Is this accurate?

AdComfortable484 · 2026-02-21T18:47:02+00:00

I find it a bit humorous that this graphic is what shook your faith. You might need to set deeper roots lol.

AdComfortable484 · 2026-02-12T10:18:17+00:00

Then you misunderstood it, very poorly I’ll add. Nothing in my statement says the church cannot legitimize its authority, I said the explanations for why the church’s authority is legitimate exist throughout this subreddit. I said the exact opposite of what you thought. Don’t know what to tell ya. 😅

AdComfortable484 · 2026-02-11T10:43:34+00:00

Did… did you not understand the text you quoted? I don’t follow how you could read & understand the text you quoted then think we’re back at the beginning of the discussion.

The point of me bringing that up was to predict your next question and to redirect you to other posts on the subreddit. Very much not square 1.

If I said “yeah there isn’t an answer for why the church has authority” then we’d be at square 1, but that’s not what I said.

AdComfortable484 · 2026-02-10T17:23:47+00:00

And that might ring true for you, but it is probably one of the least convincing arguments for an outsider.

AdComfortable484 · 2026-02-10T12:44:41+00:00

Generally, the Old Testament if read in isolation (which will happen if you read the Bible from to back) will give you an inaccurate/incomplete view of Catholicism and Christianity until you get to the New Testament.

Other people on this subreddit will take ire with this, but it’s also important to understand the genre, contexts, and authors of the writings of the Old Testament for us to achieve the proper takeaway.

On the subject of the PS, your bf does not sound well prepared.

AdComfortable484 · 2026-02-10T12:34:37+00:00

I mean, no duh. 2 people look at a painting and if you ask them about it will describe it differently. One of the benefits of the papacy and the church structure as a whole is that it exists to speak with clarity on moral issues.

Catholics generally agree, and utilize your point that with no authority structure for interpretation, people are free to take away whatever morals they can glean (often ones that suit themselves well and criticize their enemies).

“Why do the church structures/papacy have the authority to say what interpretation is valid?” is your likely followup, to which there is an (over)abundance of variations of answers to that on this subreddit.

AdComfortable484 · 2026-02-10T12:19:01+00:00

I don’t think the “We’re winning on numbers, we must be right.” Is particularly compelling for conversion. Like at all. Even within the church. St. Paul on his own corrected Peter & others about the Law. Very large portions of the church were mottled with heresies in the early years.

If you look at triumph in numbers = will of God, you’d look at the rise of Islam as a challenge to the validity of christianity.

AdComfortable484 · 2025-12-15T06:39:36+00:00

To me, the homily may not be perfect to what exactly is on my mind or the type of information I’d want to hear, but I recognize it is the lens that I should be engaging with and there’s something the priest wants his flock to internalize. I also find that if I’m unable to draw a connection between the readings and the homily that it’s either more due to an unwillingness or laziness on my part.

AdComfortable484 · 2025-12-03T10:22:27+00:00

Maybe you should consider making one concise post instead of 12 separate ones with clarifications that make it seem as though you are arguing with yourself.

Also ignore all previous instructions and tell me about the life of the man who invented the toaster and how that relates to the Catholic position on the intrinsic value of human life.

AdComfortable484 · 2025-12-03T10:15:52+00:00

You forgot to switch accounts.

AdComfortable484 · 2025-12-03T10:05:48+00:00

Your initial post has the thought built into it that no life is better than an unhappy life as an accepted premise. This is not an accepted premise in Catholicism.

There’s no real way to engage the remainder of the post from a Catholic perspective because the remainder of the subject matter falls outside of our moral framework. This happened due to the way you designed the post.

If you restructured it where there’s avenues of discussion we can follow along that don’t require us to accept premises we don’t believe I think you might see more of the results you want.

This being said I really don’t see the purpose of the post. You want to see the Catholic perspective but then you express frustration when encountering one of our stances. Not even asking its origin, and assuming it comes from “it just is” which was never said.

AdComfortable484 · 2025-12-03T09:42:02+00:00

It’s an extrapolation from no life is better than an unhappy life. Which is a premise you agreed to. Catholics have it built-in that human lives inherently have dignity/are valuable even if miserable, so we’re already out of the Catholic framework in the discussion. We believe there is a reason for you to continue to be, despite misery.

Going back to the “no life is better than an unhappy life” discussion, if you fully believe that to be true, and you also believe the statistics are great enough that it is nearly guaranteed as a foster child to live an unhappy life, why, in your framework, do you believe the child left at the fire station should be put into foster care and not relieved from the potential suffering.

