Convince me he isn't an anti-pope

You have no idea what you're talking about, nor have you ever read the Bible.

Surrender to Muslims has never been a church teaching.

...

If you kill your enemies, they win
- John 22:15

The Bible forbids remarriage after divorce

Nor aliens
Nor evolution
Nor that atheists can go to heaven
Nor to bow down to liberal secularism

This pope is the most atheist pope.
Not a surprise since he's a Marxist Jesuit.

what denominations literally believe this?

Pretty sure this guy is youtube.com/watch?v=GGBHfXPqbgI

How? It's completely true

...

It's completely false.

You're an atheist and your vision of Jesus is completely different from the actual Jesus of the Bible.

marx was a protestant
christians believe in evolution

>surrender to Muslims

What are you talking about?

b8

He was elected in the official method of the Papal Election.

Antipopes are people elected outside the official method. "Pope" Michael is an Anti-Pope.

...

Catholic detected.

...

so you're a YEC?

...

Yes.

I assume you're OEC or evolutionist.

my beliefs are irrelevant.

your post was bait.

marx was an atheist darwinian
christians who believe in evolution contradict the bible

And? You wanted to know why he wasn't an antipope, well it's because antipopes are literally unofficial popes. Not incarnate demons or whatever wacknut Prots believe.

...

He's not an antipope, he's an antichrist, like all popes are.

Peter was never in Rome.
Peter was married.

Apostolic succession is unscriptural and made-up by Rome to keep political power.

But I've read the Bible.

Jesus and Pope Francis both practice asceticism, forgiveness, and self-sacrifice, focusing on the suffering of the poor and the downtrodden and criticizing oppressive systems.

oyy veyyy!!!!

Marx disavowed religion, but his philosophy was strongly influenced by his Christian upbringing

almost ALL christians had long accepted evolution until seventh day adventists invented creation 'science' in the late 19th century. it was unknown even amongst mainstream protestantism until the mid 20th century. most non american christians had never heard of it (many still haven't).

Kill yourself commie

If we were not right, God would not have gifted us with such wonders as these.

Man is made in the image of God, so to deny him his wonders would be to deny them of God Himself.

Iconoclasts are the worst among sinners.

That's not what Christianity is about at all.

>criticizing oppressive systems
You're making shit up.

The Bible tells us to listen to authority.
Render unto Ceasar, etc.

You're trying to turn Jesus into a commie, try harder.

wow i love catholicism now

>accepted
You mean believed.
You can't "accept" something that isn't real.

Second, most Christians believed in YEC until the government forced evolution to be taught in schools.

letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/exposing-the-roots-of-young-earth-creationism/

christianpost.com/news/pope-francis-jesus-is-the-only-way-to-eternal-life-162202/

>pagans give homage to satan
>catholics give homage to satan
>atheists love satan's world

ofcourse you love catholics, you have the same god.

. Through about 1960, nearly all Christians, including conservative Old Testament scholars and most fundamentalists, were comfortable with interpretations of Genesis which accommodated an earth that was many millions of years old.

...

Creationism is a meme that's about as old as Nietzsche.

...

What's your point though?

Is it an appeal to authority?

The Bible tells us that in the last days, we would be deceived by many false doctrines.

it's not old at all
at least not YEC seventh day adventist creationism

Creation is a fact.

Nietzsche is a meme.

yes, i appreciate the catholic church for preserving european traditions instead of full-on semitic wankery

Why are you blaspheming against the Ark of the New Covenant?

so your ancestors are in hell for believing in OEC?

Another bait.

YEC is as old as Christianity is.

The New Testament church believed in YEC.
The RCC believed in YEC with the geocentric model.
All the Reformers believed in YEC.

It wasn't until Copernicus' heliocentric model and Darwin's evolution hypothesis, and even then it still took several decades before Christians began being deceived by the lie.

Mary is crying because you Catholics are worshipping her instead of our LORD and SAVIOUR.

But it's not her you're worshipping, it's the ancient pagan queen of heaven goddess.

Satan got you good.

No, your theology isn't what gets you saved or not.

Salvation comes from your belief in Jesus Christ, what you think of certain other matters or doctrines are irrelevant.

Still, that doesn't make it ok to lie to our children or embrace false ideas.

>at least not YEC seventh day adventist creationism

vastly different forms
creation science and intelligent design flood geology theories are only 19th century american inventions

>seventh day adventist cr
Are you dense, the accepted Celestial Model until Heliocentric managed to prevail wasn't the Biblical Model, it was the Aristotelian one, which wasn't Biblical at all.

The Catholic Church wasn't anti-Science, it was just Scientifically Dogmatic, and refused to let go of the Ancients.

Does anyone have the "nice doctrine" png from /christian/?

CATHOLICS EXPOSED
remnantofgod.org/666-char.htm

CATHOLIC & ISLAMIC CONNECTION
youtube.com/watch?v=ll0otULYzms

HISTORY OF THE EVIL PAPACY
youtube.com/watch?v=Xta31joiIhU

No Mary No Jesus
Know Mary Know Jesus

...

Preach brother.

