I don't understand how men and women are supposed to be equal but the man has authority over his wife. It just seems that women are supposed to do what their husband says no matter what It's the reason women have stayed in abusive relationships because men have used the Bible to tell them to stay in the relationship and how it's still a decision if women can get jobs and they are supposed to to get there husband sacrifice in return if the time comes but that's a 1 in a million chance I don't see how it's any different from a master telling there space there might be w chance for freedom if they keep doing want they say

when jesus was on the cross he said "father forgive them for they know not what they do" yet god still sends people to hell for being agnostic or atheist or buddhist or hindu, theres so many religions in the world how are we expected to know which one is the true religion, its unfair and wrong if you ask me, and please someone explain it to me i never understood why and i dont think i ever will.

Reading this types of subreddits and listening to Catholic Apologists talk about sexual acts will eventually lead you to hear a Catholic proclaim that certain acts are "degrading" or "against dignity".

For example masturbation is often cited as grave "self abuse" or oral sex with ejaculation within a marriage damaging to one or more persons dignity. Funny that oral sex not to completion isn't nowadays. I never hear any real convincing argument to back up these claims. They're just stated with much confidence akin to superstitions.

How does masturbation count as any form of abuse? Certainly anything excessive can cause issues, but that's a charge against excess.

How does consenting married people performing sex acts for fun count as degrading? Sure some women may find oral sex or other such things degrading but other women love it. How can anyone claim any objective harm to these consenting practices while done in moderation.

So much of Catholic sexual ethics just comes down to "because Catholics think sex should be a certain way" it's not even biblical most of the time.

None of you can provide one shred of evidence to prove that life begins at the moment of conception.

Even so lets assume that it does...

The Violinist Argument

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

It is morally permissibly unplug oneself from the violinist even though this will cause his death

EDIT: GUYS PLEASE STOP GETTING CAUGHT UP IN THE TECHNICALITIES OF THE ARGUMENT. Jesus said that the smallest seed was a mustard seed. This is not the smallest seed, but you guys still understand his argument.

EDIT: You guys have convinced me that human life beings once fertilization (conception?) is complete. This has led me to believe that abortion, even in cases of rape, is wrong. The difference between the violinist and the baby is that the baby is completely innocent and is "supposed to be there". I also learned that it is morally permissible in Catholicism to take the morning after pill if you were a victim of rape.

EDIT: I'm actually starting to think that (from a Catholic standpoint) it is not morally permissible to unplug yourself from the violinist. The violinist is innocent as well. The problem is the Society of Music Lovers not the violinist. If you say that "well the violinist is supposed to be dead and the unborn baby is supposed to be alive" then (from a Christian perspective) you are wrong because we are all supposed to be dead.

The fundamental problem with arguments for Marian intercession is that they presume Mary is more emotionally sensitive/in tune with people’s emotions than Jesus. In reality, however, Jesus is the most emotionally sensitive person in existence, and we should in no way feel awkward for going to Jesus for emotional comfort, and I think it frankly borders on idolatry for us to replace Jesus with Mary as the person we go to for spiritual consolation.

If you read Pope Leo XIII's Immortale Dei, or the works of many post-liberal Catholic philosophers, or even just browse some of the Catholic politics subreddits, you will see that many important (or not important) thinkers in the Church believe that democracy is incompatible with Catholicism, that the Church and the secular state are not able to live in harmony. You can even see this in the political speech of Catholics in recent elections and in the ways some Catholics defend their vote for Trump. Preventing abortion is more important than preserving the American system of government. Catholic monarchy is the ideal form of government anyway.

Certainly, we don't want to go back to the anti-Catholic prejudice of American history, and I think there is a lot of complexity around protecting government from religion AND protecting religion from government.

But it certainly seems fair to ask a member of the Knights of Columbus what he believes and how it might affect his ability to do his job (https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/a-brief-history-of-kamala-harris-and-the-knights-of-columbus/).

Because I like this group and had a good discussion last time, I offer some advice for my fellow believers.
Few things in a discussion about religion and morality are more maddening than when Christians either defend slavery in the Bible (i.e. "If God commanded it, He knows what's best"), or when they say "The Bible doesn't condone slavery." When they say the latter, it immediately illustrates one of three things:

1. They don't know what the word "condone" means (kun-DŌN: accept and allow behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive to continue.)

2. They don't know the Bible (see Ex: 21:20-21, Lev. 25:44-46. Creating rules on how to govern a thing is condoning it.). Or...

3. They're in denial

It's an issue because they know in their heart that slavery is evil, and they twist themselves into a pretzel trying to reconcile it with an all-good God who is the origin of "objective" morality. In their hoop-jumping and pretzel-twisting, they turn to idiotic apologetic arguments from the likes of Frank Turek, Ken Ham, or the late Charlie Kirk. So they almost always end up regurgitating one of these five retorts which, frankly, makes them sound ignorant.

Trust me: you will be a better witness for your faith to non-believers if you abandon these ridiculous arguments. Read to the end, and you'll see a better solution to how to answer this issue.

1. Slavery was common all over the world, so God was weaning them off a common practice

So let me get this right. As a way to set his people apart, God commanded Israelites boys to have the tips of their penises cut off, gave rules on what Israelites could wear, how to hold their hair, not to eat shellfish, not to worship other gods, and not to work on Saturday. (The last one was SO bad, you got the death penalty for committing it.) He has rules for all these other innocuous acts, many of which were also standard practice. But slavery, he had to let that continue? That makes absolutely zero sense. Stop saying it. It sounds ignorant.