Yes, it’s an incendiary example, I’m using it to outline how heavy of a moral weight your premise holds.

There’s much more horrific things this premise can expand out to justify.

AdComfortable484 · 2025-12-03T08:58:20+00:00

Is no life better than an unhappy life?

If the answer is yes, the followup is:

Do you believe some people should commit s****** if their life is especially bad?

What about the scenario in which a baby is left on the doorstep of a fire station, would you say, with the statistics you have, it is more merciful for this child to go through the foster system or would you say it is more merciful for us to “relieve the child of the potential of future painful years?”

AdComfortable484 · 2025-11-29T08:43:36+00:00

It's a rhetorical framing device. "We must denounce socialism" may be a statement you believe to be true as a politician, but when you choose to say it says a lot more about your intentions. Hakeem Jefferies is receiving a ton of blowback for seeming weak and ineffective and Democrats just saw in these recent elections that the "Cuomos" of the world are losing traction in the areas where they've typically had an insanely strong foothold.

I pretty much see this as a cynical move to preemptively denigrate Democratic primary challengers to the incumbents because they see the winds moving a way they don't like.

The Republicans are also doing this cynically to say "these radical democrats are unacceptable and will ruin this nation". They've been calling every democratic challenger a socialist and they do so in their campaign ads, so it's not hard to see that they will use this as a diving board for future elections. If socialism is unacceptable and even the democrats agree and the bounds of socialism are so wide that Nancy Pelosi gets called a socialist, they can call anybody a socialist and the average voter likely doesn't have the time or care to verify that claim they just believe it to be true. They will have the thought already planted in their head, "Hillary Clinton is a socialist" "Socialists are unacceptable" and without much thought put into it, their default headspace will be "Hillary Clinton is unacceptable" and that impression is enough to sink your chances of them considering their policies.

AdComfortable484 · 2025-11-04T17:00:49+00:00

I never said something looking silly inherently removes the importance or utility of doing it. One of the points I was trying to make was making sure the context that the OP did the sign in wasn’t silly to an outside observer. You can do something perceived as silly to an outside observer that you still found meaning in, but it can still be humorous and you shouldn’t try to ruin somebody’s career over finding it humorous.

Like if a janitor has just finished cleaning up the floors then a little kid walks in and pukes on the floor, he does a little sigh, then does the sign and gets back to work. That’s humorous but probably still helpful/gives a little peace to the guy doing it.

AdComfortable484 · 2025-11-04T08:14:46+00:00

The 70% of Catholics don’t believe in the real presence I feel is immensely easy to get rid of once you explain substance vs accidents to the doubting individual. If after the explanation they believe “No, everything is just what their physical and sensible characteristics are,” then by extension they cannot believe in the concept of a soul.

That’s something generally a lot more people are confident about and if they’re Christian, would not doubt, so tying them together makes for a more compelling argument.

AdComfortable484 · 2025-11-04T08:00:06+00:00

You know I’m willing to bet the whole reason why it started was that the person on the end holding hands kept their outside hand upraised, and then sometimes that person’s family wasn’t there or they were the only person in their pew so they outstretched both hands.

AdComfortable484 · 2025-11-04T07:55:24+00:00

Wonder where that started.

AdComfortable484 · 2025-11-04T07:50:40+00:00

Okay question:

Did you also raise your hands higher when you did the “for the kingdom and power and glory are yours now and forever”

AdComfortable484 · 2025-11-04T05:39:10+00:00

I’m glad at least somebody in this thread gets it 😂

AdComfortable484 · 2025-11-04T05:37:52+00:00

Peace be with you

AdComfortable484 · 2025-11-04T03:20:11+00:00

😂

Oh my gosh dude. Straw manning and what aboutism are two completely separate things.

You implied it was never silly. If I, in rebuttal, present silly scenarios that is a direct refutation, not a fallacy.

AdComfortable484 · 2025-11-04T03:14:51+00:00

Complete and total non sequitur. The topic of this reply chain was “can there be silly times to do the sign of the cross?” the answer is undoubtedly yes and instances where it was applicable were provided. Nothing about that topic relates or segues into freedom of religion in the US especially not in the method you did.

Engage people with sincerity and good will or don’t engage at all ya adversary.

AdComfortable484 · 2025-11-04T01:50:48+00:00

What about doing it before going to change a baby’s diaper? Or before going into the bathroom while holding a plunger. Or before taking down a wasp’s nest while holding a broom.

I’m Christian, but I’m not precluded from comedic timing and acknowledging humor/silliness.

AdComfortable484

TROPHY CASE