>seventh day adventist (1870) doctrines
>as old as christianity itself

youtube.com/watch?v=wL_Y8qn2nBI

>CATHOLIC & ISLAMIC CONNECTION
>Prods literally colluded with the Caliphate in order to undermine The Church

>The Catholic Church wasn't anti-Science, it was just Scientifically Dogmatic, and refused to let go of the Ancients.
Primarily because the engines were the ones who already the most correct to that point and they just wanted to make sure that the Church would have it "more correct" before abandoning older science for newer.

It took a while to embrace Heliocentrism because the church want to be extra super 100% mega sure that heliocentric them was 100% absolutely no questions about it true.

>SDA invented YEC

Are you retarded?

It was a uniform belief throughout history that the world was approx. 6000 years old and created by God.

The idea of evolution didn't even exist.

I'm a Protestant and 2nd vid gave me cancer

You're not a Protestant because no Protestant calls himself a Protestant, just a Christian.

What denomination? Baptist? Methodist? Lutheran? You're not a Christian.

>It was a uniform belief throughout history that the world was approx. 6000 years old
Jesus wept

youtube.com/watch?v=5baWgvEqbeg

YEC would not exist today if it weren't for ellen white's 'visions' (from head injury)

>"the pope is an antipope"
>"But he was elected legitimately and is therefore a pope"
>"n-no he's an antipope because I disagree with his politics!"

And then Galileo made fun of the Pope, and got his theory condemned as Heresy.

And now we have to live with the reputation of Anti-Science Barbarians while Atheists play Galileo up as a martyr.

It was our 1 (one) mistake.

Shouldn't you be out not baptizing infants, you paranoid autist?

This is pure falsehood.

It's sad to see atheists resort to blatant lying and pretend YEC is something new.

>Know Mary Know Jesus
Blasphemy

Catholics baptise infants, you idiot.

Bible-believing Christians do not believe in infant baptism.

Holy shit, atheists are illiterate.

...

Why are literally all of you Baptists retarded? I have never seen a Baptist who wasn't completely retarded.

How am I retarded?

You sound like a liberal who gets all angry and mad at facts.

>How am I retarded?
Sub-80 IQ will tend to do that

>it's another "evolutionists get rekt" episode

Logical Fallacies of Evolution 101

How often have you heard evolutionists say: "There's really no disagreement among reputable scientists when it comes to evolution." Or: "Evolution is settled science." Creation Moments has heard such statements fall from the lips of Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott and many others, too numerous to mention.

Clearly these evolutionists are all working off the same page in their playbook. They're also showing that they aren't thinking clearly. Why? Because they are writing books, making films and giving speeches tearing down scientists who disagree with them. But wait - didn't they just say that there's no disagreement among reputable scientists and we're dealing with settled science?

By saying things like this, evolutionists believe that people can be easily fooled by one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book - the argumentum ad populum. As used by evolutionists, this fallacy can be stated like this: "Since all scientists believe in evolution, evolution must be scientifically correct."

Even if the first part of this assertion were true - which it isn't - the second part does not logically follow. It's like the child who tries to justify some undesirable behavior by saying, "It must be okay because all the kids are doing it." Besides, if scientific truth is determined by majority vote or by what most scientists believe at a certain point in time, then Darwinism itself would have been rejected when it was first proposed.

The argumentum ad populum is an illogical way for evolutionists to sway people to their position. Watch out for it whenever it's used by others ... and avoid using it yourself as you seek to defend biblical truth.

Evolutionists have to rely on logical fallacies, because there is no evidence supporting the theory that species produce offspring that are not of their species. Only by using logic errors can evolutionists generate a belief in something that has not occurred and is not occurring.

Begging the Question: This is circular logic. An assumption is used to validate a premise. Evolution is assumed to be factual; therefore, evolutionists dismiss outright fraud as being acceptable because it illustrates a true point. One popular form of this is, "Although it is mathematically impossible for life to have occurred by chance, we're here, so that proves it happened."

Hasty Generalization: A small sampling of data is used to “prove” a large conclusion. For example, evolutionists like to claim that evidence of people dwelling in caves in former times means humans came from a more primitive species. This is overgeneralizing at its extreme. In fact, humans are still dwelling in caves, and not because they are a primitive species.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: This tries to prove a point by creating a hypothesis that has already been disproved. For example, evolutionists state that theists are retarding science. This is contrary to fact. Many scientific advances were made and are being made by people who believe in God. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Mendel, for example, all believed in God.

Misuse of Authority: A group of “experts” is used to prove a conclusion, even if that group does not actually agree with it. An example is "All educated people know evolution is a fact."

Chronological Snobbery: This fallacy says that the evidence is ancient, so it can't be verified by observation. Thus we have the "millions" of years timetable for evolutionists.

You will find that every argument in favor of evolution hinges on a logical fallacy. All the evidence clearly points to design, not accident, as the source of life.

>because the Blessed Mother doesn't have a holy relationship with her own Son, The Incarnate Word of God, that's worth looking up to and emulating in order to become more intimate with the Sacred Heart and Divine Mercy of Christ Jesus
Heresy is a serious matter.