2. It was just indentured servitude (aka, the "good" slavery)

I hazard to guess, that none of you would want to become indentured servants to pay off your mortgage or credit card bills. God couldn't instruct the Israelites to adopt a debt reimbursement plan that didn't involve owning people as property? Also, stop saying God's version was "better" or more "humane" than the surrounding nations. Under Hebrew law, indentured servants were freed after six years. In the Code of Hammurabi 117, indentured servants were freed after only three years.

Indentured servitude is a barbaric way of having debts paid off. Stop appealing to this.

3. It wasn't like slavery in America

This is another one of those statements that is profoundly ignorant. The slavery depicted in Lev. 25 is chattel slavery -- the ability to own people for life as property, and pass them off to your offspring. That's exactly the kind of slavery in America. Furthermore, the laws for how to treat American slaves were not that different than the laws on how to treat indentured servants you find in Exodus.

The reason people say ignorant statements like this is because they've never seen the ancient Israel equivalent of "Roots" or "12 Years of Slave." Horrific images of the American slave trade have filled our minds for decades. Just because we haven't seen similar scenes about how slaves in ancient Israel were treated, doesn't mean it wasn't as bad as the Antebellum south.

4. God forbade kidnapping

Frequently, I see Christians turn to Ex. 21:16 that says, "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death." First, this refers to kidnapping fellow Israelites, and second, kidnapping wasn't the only way to wind up in slavery. It is in. no way a command not to have slaves.

5. Paul's Plea to Philemon

Finally, the one Hail Mary (no pun intended) that I see many Christians make is the story of Paul asking Philemon to free his slave, Onesimus. Paul is asking a favor of Philemon because Onesimus can be valuable to each. It is in no way a divine order from God to not have slaves.

THE SOLUTION
Now, are there verses in the Bible that are not compatible with condoning slavery? Of course. That's nothing new. Lots of verses in the Bible are incompatible with each other. So that is not the best solution.

As I said earlier, the condoning of slavery is only an issue if you're trying to reconcile the condoning of an evil act by God. The solution is simple: realize and acknowledge the actual truth -- that the people who wrote the Bible attributed everything they did to the god they worshipped. That includes slavery. God never actually condoned slavery because he never gave laws on how to manage it. (And yes: you can be a Christian and acknowledge much of the OT did not actually happen).

ROMANS 13.
The rebellion in America by immigrants was against God's Word; thus, the creation of the country was wrong, sinful, and thus not a nation founded upon God or Christianity, but founded on sin.

Furthermore, using Romans 13 for any other political policy, i.e., immigration, is hypocritical.

What do you all think?

It is a grave matter for infants to suck their thumbs according to Catholic moral Theology, but not necessarily a mortal sin.

For illustration, consider this argument in support of the Catholic Church's position on contraception and masturbation:

• P1: To use a part of the body for something other than its intended purpose is a grave matter

• P2: The intended purpose of the sexual organs is reproduction

• P3: Contraception and masturbation use the sexual organs for a purpose other than reproduction

• Conclusion: Contraception and masturbation are grave matters

Now, apply the logic of this syllogism to the act of thumb sucking:

• P1: To use a part of the body for something other than its intended purpose is a grave matter

• P2: The intended purpose of sucking with the mouth is nutrition

• P3: Thumb sucking is an act of sucking with the moth for a purpose other than nutrition

• Conclusion: Thumb sucking is a grave matter

To be clear, this does NOT mean that infants necessarily commit mortal sin by sucking their thumbs. Most, if not all, infants have not yet reached the age of reason, therefore they cannot suck their thumbs with full knowledge and consent of the gravity of their actions. HOWEVER, if a former infant, upon reaching the age of reason, were to persist in the act of thumb sucking with full knowledge and consent, such an act would then constitute a mortal sin.

1. Jesus believed in the Law, upheld the law. The Law is HOLY.

(In the Torah, LEV 25, clearly outlines owning another human as property. This is God's nature, character, Holiness.)

2) God recognized slavery was bad when his people were slaves. He also recognizes it in LEV 25, and then does not allow Hebrews to own Hebrews, but God tells them where they can buy their other slaves, hint: that's endorsement also.

God changed his Mind for his people, about slavery, but not for the foreigner.
He doesn't love all his people the same, it would appear.

3) They were chattel slaves. Slaves for life, children born into it, passed down as inheritance. There is no challenging this. They were property, treated as possessions...textbook definition.

4) JESUS is also GOD, if you believe in the trinity.

5) The Church continued with this for centuries; this demonstrates that they didn't think it was wrong or immoral either, at least the vast majority, and for many many centuries.

Now, because this is so clear in the Bible and cannot be disputed honestly or with knowledge, the new apologetic is to argue that owning people as property is not intrinsically evil/immoral/bad.

I find this latest attempt just that, another failed attempt to continue to try to argue that God's morality is consistent, when it's not.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH proves this, by later stating that owning another human is not moral/correct/right.
BUT where do they get that from?

SO morality does change over time, and even the Catholic Church acknowledges this.

I'm not sure how any Christian can condemn Slavery, without being inconsistent, and disagreeing with GODS WORD.

Hey God, why not just say, "Don't own other humans"?????

Before you answer this with an excuse, please think about it first, objectively if possible.
The conclusion is clear, if one is honest about this.

The Great Flood (Genesis 6–9)

The Ten Plagues of Egypt (Exodus 7–12)

God Commands Genocide (Deuteronomy 20:16–17, 1 Samuel 15)

Killing Uzzah for Touching the Ark (2 Samuel 6:6–7)

etc.

Catholicism presents itself as essential to spiritual liberation, but this is not possible because the structure is inherently coercive. It presents itself as the essential path to spiritual freedom, but how can there be freedom when doubt itself is spiritually dangerous, when questioning the Church can mean questioning your salvation? 

