I love Jesus no matter what Lon. He and His Apostles founded His Church. That is the Roman Catholic Church simpliciter. (That's the Church in the Bible.) So this is again yet another logical fallacy for you, this time, false dichotomy (based on a straw man, begging the question).
No. It. Isn't. Okay, you bought the line. It is not shared by any means.
I was with you till this. You didn't prove I'm wrong, you're just declaring it. We went back-and-forth and back-and-forth and back-and-forth and you couldn't do it and now you're trying to just slip it in here—it doesn't work that way.
No, of course I cannot prove something to someone who doesn't care about facts. I gave them. Done deal.
Corporal punishment of kids can be abused, even by parents. Lots of practices can be abused.
Not in the church building where they are supposed to be safe! My fellowship has FBI checks.
Define Church here, because it's an ambiguous term.
You said "organization." I'll keep it. It is exactly how I think of the RC.
When I say Jesus founded His Church, what I mean is He established the offices of Pope and of Bishop.
One among interpretations. It fits nicely into your expectation, whether that expectation is wrong or not. You are unwilling to entertain anything else. You haven't critically read Acts and it shows. You haven't read Paul's letters to see what the early churches looked like (there were 7, not one, amongst Jews for another instance, all responsible for their own congregation). You don't pay attention because you've bought someone's interpretation and you don't like anything else. So, of course it fits your expectation. Of course it does. I'm not a dupe. I dig for understanding the scriptures.
Could be that the Apostles established the office of a Bishop, idk. It's clear the Apostles established the office of Deacon.
Just men of God, ministering (never abusing) the Body. The RC adopted Levitical status.
Certainly you don't mean here by Church the faithful /laity. Because the faithful didn't sweep anything under any rug. So you must mean bishops and the Pope.
Yes you did! When you remained, you
consented.
So I've wondered before if what you mean here is that the offices that Jesus and or His Apostles instituted just evaporated out of existence if a bad man holds the office. You never answer but I'm going to try again here: Do you mean that a bad man automatically nullifies the office, such that no man can hold the office again, because it ceases to exist? because a bad man held it?
Yes. It is no longer in keeping with a 'good' church on the scale we are talking about. It was pervasive.
We need to know here, because you keep I think hinting that this is the case, but you've never come out and said it, so that's why I'm pressing you on it.
Yes. It is no longer a church (gathering) in Christ on this massive of a scale. It doesn't matter if you chose United Methodist to support by the same token. Wrong is wrong is wrong on such a staggering massive scale. I left the United Methodist Church over these same type of problems, scriptural disobedience, and abuses. It was the righteous thing to do.
Certainly anecdotal, which is fine if near-sighted for your own private personal purposes, in discerning whether to convert—sure. But this is weak sauce if you're trying to persuade me to rethink my theology. You really ... your only real hope would be to substantiate that one of the ancient branches of the Church, is the Church simpliciter; the Church in the Bible.
It is as simple and long as reading your bible. The early church
es had no centrality. There 'can' be good in centrality, but the problem is that in centrality, when abuses start, they are full church with little no accountability. Such, in the hands of unbelievers, becomes an abusive 'organization.'
The problem you and all Evangelical apologists have, is to say literally all ancient Church traditions are no closer to Jesus and the Apostles than any other tradition or movement or spirituality, even ones begun in the last 100 or even the last 60 years.
Tradition is fine, but relationship is the thing. If the relationship is shallow, so is the tradition.
It's preposterous, it beggars belief, it strains credulity. Makes me wonder how you could substantiate any definitive conclusion that wasn't that at least one of the ancientest traditions was the Church in the Bible—or at least the legitimate continuation of the Church in the Bible.
"Churches." Revelation was written to 'churches.' Rome, in arrogance, thinks it the only legitimate church, as if Christ isn't the One who builds His church
es. Being faithful to Jesus is not the same as being uncritically dedicated to a group of people who show no love for the Savior over decades. Jesus said 'church' singular not at all meaning Rome (an organization by your defiinition). Not all Israel is Israel and not all church organization attenders are His church, that He was building. You conflate physical with spiritual as does the RC.
You could, but only by claiming or arguing or acting like there exists an office with legitimate divine authority or power, and the power of this office is then wielded when pronouncing that THIS and only this Christian tradition constitutes the Church in the Bible, and being a member of this tradition makes you a Biblical Christian.
It does exist: Jesus Christ Himself, on an individual basis. "Churches" won't stand before the Judgement Seat, individuals will and you and I will give account for what we found acceptable. You stay with your abusers because you want to, no matter how bad they are. That is your choice, your responsibility. A joy? I'd rather think 'a commitment' however misplaced. Commendable? I don't know, I can't answer that for you nor will question it, but I do oppose it.
Unless it's not, and you're wrong, ofc.
Of course not: When the only time you 'feel real presence' is only at the Eucharist, that is much much less than my fellowship with the Creator. Much.
You know you have like, very little understanding in this topic. I think it's because you're so confident that there's nothing you don't know about in this space. But that is unjustified confidence.
Of course, because you'd have to entertain uncomfortable things otherwise. That lack is in you, not me. You don't have a great-uncle who is a priest I'd wager. You can talk about your experiences all you like, they do not trump mine. Sorry, fact. You are condescending because you must be to protect what you want to protect. You must deny my experiences with the RC else they'd cause issues. You are the one bringing up Dan repeatedly: You need to do so, he has very little to do with me and the inordinate attention is your need, not mine. Fact.