>muh fundamentalism

YEC had died out (even amongst Protestants) until the 20th Century.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Christian_fundamentalism_and_belief_in_a_young_Earth

Creation science and intelligent design are uniquely new SDA doctrines.

...

To see the fallacy Hypothesis Contrary to Fact in full force merely read the literature of any evolutionist and note that the literature will have references such as: may or may have, must or must have, possibly,could or could have, should or should have, might or might be, etc.Then note that their conclusion demands to be recognized as scientific fact. Apparently evolutionists did not get instruction concerning scientific axioms and principles that demand that any conclusion that rests on these kinds of phrases can never be considered a valid theory or fact.

One hasty generalization is when micro-evolution (adaptation within a species) is used to support macro-evolution (the change of one species into a different one.) The first is merely normal. The second never occurs. Yet evolutionists say that because some bacteria are resistant to antibiotics, this difference within the species proves that species change into creatures that are not of their own kind. That's a hasty generalization for you.

Evolutionists are constantly begging the question. They base their extrapolations on assumptions. A good example of this is the rock record. Evolutionists say that slow, steady rate erosion created rock layers that were obviously caused in a cataclysm. Evolutionists ignore the real world of sudden disasters that dramatically and suddenly change the landscape, since that ruins their theory of slow, predictable change over millions of years.

The theory of evolution is often referred to as a tested and proven scientific fact, when evidence overwhelmingly is against it. In fact, the theory of evolution is based on conjecture, and from there assumptions are made that contradict observable fact. Evolutionary arguments cannot withstand objective, in-depth criticism because they are nothing but hot air.

By true scientific standards, evolution is not even a theory. A scientific theory is confirmed by observations and is falsifiable. There will be proof whether it is right or wrong.

Evolution cannot be put to a test, since it supposedly happened millions of years ago and we certainly never see it happening now. It can never be proved—either true or false. It has always been on speculation alone.

Because there is no actual evidence to support evolution, proponents resort to logical fallacies. Evolution puts forth a tautology, which is the circular argument that the fittest survive, and therefore those who survive are the fittest. See how one statement is used as proof of a repetition of the same argument. The fittest—those who leave the most offspring, evolutionists say— leave the most offspring. A hamster spinning in its cage could hardly go in more circles!

There is a line of reasoning known as a "reductio ad absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). Evolutionists like to do this all the time. They try to show that belief in a Creator is false because it is absurd. "We cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we cannot touch him," they say. "So we're supposed to believe this tripe?"

Meanwhile, we cannot see species turning into another species, but they expect us to believe that they do.

By the way, the whole premise that we cannot see, hear, or touch our Creator is wrong. Jesus Christ came down in person and was seen, heard, and touched. Indeed, he is the Good Shepherd. His sheep hear him today just as they did in times past.

If you claim you can't hear the Creator, you must be a goat, because the sheep know his voice.

>For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
1 Timothy 2:5

>thinks fundamentalism is a bad thing

A fundamentalist, as opposed to a liberal, is someone who holds to the fundamentals.

An electrician better knows the fundamentals of electricity.

A pilot better knows the fundamentals of flying a plane.

A Christian better know the fundamentals of his Bible.

1. Evolutionist makes an article titled: "Misconceptions About Evolution", trying to appear smart and pretend evolution is a fact.
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

2. Creationist makes a lenghty rebuttal, proving the evolutionist wrong.
trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.php

3. Another evolutionist comes, tries to make the readers believe the creationist responses were dumb, gets BTFO instead and makes a complete fool out of himself.
trueorigin.org/ca_tw_02.php

Websites like these remind me that atheists are the illogical and unreasonable ones.

I see creationists caring about arguments and substance.
I see evolutionists acting dishonest, utilizing a multitude of logical fallacies.
This was back in the late '90s, and I see things haven't changed.

Evolutionists don't care about their opponents, they care about brainwashing the reader. Too bad it didn't work in these exchanges.

this video made me tear up

some powerful preaching

Mary as Mediatrix of all graces is official Catholic doctrine, but not a dogma of faith. In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (pg. 215), Dr. Ludwig Ott outlines the doctrinal basis for Mary’s Universal Mediation (her co-operation in the Incarnation and the Redemption, as well as her relationship to the Church):

a) Since Mary gave the source of all grace to men, it is to be expected that she would also co-operate in the distribution of all grace.

b) As Mary became the spiritual Mother of all the redeemed, it is fitting that she, by her contant motherly intercession should care for the supernatural life of all her children.

c) As Mary is “the prototype of the Church (St. Ambrose, Expos.ev.sec.Luc.II 7), and as all grace of redemption is obtained by the Church, it is to be assumed that Mary, by her heavenly intercession, is the universal mediatrix of grace.

One excerpt cannot adequately cover the full scope of this topic, thus I refer you to the following:

Church Teaching on Mary as Mediatrix of (All) Graces
ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya4a.htm
ourladyswarriors.org/articles/mother.htm
ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/MARYA4.HTM

Where the fuck is this autism coming from? You are presenting yourself as a terrible testament, and the name of God will almost certainly be blasphemed because of it.