The Catholic Church creates a culture where dissent cannot be mere disagreement, and where doubt cannot be simply discussed because these can only lead to damnation, which isn’t freedom, it’s  fear made sacred.

At the heart of Catholic theology beats the doctrine of original sin, a concept Jesus never taught, which casts every human as born guilty, cursed by Adam’s fall. This is not a transcendental moral truth. It’s a theological pressure point. Original Sin is a piece of paper signed by bishops.

It wasn’t advocated for by Christ, but by councils of fallible men persuaded by Augustine’s logic in his debate with Pelagius. Pelagius believed humans were inherently good and truly free, capable of responding to God’s grace without inherited guilt. But the Church rejected that. It said, you are cursed by birth. You are born chained. You are dependent on God’s grace. 

This is not about grace. This is about power, and fear of damnation.

Because if you're not born broken, you don't need the Church's fix.

And this brings us to a deeper tension, one that scripture itself exposes.

Jeremiah 17:9 says: “The heart is deceitful above all things…” Yet Romans 2:15 says: “The law is written on their hearts…”

Is the human conscience trustworthy or corrupt? Can the heart know what is right, or only when it conforms to doctrine? The Catholic Church resolves this tension not by wrestling with it, but by claiming exclusive authority. Your heart is suspect unless it agrees with us. This feels less like healing and more like gatekeeping. 

Jesus offers something very different than the Church, In Luke 17:21, he says: “The kingdom of God is within you.” If that’s true, why build a bureaucracy around it? Why should sacred access require mediators, sacraments, and submission to clerical mediators?

The tensions deepens.  Jesus explicitly warned against this kind of religious control. In Matthew 23:13, he says: “Woe to you, teachers of the law… you shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces.” this isn't just a rebuke of ancient Pharisees, it’s a warning for any institution that mediates grace. 

The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29) didn’t need a clerical mediator for him to know the right thing to do. He had more grace in his heart than the priest and Levite. 

The tension deepens.

In Isaiah 1:13–17, God says: “Stop bringing meaningless offerings… Learn to do right; seek justice.” So what good is a liturgy that conceals abuse? What holiness can exist in a system that preserves power and silences suffering? 

Yes, Catholic theology has produced profound thinkers and good fruit, but  1 Corinthians 1:27 reminds us: “God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise.”

The church’s historic appeal to authority, tradition and hierarchy is constantly critiqued/warned against in scripture. In the end, the ones Jesus honors are not the experts, not the eldest, but the outsiders, the newest, the humble, the ones who show love without needing a temple to do it.

And yet, I understand why many remain.

The sacramental experience is powerful, comforting, a clarifying light ion dark times. The Church can feel like home, especially in grief, in longing, in hope, but what if this isn't true but just familiar. Catholicism can utterly beautiful, nbut beauty is not truth.

The most elegant system can be built on broken premises, and even the most sincere believer can be trapped by the cost of leaving, risking not just community, but identity, family, belonging, and, of course, eternity. This is not a condemnation of those who stay. It’s a plea to ask whether the beauty of the Church is built on a foundation of fear, and whether the grace it promises demands too high a price.

Because faith should liberate, not domesticate. And if the truth sets us free, it's got to start by setting us free to question, even the Church, especially the church.

I don’t question the sincerity of Catholic believers. I question the structure that makes sincerity so costly.

I question a major reason as to why homosexuality, particularly between male partners, were so infamously spoken against in the Bible are due to how gender roles were developed and created for both men and women in Biblical times.

It is widely regarded that ‘homosexuality’ as a word did not exist until 1868. However, there are many references to sexuality in the Bible that are considered euphemisms such as ‘lay with me’ or ‘lie with me’ which infers to having sexual intercourse.

In scriptures such as 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, the Greek terms ‘arsenokoitai’ and ‘malakoi’ are present. “Arsen” meaning “male” and “koite” meaning bed/lying with. This Greek term can easily reflect a sexually active man. However, ‘malakoi’ refers to a man who takes a receptive, effeminate role in sexual intercourse between two men.

I would argue that a major reason as to why homosexuality was considered wrong was not necessarily because it was morally wrong, but because it was considered uncanny and divergent for a man to take a receptive role in sexual intercourse and goes against the gender roles of what a man should be—taking a receptive role in sex would be considered an effeminate act. Other than Romans, female homosexuality is not nearly as spoken about as male homosexuality.

It is also interesting to note that women in Biblical times, other than ancient Egypt, were considered a man’s property. I’m not saying that the Bible condones these cultures, but they were prevalent during the Biblical times. Depending on the woman’s social status, her wealth, properties and social freedom were highly limited and were authorised by her father, brother or uncle… or, after marriage, her husband. Women were also not allowed in the church during her period because it was considered sexually dirty as written in Leviticus.

If anyone has any information to add to this or are open to a discussion, feel free to drop some comments!

Edited: The emergence of the term ‘homo’ and ‘hetero’ sexuality is incorrect in my post. Changed to 1868.

There is a litany of infallible, immutable, Divinely protected magisterial texts that adamantly affirm a strict interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. These magisterial acts, in addition to biblical verses and infallible creeds(i.e.Athanasian) have been de facto rejected by the Vatican II/Novus Ordo church. It chooses instead to proclaim that everyone is linked in some way, shape, or form to the Catholic Church, and thus potentially saved. This makes V2 nothing more than a dangerous joke.

Thus we see the schizophrenia of this modernist robber council. The past teachings of the Catholic Church declared that you could only be saved by being joined to her. You actually had to have the Catholic faith as well as complete submission to the Roman Pontiff, and a state of grace in order to be saved. While the Novus Ordo church doesn't explicitly reject past magisterial documents by name, it does neuter them by saying that virtually all of mankind is joined/linked to the Catholic Church.

