My brother and I complain about this constantly. While I get the Pope’s messaging, we are sometimes way to nice and passive. You have to know when to punch people in the mouth.
That’s not actually how Catholic teaching works. Millions of people hate the Catholic Church for what they think it is.

Catholics are not required to believe the pope is right about everything he says or does. The pope is not personally infallible. Infallibility only applies in very specific, rare circumstances when he definitively teaches on faith and morals for the whole Church, not his opinions, interviews, or even most teachings.

Catholics can respectfully disagree with prudential judgments, political takes, or non-definitive statements. That has happened throughout Church history, even with saints.

At the same time, saying “not my pope” in the sense of rejecting his legitimacy would be a problem. But recognizing he is the valid pope while disagreeing with certain things he says or does is completely within Catholic tradition.

So no, it’s not “agree with everything or you’re Protestant.” That’s a misunderstanding of both Catholicism and the papacy. As I said, millions hate the Church for what they think it is.

What makes you Catholic is being in communion with the Church Christ founded, not pretending the pope is flawless.
You are correct, the Pope isn’t God. Who told you he was?

Also, correct… The Bible says not to worship idols. You’re on a roll here.
Idolatry in the Bible is about misdirected worship. Anything can become an idol… money, power, status, even people. If it takes the place of God in your life.

You haven’t pointed out a single tenant we have violated yet so I’m not sure where you want this conversation to go.
Look… I get your points and I want all of those involved in prison for the rest of their lives. Better yet, just straight up decapitated.

However, you seem to think the sins of men are reason enough to turn away from institutions. When Jesus established His Church did you not realize Satan and demons would attack it? Why wouldn’t he try to infiltrate it and weaken it? Why wouldnt he try to attack its members to commit atrocities and spread that like a cancer? Why wouldnt he try to cause it to splinter into 30,000 denominations and weaken the unity? Why wouldnt he try to convince you the Eucharist is just a symbol?