The broad concept of sin as failing to live up to an expected standard of conduct or as a violation of cultural customs or laws can be seen in every culture and society throughout history. Various religions also see sin as a violation of the divine will.
I'm aware of plenty of atrocities committed by Catholics all throughout history, and I'm familiar also with all the atrocities committed against Catholics all throughout history. Who knows the score in that 666 game. Which is why I've told you repeatedly that Christ's Resurrection is, to quote the 'Catechism,' the "central" and "crowning" fact of the Christian faith. Christ is either risen, nonfiction historical fact, or He is not, and His Resurrection is fictional. Christians believe He is risen from the dead. If He is risen from the dead, then the Christian faith is confirmed true. Everything you're worrying about and prodding at is from the viewpoint that the Resurrection is fictional, which is your right to believe, but you're not engaging with anybody because you're insisting upon this presumed premise in order to converse, and we don't accept your premise. If you want to converse fine, but you're just not going to get anywhere if you won't at least accept that we do believe in Christ's Resurrection, even if you do not, and the Resurrection is like a lens through which we see everything else, which is reasonable and valid, given the implications if the Resurrection is indeed nonfiction historical fact.
Oh. Guyver also believes that Matthew 28:6 KJV, Mark 16:6 KJV, and Luke 24:6 KJV are all lies. I encounter plenty of Christians on TOL who deny that the Lord Jesus is God /deny the Trinity, but who still nonetheless profess to believe in His Resurrection from the dead, so I consider them siblings in our one shared faith. We at least have this one thing that we can build upon, but this Guyver thinks the Resurrection was a hoax, and hasn't addressed my point from earlier that believing the Resurrection was a hoax, is most likely tantamount to believing that Jesus, John the Baptist, the Disciples (including Judas Iscariot), and the Apostle Paul were all part of a suicide pact. Since Guyver never responded, we never began to explore the possible reasons for why all these men would agree to such a suicide pact---whatever could they have been hoping to achieve? Anyway, a suicide pact is the most reasonable explanation afaik for all of the death /martyrdoms. Why would so many people go to their deaths (almost exclusively through horrible, torturous killings) willingly, over what they know is a hoax? And if they had been duped, why wouldn't at some point people just stop confessing their faith anyway, to avoid being horribly, torturously killed? That Christ's Resurrection was just a hoax, doesn't explain all the death. That it was part of a suicide pact does.
No, it does not say that.
God doesn't regulate sin.
'Beg to differ. I didn't "speak for" you, I referred to something that you wrote.
The Bible says that bishops are authentic teachers of the Christian faith in all matters of faith and morals. Lying is a moral matter. So we just read the 'Catechism.' What we (ancient Christians) don't do, is what you continue to presume that we all do, which is to study our Bibles and whatever we feel that God is leading us to believe about it, is therefore what God wants us to believe. That's Protestant. It's novel. Invented in the 1500s. Whereas the bishops were invented in the first century, within the Apostolic era, by the Apostles themselves. The bishops today hold that same office that was instituted by the Apostles. This office is authorized to teach the authentic Christian faith in all matters of faith and morals. Lying is a moral matter.
Supra.
:idunno: Apparently you know our religion better than we do. I don't know why you bother asking questions.
No.
You're wrong a lot. I think that's why Christians "don't like" your words.
I have nothing to criticize.
We disagree about how to interpret the Bible.
Again, we heed the authorized teachers of the Christian faith; the bishops. The bishops teach the Trinity. The Father is not the Son. There is distinction between the Father and the Son. The Father generates the Son. The Son does not generate the Father.