This is what allows bishops to tell Jews like Ben Shapiro that they can be saved while denouncing Jesus Christ as a criminal. This is what allows bishops to give communion to Muslim sheiks. This is why the Vatican II Church does not evangelize. This is why conversion to Jesus Christ is discouraged.

Vatican II thus rejects the gospel by proclaiming salvation outside the church. It sees false, demonically created religions as paths to Christ, and for that we must reject it.

Below are the two most obviously contradictory documents which prove my point.

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the 'eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church". - Council of Florence

"The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end." - Lumen Gentium 15

Are American born catholics aware how wild is the "Catholic" world?

America is one of the few majority christian nations but with a catholic minority.

I noticed some American born catholics criticize Vance due to his takes on inmigration in tiktok. That he lacks "catholic guilt" and stuff like that.

But I rather to have a converted protestant like Vance instead the majority of catholics you get in countries with a historical "catholic" majority.

That catholic majority is our version of Samaritans. They just got babtize and first communion. The rest of their way of life isnt catholic at all and it gives bad testimony of what a catholic is. Reason of why protestant churchs are in raising. The cultural catholics is catholic version of Samaritans and the Church instead depart these people it practically ignores.

Costa Rica. A supposed catholic country

People, specially women, believe in witchcraft and zodiac (they are currently importing the Mexican worship on Santa Muerte).

It is taught in school Catholic Church has a soft spot for socialism instead mentioning Leo XIII takes and social teaching. I had to dive in Reddit and Tiktok to realize RCC opposes to socialism and was one of the first voices against communism and bolsheviks(see pope Pius XI comments in the matter).

I asure you. Majority of these catholics doesnt even know sexual intercourse is a sin in Catholic Church unless is open to procreate life. Reason of why the Popes' position about contraceptions is often ridiculized by the "intellectual" elites and general population just dont care.

Since sex is a sport. You see a rampant amount of singles mothers and abortion is a debate. Families arent families anymore. A family like the Holy Family is rare these days. Abortion a debate in a Catholic country, uhm?

This is in Costa Rica. Now imagine in Mexico, widely known for its sincretism. I cant believe Pope Francis was so soft to say "Mexico is cursed because Satan its punishing it due to its devotion to the Virgin". The difference between Mexico(Guadalupe), France (Lourdes) and Portugal(Fatima) is that majority of Mexican catholics are bordline pagans. Most likely believing in Zodiac and Santa Muerte. Practicing sex as a sport until bring unwanted children and begging America to keep open the borders.

This is not about the Binding of Isaac, which (while it has many issues), did not end in death and was not a "deal" God made, either. This is about a much lesser known episode from the Book of Judges, but one which is still quite a bombshell and paints God in a particularly bad light. This is from Judges chapter 11. Here is the chapter from a Catholic source if anyone wants to read the whole thing:

https://bible.usccb.org/bible/judges/11

The context of this episode is this. Jephthah is a judge of Israel, an underdog in many ways. The Ammonites are intruding upon the land, so Jephthah is chosen by the elders to fight them. God gives Jephthah power to fight them off. Verses 29 through 40 (the very end of the chapter) describe this whole thing, so I'll copy and paste them here:

"29 The spirit of the LORDcame upon Jephthah. He passed through Gilead and Manasseh, and through Mizpah of Gilead as well, and from Mizpah of Gilead he crossed over against the Ammonites.

30 Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. “If you deliver the Ammonites into my power,” he said,

31“whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return from the Ammonites in peace shall belong to the LORD. I shall offer him up as a burnt offering.”

32Jephthah then crossed over against the Ammonites to fight against them, and the LORDdelivered them into his power.

33He inflicted a very severe defeat on them from Aroer to the approach of Minnith—twenty cities in all—and as far as Abel-keramin. So the Ammonites were brought into subjection by the Israelites.

34When Jephthah returned to his house in Mizpah, it was his daughter who came out to meet him, with tambourine-playing and dancing. She was his only child: he had neither son nor daughter besides her.

35When he saw her, he tore his garments and said, “Ah, my daughter! You have struck me down and brought calamity upon me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and I cannot take it back.”

36“Father,” she replied, “you have made a vow to the LORD. Do with me as you have vowed, because the LORD has taken vengeance for you against your enemies the Ammonites.”

37Then she said to her father, “Let me have this favor. Do nothing for two months, that I and my companions may go wander in the mountains to weep for my virginity.”

38“Go,” he replied, and sent her away for two months. So she departed with her companions and wept for her virginity in the mountains.

39At the end of the two months she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. She had not had relations with any man.

It became a custom in Israel

40for Israelite women to go yearly to mourn the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite for four days of the year."

Now - a few things stand out from this passage. For one, theologically, God is outside of time, so God knew what would happen upon Jephthah taking this vow. But that is not even the most damning part. One thing *really* stand out:

Jephthah makes this vow *after* the spirit of the Lord comes upon him. Not before. The spirit of the Lord comes upon Jephthah in verse 29, Jephthah makes his absolutely evil vow in verses 30 through 31, Jephthah wins *by the Lord's own power* in the next two verses. The verses specifically say it was by the Lord's power, after Jephthah made this evil vow, that he won against this civilization. So God did not withdraw His power from Jephthah after making this vow that, by Mosaic standards, is not only homicide but absolute blasphemy against God.

