The Stupid… it’s so tiresome

The Prot vs Cath post certainly got the retards to come crawling out from under their rocks.

Here is one cretin named Henri Laurent, whose comment is so idiotic he has managed to elevate himself to the spectacle that he will now become in yet another Kurganing.

His comment is in retarded bold, my replies in standard text.

Before his comment, and my vivisection of it, it is worth noting his tone. He attempts to take on the air of the “educated scholar” who will superciliously educate me.

Unfortunately for him, but amusingly for us, he has all the gravitas of a toddler announcing he can count to eleventy million thousand.

"If God (Jesus) did in fact establish a Church (or at least a doctrine) to follow on Earth, then surely it necessarily must be a) infallible, and b) eternal (at least until end times). Agree? If not, why not? (In this case please explain the reasoning as I doubt I can infer it otherwise)"

Of course Protestants would agree Jesus established a doctrine, but that doctrine is much more minimal than the ever-expanding doctrine of Catholicism.

First clue he’s a retard. Catholicism has never expanded divine doctrine. Only stated it and then explained it in ever-increasing (logical) detail to counter the sophistry, lies, intentional as well as idiotic “interpretations” of those morons who ALL followed the “doctrine” of a maid-raping nun-fetishists who invalidated his entire doctrine off the bat by saying only scripture counts and then promptly modifying that very scripture, not to mention his staunch belief that “reason is the whore of the devil”.

And its in the Bible.

Yes it is retard. And just like a man who reads and tests and sees that 2+2+2=6 and 2+2+2+2=8 might infer or deduce multiplication, every utterance of our Lord and most if not all the passages of the Bible can and do have deeper and extrapolated logical meanings. Also known by anyone who has actually read the Bible since there are multiple levels of knowledge in it and in fact it is stated in it more than once in various ways that different types will get more from it than others.

There is no mention of many things that Catholics added over time.

Catholics didn’t ADD anything, you absolute moron. They EXTRAPOLATED because logic is a thing. Reason is a thing. In fact the very word Logos from which the word logic derives refers to our Lord directly. Now go get a dictionary and look up the following word: extrapolation.

It won’t convince you, but that is because you, like ALL Protestants (bar none) are a cargo cultist. You have no concept of the reality of logic, or objective reality, and hence have no capacity to discern error from truth at ANY resolution. All you do is emote and PRETEND you are “thinking” but you don’t even have the ability, because you have no clue what logic is or how to use it. You’re a toddler. Pretending.

The question of infallibility is not even necessary because the doctrinal system wasn't meant to become so big and bloated to begin with, and a minimal doctrine doesn't require that kind of infallibility.

Thank you for demonstrating what I just wrote above perfectly. Since:

1. Name ONE THING that humans have not twisted, corrupted or will be able to corrupt. I really want to see what you come up with in an age when half the planet thinks men can get pregnant. Go on. We’ll wait.

2. Since ALL humans are flawed they WILL corrupt ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. It is literally impossible for them not to. Eventually they will find a way. (See pregnant “men”). This is absolutely OBVIOUS if you can do logic at a level of a normal 7 year old.

Ergo… infallibility MUST and can ONLY be supernaturally guaranteed by God (Jesus) himself. Humans simply can’t do it. And while Vox either didn’t understand the point or dodged it, it remains a fact that if we have these conditions, namely:

1. Humans WILL absolutely corrupt any doctrine whatsoever over time.

2. However simple or limited, God MUST have some rules for salvation to work for us.

Then: those rules will only remain true and available if God Himself makes it so. Because absent that Divine supernatural protection, the rules will be lost, twisted, corrupted and inverted.

Vox dodged the question here saying God broke his own rules to save us, but he did not explain how this in any way prevents certain rules applying to us that we MUST follow to be saved.

If Vox believes no matter what we do God will always break His own rules to save us then that is not love nor do we have any real free will. It’s just a boy playing with his dolls that keep falling down over and over again and he keeps picking them up again.

If on the other hand there ARE some rules, again, however simple they might be, given we WILL corrupt them, a LOVING God would ensure at least for those who SEEK, that the truth can be found, and found to be infallible, that is UNCORRUPTED, for us; thanks to Him keeping it so REGARDLESS of how many times we try to corrupt it.

