“Pray, hope, and don’t worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer.” — St. Pio of Pietrelcina

@MrCasey62 Also don’t refer to them as Protestants from now on. My new favorite word for them is Cafeteria Christians.

Protestants love editing and twisting scripture. Look at the Catholic Bible, which includes 73 books—the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament. This is in contrast to the Protestant Bible, which has only 66 books, omitting the Deuterocanonical books (Because Protestants thought the Bible sucked so they deleted whole books and edited words in other books).

The Catholic Bible, which includes 73 books—the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament. This is in contrast to the Protestant Bible, which has only 66 books, omitting the Deuterocanonical books (Because Protestants love editing and twisting the Bible from it’s original form).

The Catholic Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals, not because of the personal holiness of its leaders, but because Christ Himself guaranteed it. This is not a human institution that bends to the whims of culture or power-hungry elites. It is the divinely established, unshakable foundation of truth, protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Jesus didn’t say, “I hope my Church gets it right most of the time.” He said: “You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18) If the Church could officially teach falsehood, then Christ’s promise would be meaningless.

The Catholic view does not claim that every instance of suffering is a direct punishment for sin but that suffering exists because the world is fundamentally broken. That brokenness includes disease, natural disasters, and moral corruption. The Fall is not about God holding a grudge—it is about humanity’s choice to reject God’s order, which led to a world that is not as it was originally intended to be.

@BertJedi @RebelJ27 @PapalOrthodixie @ash_cato @BackwardsFeet @UnchartedFather It’s written so in the Bible.

@BasedEmbraced @stabby_stab_1 @AgainstAtheismX

Your argument rests on a materialist assumption that explaining “how” something happens is the same as explaining “why” it exists. That is an epistemological shortcut that ignores the distinction between mechanism and ultimate causation. Science describes how the universe operates, but it does not explain why there is something rather than nothing. Saying “things happen for no particular reason” is not an argument, it’s an intellectual shrug. It does not explain why reality itself exists, why it has laws that allow order and life, or why it is intelligible at all. You claim that only the observable universe is structured and ordered and that the rest of reality might be chaotic or different. That is pure speculation. You assume an unobservable, unknowable “greater reality” beyond what we see, yet you demand rigorous proof for God. This is an inconsistent standard. If you are comfortable assuming that reality beyond observation “just is,” then you have abandoned any meaningful pursuit of truth beyond the material world. Your box analogy fails because it assumes the universe is self-contained and unchanging when all evidence points to the contrary. The universe is expanding, evolving, and subject to laws that govern its behavior. If the observable universe is contingent—changing, subject to laws, and not necessary in itself—then assuming the “box” that contains it is exempt from contingency is a bare assertion without proof. If you say the universe is eternal but contains contingent things, then it is still subject to an explanation beyond itself. Otherwise, you are just stopping the inquiry arbitrarily. You argue that theists claim “God just is” while rejecting the same reasoning for the universe. This ignores the distinction between contingency and necessity. The universe, as we observe it, is contingent—it could have been otherwise, it operates under physical laws, and it depends on conditions that allow it to exist. A necessary being, by definition, is not contingent—it is something that must exist, independent of anything else. Theists argue that God is the necessary explanation for all contingent things. You are simply asserting that the universe itself is necessary without demonstrating why that should be the case. Your claim that the universe has “much more evidence” for being eternal than God does is misleading. The observable universe had a beginning as far as we can measure. Whether the greater cosmos extends infinitely or is cyclical is unknown. But even if it were eternal, eternity alone does not make something necessary. An infinite sequence of contingent events still does not explain why the sequence itself exists. You say the most “honest answer” is that “we simply do not know,” but that is not what you’re actually arguing. Instead of acknowledging the limits of human understanding, you are making a firm claim that no intelligence is required and that there is “no particular reason” for existence. That is a philosophical stance, not an objective truth. If you demand justification for the claim that God exists, you must also justify your claim that no intelligence is required. Simply assuming that reality “just is” without a reason is not intellectual humility—it is an attempt to shut down the inquiry without an answer. Finally, you misrepresent the theistic position. The argument is not that “there must be an intelligence because we want one.” The argument is that the existence of intelligibility, order, and causality in the universe point to something beyond mere randomness. You are rejecting that conclusion not because you have disproven it, but because you presuppose that intelligence is not necessary. That is not reason, that is bias.