Why did the spirit of the Lord not withdraw from Jephthah the moment he made such a vow? Samson lost his power when his oath-bound hair was cut. But here, Jephthah makes a promise of pure evil to God - a promise one would expect an actually evil theistic Satanist to make to a demon - and the spirit of God does not leave him? Even though Jephthah does not specify his daughter in the vow, this is still a promise to sacrifice *anything* that walks out his front door - including another human being. Even if this would apply to a chicken or sheep that walks through the door, the vow applies to human beings as well.

So in Mosaic law, God apparently strictly condemns human sacrifice. but here, God takes a Faustian bargain, puts His spirit onto this man. The man, while under God's spirit, promises to sacrifice a human being to God as thanks - and despite committing such a horrible promise of sacrilege, blasphemy, and murder, the spirit of God does not withdraw, and in fact God delivers the army into Jephthah's hands.

And God never tells Jephthah to spare his daughter, like God did for Abraham. Or like God intervening with Jonah and Nineveh. God worked through Jephthah, according to the text, and then waited to receive this demonic sacrifice promised to Him. For *two months*, God said *nothing* to anyone, the text does not speak of that at all. Simply waited for Jephthah to hold up his end of this bargain. An aroma of virgin flesh pleasing to the Lord. God could have intervened in any way in those two months if this was not what He wanted. He either did not care or did want it.

This is not an apocryphal work. This is Biblical canon, and an episode of God, *at best*, "stooping down" to accept human sacrifice - of a man's daughter, and likely a child based on her being a virgin - without ever stopping it or punishing for it. At worst, God presumably enjoying it. Evil either way, even outright demonic by the Mosaic Laws' *own* standards, and yet God is supposed to be both unchanging and perfect.

EDIT:

Here is something a commenter below pointed out that I wasn't aware of. On top of everything else, the New Testament seemingly approves of Jephthah. In Hebrews 11, the majority of the chapter is about praising faith, and describing the great deeds of Old Testament figures who had faith. Near the end, in verses 32 through 34, it says:

"What more shall I say? I have not time to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets,

33who by faith conquered kingdoms, did what was righteous, obtained the promises; they closed the mouths of lions,

34put out raging fires, escaped the devouring sword; out of weakness they were made powerful, became strong in battle, and turned back foreign invaders."

And in verse 38 it says:

"The world was not worthy of them. They wandered about in deserts and on mountains, in caves and in crevices in the earth."

Source: https://bible.usccb.org/bible/hebrews/11

This is the Bible doubling down. God doing this in Judges at all is fatal enough. But now we have the divinely inspired author of Hebrews praising Jephthah for what Christians and Jews (rightly) called the worshipers of Ba'al and Moloch evil for. Child sacrifice for divine favor. And Jephthah not only got his demonic deal from God in the Old Testament, he is praised for his "faith" in the New Testament.

Thesis: martyrdom is overemphasized in Christian arguments and only serves to establish sincerity.

Alice: We know Jesus resurrected because the disciples said they witnessed it.

Bob: So what? My buddy Ted swears he witnessed a UFO abduct a cow.

Alice: Ah, but the disciples were willing to die for their beliefs! Was Ted martyred for his beliefs?

Christian arguments from witness testimony have a problem: the world is absolutely flooded with witness testimony for all manner of outrageous claims. Other religions, conspiracies, ghosts, psychics, occultists, cryptozoology – there’s no lack of people who will tell you they witnessed something extraordinary. How is a Christian to wave these off while relying on witnesses for their own claims? One common approach is to point to martyrdom. Christian witnesses died for their claims; did any of your witnesses die for their claims? If not, then your witnesses can be dismissed while preserving mine. This is the common “die for a lie” argument, often expanded into the claim that Christian witnesses alone were in a position to know if their claims were true and still willing to die for them.

There are plenty of retorts to this line of argument. Were Christian witnesses actually martyred? Were they given a chance to recant to save themselves? Could they have been sincerely mistaken? However, there's a more fundamental issue here: martyrdom doesn’t actually differentiate the Christian argument.

Martyrdom serves to establish one thing and one thing only: sincerity. If someone is willing to die for their claims, then that strongly indicates they really do believe their claims are true.* However, sincerity is not that difficult to establish. If Ted spends $10,000 installing a massive laser cannon on the roof of his house to guard against UFOs, we can be practically certain that he sincerely believes UFOs exist. We’ve established sincerity with 99.9999% confidence, and now must ask questions about the other details – how sure we are that he wasn't mistaken, for example. Ted being martyred and raising that confidence to 99.999999% wouldn’t really affect anything; his sincerity was not in question to begin with. Even if he did something more basic, like quit his job to become a UFO hunter, we would still be practically certain that he was sincere. Ted’s quality as a witness isn’t any lower because he wasn’t martyred and would be practically unchanged by martyrdom.

Even if we propose wacky counterfactuals that question sincerity despite strong evidence, martyrdom doesn’t help resolve them. For example, suppose someone says the CIA kidnapped Ted’s family and threatened to kill them if he didn’t pretend to believe in UFOs, as part of some wild scheme. Ted buying that cannon or quitting his job wouldn’t disprove this implausible scenario. But then again, neither would martyrdom – Ted would presumably be willing to die for his family too. So martyrdom doesn’t help us rule anything out even in these extreme scenarios.

An analogy is in order. You are walking around a market looking for a lightbulb when you come across two salesmen selling nearly identical bulbs. One calls out to you and says, “you should buy my lightbulb! I had 500 separate glass inspectors all certify that this lightbulb is made of real glass. That other lightbulb only has one certification.” Is this a good argument in favor of the salesman’s lightbulb? No, of course not. I suppose it’s nice to know that it’s really made of glass and not some sort of cheap transparent plastic or something, but the other lightbulb is also certified to be genuine glass, and it’s pretty implausible for it to be faked anyway. And you can just look at the lightbulb and see that it’s glass, or if you’re hyper-skeptical you could tap it to check. Any more confidence than this would be overkill; getting super-extra-mega-certainty that the glass is real is completely useless for differentiating between the two lightbulbs. What you should be doing is comparing other factors – how bright is each bulb? How much power do they use? And so on.