And Lo and behold, that is precisely what we have in the Catholic Church.

Vox going off at a tangent about Jesus knowing people are dumb, does not answer the point that was asked: why would a LOVING God not give His loved creatures an infallible doctrine they can choose (or reject) to be saved?

"If you do not agree with the premise that God DID in fact establish a Church (or at least a doctrine) then how do you reconcile this with God being a loving God?"

Did you really think any type of Christian would deny both that God established a church AND that he established a doctrine?

Vox has certainly denied Jesus necessarily established a Church, since according to him a couple of lesbian “pastors” gathering in his name and telling others Leviticus is old and can be ignored is good enough for Jesus to be with them.

And he dodged the doctrine question by saying God broke his own system to save us, implying both that there IS a system, but it doesn’t really matter because God loves us and will save our sinful ass anyway.

Like all Protestants, when asked to specify if there is really ANYTHING at all that we MUST do to be saved, or conversely if there is anything at all we can do to LOSE salvation, the answers are very far from complete, logical, or form any kind if valid syllogisms, and tend instead to more resemble to mumbled sentences of a generic and fog-like nature.

So, yeah, every Protestant either denies both, one, or none, but can never give a clear answer as to what that doctrine is, or which Church is the right one. Or if all of them are then why have different ones? Each with 40,000 different variants, which is pointless anyway because according to Protties every man interprets everything Biblical by himself anyway. It’s just a morass of cognitive dissonance, avoidance, chaos thoughts, and above all emotions, but supreme above them all: Pride. And not the “good” kind.

Even if someone were to say "no, Paul established the church, not God" then they would still acknowledge that God established a doctrine by giving Paul the gospel of justification by faith alone.

God did no such thing (re: “by faith alone”). You need to learn to read for context and comprehension as well as read the book of James. But then you’re a Protestant, you can’t read, only quote mine, and you think James was Jesus’ brother and that is all.

And you STILL haven’t stated what that doctrine actually IS. Wasn’t it so simple it didn’t even need infallibility? So why don’t you spell it out for us? Go on. We’ll wait!

Now on question 1, someone tried to restate your question as

"A stronger formulation of Kurgan’s first question is 'If Jesus gave his apostles the authority to teach, to forgive sins, and to distribute the Sacraments until He returns, as He explicitly states in the Gospels, then in what form does that authority exist on earth today?'"

He says nothing about needing authority to "distribute" any "sacraments" in the gospels.

Then why does Paul say if anyone teaches differently than THEY (the apostles) do to ignore them? And WHY did the practice of Apostolic succession exist? And is in fact mentioned in the Bible that others (Simon Magus) tried to fool people into thinking he was too an apostle?

You really need to READ that Bible boy. Not just parrot pieces of it with less grasp of their context than the average chicken has of advanced calculus.

Obviously any Christians can baptize and bless the bread and wine.

This sentence is so stupid it probably should be framed. It is a nested matrix of stupidity so intense it may warp time!

Let us see it as best as we mere mortals can, wary of the fact that looking too hard into such blithering idiocy may in fact kill IQ points from us.

• Please explain how a Christian becomes a Christian if only a Christian can baptise.

• In fact… how can Christians even exist? Since the first baptism must have been done by someone unbaptised and we know the first baptism wasn’t done by Jesus (Gid) so… oh wait! Yeah… you’re an idiot. And the Catholic version is right. ANYONE can baptise. As ling as the form and intent are correct.

• If ANYONE can bless ANYTHING at ANY time, why even have Protestant “pastors”? If Sacraments don’t exist, why have one presiding over things like weddings?

• Explain why you need to bless the bread and wine. Where did Jesus tell his Apostles they need to bless anything?

• In fact explain what a blessing is. And when you are done googling it, and hopefully realise at least a little how abysmally stupid you are, then go on to explain why not anyone can in fact give blessings.

Conclusion

Behold ladies and gentlemen. This is indeed the kind of “reasoning” and “erudition” and “scholarly” work that Protestants inevitably do.