Your arguments rest on a series of unexamined assumptions that collapse under scrutiny. Let’s go through them one by one. You claim that there “needs not be a foundation or reason” and that “why” is irrelevant while insisting that only “how” matters. But “how” is a description of mechanisms, not origins. Explaining how something functions does not explain why it exists at all. Even if science uncovers every physical law governing the universe, it still does not answer why there is something rather than nothing. You assume that existence has no deeper reason, but this is not an argument, it is just a philosophical preference masquerading as fact. You argue that reality is not structured, intelligible, or ordered, yet you rely on logic, reason, and scientific principles that presuppose an ordered reality. If reality were truly chaotic and unintelligible, there would be no reason to expect consistent laws of physics, mathematical truths, or rational coherence. Saying “reality just is” ignores the very fact that reality operates in a way that makes scientific inquiry possible. You cannot claim that reality is inherently unintelligible while using reason to assert that claim. That is a self-refuting contradiction. You state that the universe is eternal and does not need an explanation. This does not resolve anything. Even if the universe has always existed, it is still a contingent reality—it depends on underlying principles and laws to function. An infinite series of contingent things does not explain itself, just as an infinite row of dominoes does not explain why they are falling in the first place. Saying “the universe is eternal” is no different from saying “it’s just turtles all the way down.” It avoids the question rather than answering it. You argue that atheism does not assume an explanation is unnecessary. Yet when confronted with the fundamental question of why reality exists, you dismiss it with “because it happened.” This is not an answer, it is an evasion. If theists simply said “God just is, because He happened,” you would reject it as circular reasoning. You are applying a double standard where God must meet a level of proof that you do not demand from your own claims. You state that “why is only important to insecure beings”, implying that seeking purpose is irrational. This is nothing more than an assertion. The desire to understand reality is not a weakness, it is a defining feature of human rationality. You rely on reason, logic, and evidence in other areas of inquiry, yet when it comes to the ultimate question of existence, you dismiss the inquiry itself. This is not skepticism, it is intellectual laziness. Saying that reality “just is” does not answer the question of why it is the way it is. Science operates under the assumption that reality is governed by principles that can be understood. If everything is ultimately meaningless and without reason, then you have undercut the entire foundation for rational inquiry. You do not get to demand empirical proof of God while accepting an unexplained, brute-fact universe on blind faith. That is not logic, it is just convenience.

@PeraPer30124208 @DNLSHLR @darwintojesus God gifted them. God bless.

@PixelBibleBytes @Catholicdude223 @RogerWaltersIII @Chad4328 The Catholic Church didn’t endorse the attacks of Jewish people. Nothing like when Protestants mass murdered Catholics during the reformation.

@PeraPer30124208 @AgnosticOrange @Oukakin @darwintojesus I can tell you didn’t bother to read the entirety of my post.

Your argument assumes that if God exists, He must be detectable in the same way as a physical object. But classical theism does not describe God as a large, hidden object in the universe waiting to be found. God is not a material being but the necessary foundation for reality itself. You are applying scientific standards to a metaphysical question, which is a category mistake. If God were just another contingent entity like a planet or a star, then yes, He should be detectable through observation. But if God is the necessary cause of existence itself, then His existence is not a matter of empirical detection but of logical necessity. You cannot disprove the existence of abstract realities like mathematics or moral truths simply because they are not tangible objects. The same applies to God. Demanding “unambiguous evidence” assumes that only direct, empirical proof counts. But if God is not a being among beings but the reason being itself exists, then the evidence is not found in looking for Him as an object but in the necessity of His existence to explain everything else. Philosophical arguments from contingency, morality, and fine-tuning are not God-of-the-gaps arguments but logical conclusions based on the nature of existence. Saying that “God is just what you think is necessary because you don’t understand what else could’ve been” assumes that there must be an alternative. But what else could be the necessary foundation for existence? If the universe itself were eternal, it would still require an explanation for why it exists at all. If reality is eternal, what makes it structured, intelligible, and ordered? An eternal brute fact is not an explanation—it’s an evasion. You can reject the idea of God, but simply dismissing Him as “one step too far” does not address why existence is intelligible, ordered, and capable of producing conscious beings who even ask these questions in the first place. Atheism does not remove the need for an explanation. It just assumes that no explanation is necessary—which is an act of faith in itself.

@PeraPer30124208 @DNLSHLR @darwintojesus God blessed them with the skills required to be a Doctor or Nurse. Truly wonderful.

@PixelBibleBytes @Catholicdude223 @RogerWaltersIII @Chad4328 These attacks were not sanctioned by the Catholic Church but were carried out by rogue crusading mobs and local forces who used religious fervor as a pretext for violence.

@macksonham @buckeyebeans @iluminatibot I’ll pray for you.

@BertJedi @RebelJ27 @PapalOrthodixie @ash_cato @BackwardsFeet @UnchartedFather Jesus founded the Catholic Church. It’s hardly a heresy.

@tomwalsh68 @ThomasReeseSJ They weren’t though.

@lancemrngstr @kayyzizzle @whotfisjovana The Bible is a great source.

@buckeyebeans @macksonham @iluminatibot They appear blinded with hate. We can only pray for them.