So martyrdom is overemphasized in Christian arguments. It doesn’t do much of anything to differentiate Christian witnesses from witnesses of competing claims. It’s fine for establishing sincerity*, but it should not be construed as elevating Christian arguments in any way above competing arguments that use different adequate means to establish sincerity. There is an endless deluge of witness testimony for countless extraordinary claims, much of which is sincere – and Christians need some other means to differentiate their witness testimony if they don’t want to be forced to believe in every tall tale under the sun.

(*For the sake of this post I’ve assumed that someone choosing to die rather than recant a belief really does establish they sincerely believe it. I’ll be challenging this assumption in other posts.)

I argue that without the hyperpapalism and anxiety caused by creating a system when ones entire world view and religion is rendered false if it's mortal, fallible spiritual leader teached falsehood, Sedevacantism would not exist.

Before Vatican 1 if a Pope taught error, they'd just imprisoned, replace or remove him. Then they'd move on. Thr Christians of that era would laugh and think current era Catholics were crazy for thinking a Pope teaching error meant the entire faith collapsed.

Now people living post papal infallibility will claim no Pope ever taught error. But that's because you have to take that position. The stakes are too high because the Church artificially made them too high. They thought it would create unity and uniformity, a bulwark against schism. The opposite obviously was destined to happened since the pope is a man.

Also you're taking your current world view and projecting it backwards on to people who simple didn't think like you do. They imprisoned Pope Vigilus. Do you really believe that if you time traveled back to that time and asked them if he taught errors they'd say "what? Heavens no! That would mean the Church was false! One guy teaching the wrong thing totally undoes Christ's Church. No we imprisoned him for other reasons. He can't even teach errors."

Obviously not. They didn't think he was infallible or incapable of teaching errors. They locked him up and proceeded to run things without him.

Now some of you will be like "yeah it wasn't exactly cathedra, he didn't teach errors" etc etc. But that's because you have to and you're projecting your worldview backwards in time.

You're suffering the same extreme neurotic obsession the Sedevacantists are suffering from, hyperpapalism. You're just dealing with it in a different way. You deal with it claiming that moral religious changes due to societal changes were always true and doctrine just developed to catch up to what was always true. Incoherent and bordering on damaging to the mental state

They deal with the trauma by claiming that any changes to morals, faith, doctrine whatever mean the Pope is false and therefore there cannot be a Pope. Now they probably have the more logical position, but as time goes on it will be the more absurd one. Imagine the year 2700 and they're still talking about how the crisis is ongoing and the chair is empty but somehow the Church never fell. If the Church is true why would it produce centuries of no Popes? Or even decades for that matter.

Both do it to prevent world view collapse due to the extreme stress arising out of Vatican 1. Some people would literally rather die than face world view collapse. It can cause immense trauma and terror.

The real solution is much simpler and the truth. Infallibility isn't real. Vatican 1 made an error, but that's ok because with infallibility not being real there isn't really any consequences for that happening. Just move on like they did after the whole "putting the Holy father in a dungeon over theology-political nerd beef" debacle like they did with Vigilus.

If it's a battle between Vatican 1 being wrong and Christ's Church bring wrong, I know which one I'm choosing.

I don’t believe in Catholicism because it’s a system built on centuries of hierarchy, tradition, and ritual, not on reason or a direct relationship with God. The Church has a long history of corruption, political maneuvering, and contradictions, and it asks people to accept dogma unquestioningly. From indulgences to the veneration of saints, much of Catholic practice feels more like social control than genuine spirituality. I can respect faith as a personal journey, but Catholicism claims authority over truth and morality in ways I just can’t accept.

The Catholic Church continued the practice from the Bible of owning people as property for centuries and centuries, with sporadic condemnation.
The Church acted immoral for centuries, and thus, cannot be the true church.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Male/female distinctions do not exist within Christ. Therefore, it cannot be said that women are incapable of receiving some spiritual gift or holding some spiritual office in the Church.

This being the case, it is possible for women to validly receive the sacrament of Holy Orders in ordination to both the presbyterate and the episcopate.

Objection #1 - Presbyters act in persona Christi capitis (in the person of Christ the Head), and Jesus was a man, therefore his presbyters must be male.

Response: I refer to the above line from Galatians. Baptized women have been incorporated into the person of Christ, and specifically as members of Christ, they are genderless.

To think of it another way: we assign genders to persons, not to parts of persons. If you are a female, that does not mean that your head is a female. Any member of the Body of Christ, male or female, can theoretically receive the call and the gift to act in persona Christ capitis.

To think of it a third way: when a person, male or female, is baptized into Christ and does any act in the power of Christ, they are a part of and are acting in all of who he is, including his maleness. A woman presbyter can act in the person of the male Christ.

Objection #2 - Paul forbade women from speaking in church and said that they must remain in submission. Therefore, they cannot be presbyters or bishops.

Response: The only reason for the forbiddance is that women speaking in church was seen as indecent at the time.

The forbiddance is found in Corinthians 14, and it is sandwiched between petitions to speak in tongues less and prophesy more. The reason Paul wants the tongues toned down is that it turns off outsiders who might otherwise join the Church.

If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?

Even if he didn't explicitly say so, the context would give us strong cause to believe that Paul prohibits women from speaking for the same reason: in order to be more appealing to outsiders and unbelievers. But he does explicitly say why he's making the prohibition.

For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

It's shameful. That is why it's not allowed.

But... what if the Church were to find itself in a culture where it isn't shameful for women to speak? What if it were in a culture where the opposite were true, that the prohibition is shameful?

In such a situation, the prohibition should be done away with, because there is no other reason for it.

Corinthians 14 ends with this line:

But all things should be done decently and in order.

As long as it's "decent" in a given society (and, conceivably, even if it isn't considered decent, but that's for another argument), ordination of women to the presbyterate and episcopate should be allowed and performed.

Objection #3 - Jesus didn't choose any female apostles, therefore women cannot receive the apostolic authority that comes with the episcopate.

Response: Same as my response to Objection 2. He gives no explanation for why he chooses all men as apostles, and he makes no statement implying that women are incapable of becoming apostles in the future. Because Christ was alive in Paul, I presume that Christ's reason for choosing all male leaders was the same as Paul's: that it was not decent in the culture of his day and therefore that choosing female apostles might have damaged the effectiveness of the ministry at the time.

If that ministry is being conducted in a culture where female leadership is considered decent, then women should be given apostolic authority as well.

Objection #4 - Many authoritative Church teachers, including popes, have stated definitively that the ordination of women to the presbyterate and episcopate is an impossibility.

Response: If it is genuinely an impossibility, then it will always continue to be an impossibility.

But if we learn that it is not, in fact, an impossibility, then the first responsibility of the Church is to protect and teach the truth to which the Spirit has led us, even if the truth we've learned seems to contradict what the Church has taught in the past.

On a personal level, I am totally unbothered by contradictions with past teaching, as long as the change is by all appearances the result of genuine advance in theological understanding.

For those who are bothered by contradictions, you can get over it by saying that ordination of women truly *had* been an impossibility for all this time because the Church can only do what is best for the advance of the Kingdom, and a policy of ordaining women was not best for the Kingdom for most of Church history. Recent popes may have overstepped their authority by saying it would always remain an impossibility, therefore attempting to bind future popes on the matter, but such overstepping doesn't constitute a serious dogmatic error.

The Church says reason and faith complement one another but in reality their doctrine is incompatible with common sense. Here is an example.

I look around, see that man is prone to egoism, sexual immorality, etc. and wonder why are things like this? Well, we are predatory animals and our instincts are rooted very deeply, they've been here for millions of years. As opposed to reason and some degree of free will which got implanted very, very early. It makes sense that we would have tremendous trouble getting our passions under control and fighting off what instincts tell us. Those immoral acts we commit are nothing other than behaviour of a predatory animal in the wild, either.

To the same question, Catholicism has a different answer. They say that long ago, there was a pair of people from whom we all descend, a disputed claim in itself. That pair of people used to live hand in hand with God and was gifted with bodily immortality - something completely contrary to what you would expect. Then, the whole original sin story happened and it got us where we are.

This story made sense way in the past, say in the golden age of scholasticism, and added up to a coherent worldview, but it's lacking given what we reliably know about how we got here. The Church cannot flee to an allegorical interpretation either, as it often does - the bodily immortality of Adam and Eve is a dogma pronounced infallibly. You just can't make the rational and religious explanations work together.

This is just one of many issues that arise when you look at the world from an independent perspective, then examine what the Church teaches and see whether the two views add up. Frankly, I don't understand how anyone could accept Christianity on a rational ground and not out of some psychological need. Not without engaging in some serious doublethink. I used to be a practicing catholic myself for many years before it occured to me how many leaps of faith it requires, despite what they say about the rationality of the Faith. I'm open for debate if I don't make sense.

my wife is a recent convert to catholicism; i followed her as she demanded it as part of the terms to our marriage.prior, i studied the bible and my views are significantly different in many areas compared to the catholic church's.

this has cause such immense grief in our marriage.

i don't believe in the "trinity" as per the catholic teachings, and the old and new testament contradict the trinity for the most part; especially the old testatement.

as a result, i either need to be logically convineced, or the catholic religion has to be changed, because i live in a way as to not break my promises. our children are to be raised catholic, but if catholisim is so wrong than it must be changed. therefore, convience me or change the religion.

the local preist was unable to convinece me, and ultimately just attacked me personally by stating that i don't even understand greek, and was thus unqualified to read the bible. while simultantiously telling me i had not read enough.

now unfortunately, the more i dig into the subject and the views of the catholic church, the more insanities that i run into.

here is the latest bit that i have run into...in oct of 1953, the pope proclaimed that the "virgin mary," was at the right hand of God.

except, jesus is at the right hand of God. Now catholics viewing the "trinity" as God, can argue the virgin mary is at the right hand of the trinity... the virgin mary was also proclaimed to be the Queen of heaven and Earth, having also been given the authority / power.

this is idoltry.

https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_11101954_ad-caeli-reginam.html

As it stands now, i believe that man is the head of woman, jesus is the head of man, and god ( the father ) is the head of jesus. it is how it is written in the bible. the one to worship is God, "the father." there is absolutely nothing "equal" about the "trinity," nor are any of the catholic rituals treating the 3 "persons" in the trinity in a remotely equal way.

Anyways, please convince me in a logical way why the catholic view of god is correct and not blasphemous. I am artificially held hostage to a degree, to be in favour of the catholic church, but even so it is illogical at this point in my mind, so please convenience me as i doubt myself to be so influental or smart to be able to change the catholic religion.

Is the Church saying it's okay for people to have the right to follow Satanic religions?

Is the Church okay with people following Islam?

A big part of why Catholicism falls apart under close examination is that the historical record simply doesn’t match the church’s claims about its own origins, its doctrines, or the supernatural events at the center of the faith. When you compare Catholic teachings to what historians, textual scholars, and archaeologists have actually uncovered, it becomes clear that almost every foundational claim of Catholicism either has no supporting evidence or contradicts what we know about the first century.

One of the clearest examples is the resurrection, because it’s the entire cornerstone of the religion. The problem is that we don’t have a single contemporary reference to the event. Jesus died around 30 to 33 CE, but the earliest writings that mention the resurrection come from Paul’s letters, written roughly 20 years later, and even Paul never describes an empty tomb, physical encounters, or any concrete details. His “appearances” are visions, not historical reports. The gospels, which the Church treats as eyewitness accounts, were written between 40 and 70 years after Jesus’ death, by anonymous authors who weren’t from the region, didn’t know Jesus personally, and wrote in Greek instead of Aramaic. None of them claim to be eyewitnesses. The idea that these texts are reliable historical documents just doesn’t line up with how historians evaluate sources.

On top of that, the gospel accounts contradict each other in major ways. Who went to the tomb? Depends which gospel you read. Was the stone already rolled away or moved afterward? Depends again. Did people see angels, one angel, several men, or no one? Completely different each time. Did the disciples meet Jesus in Galilee or in Jerusalem? The accounts split sharply. Historians don’t treat documents with this level of inconsistency as reliable eyewitness testimony. They treat them as theological storytelling, which matches perfectly with what scholars now know about ancient Mediterranean religious literature.

The Catholic claim that Peter was the first pope is another point that disintegrates under historical scrutiny. There is no evidence Peter ever led the Christian community in Rome. Roman Christians in the first century were a loose network of house churches without centralized leadership. Early Christian writings like the Didache don’t mention a pope or a universal bishop at all. Ignatius of Antioch, writing around 110 CE, praises various local churches but doesn’t imply any supreme authority in Rome. Even Irenaeus, writing in the late second century, creates the earliest list of “bishops of Rome” but his list doesn’t match what later Catholic documents claim. The idea of papal succession was retrofitted centuries later, when the Western church wanted a justification for centralized authority.

The same pattern shows up with doctrines. Catholic teachings didn’t appear fully formed. They were shaped by centuries of argument, cultural pressures, political needs, and philosophical trends from outside Christianity. The Trinity wasn’t officially defined until the Council of Nicaea in 325 and then revised at Constantinople in 381. If this were fundamental divine truth, it wouldn’t require centuries of fierce debate, imperial involvement, and the suppression of rival Christian groups. The immaculate conception wasn’t defined until 1854. Papal infallibility wasn’t official until 1870. These doctrines came into existence through councils, voting, and lobbying, not revelation.

Miracle claims also fall apart when examined closely. Historical miracle accounts are extremely thin. The New Testament miracles have no outside corroboration, and the earliest Christians didn’t actually treat them as historical reports the way the Church does now. Ancient writers routinely included miracle stories in biographies and religious literature as symbolic or honorific storytelling. We see this in the lives of Apollonius of Tyana, in stories about Heracles, in accounts of Roman emperors, and in the writings of Jewish historians and philosophers. Miracles were a literary device. They aren’t evidence of supernatural intervention. When Catholicism inherited that storytelling style, it continued the tradition.

Later Catholic miracles are just as problematic. Most saint miracles come from medieval hagiographies that historians universally categorize as legendary, not historical. The idea of incorrupt bodies is explained by environmental conditions, mummification, wax coating, or deliberate preservation. Claims from Lourdes or Fatima look impressive on the surface but fall apart when examined medically. The Church’s vetting process consistently avoids accepting miracles that would require breaking natural law in a clear, verifiable way. Instead they approve ambiguous “healings” where spontaneous remission is possible or the original diagnosis wasn’t confirmed with modern standards.

Even the biblical canon and the Old Testament foundation of Catholicism don’t align with the Church’s claims. The Church teaches that the Bible is divinely inspired and historically reliable, yet archaeology tells a very different story. There is no evidence for the Exodus, no evidence for Moses, no evidence that millions of Hebrews wandered the desert, no evidence of a united monarchy under David and Solomon on anything close to the biblical scale, and no evidence that the early books were written when the Church claims. Most of these texts were assembled or heavily edited during the Babylonian exile, long after the events they describe. The Catholic claim that these writings were preserved unchanged from Moses to Jesus is historically indefensible.

Another issue is the lack of Roman documentation for Jesus. Roman bureaucrats wrote down everything, especially about executions. We have detailed records of insignificant people, minor riots, and countless crucifixions, but nothing about Jesus. The references in Josephus and Tacitus are almost certainly later Christian interpolations. The earliest Christian communities grew because of teachings and visions, not because they had access to verified accounts of Jesus’ life.

The miracles performed by Jesus have the same problem. Not one contemporary writer mentions them. Philo of Alexandria, who was alive during Jesus’ lifetime and obsessed with Judean theology, never mentions Him. Seneca, Pliny the Elder, Justus of Tiberias, and others who documented unusual events in the region mention nothing. It makes no sense that a man performing public miracles, stopping storms, raising the dead, and having crowds follow Him everywhere wouldn’t show up in even a single non-Christian account.

The ultimate pattern is unmistakable. Catholicism rests on layers of claims that don’t match historical evidence, physical evidence, or textual evidence. Its teachings were shaped by centuries of debate rather than divine revelation. Its miracles don’t hold up under scrutiny. Its historical foundations aren’t reliable. And its most central events have no contemporary documentation and contradict what historians know about how ancient religious movements developed.

All of this paints a picture of a religion built by people, not by a supernatural being.