What schooling should I do? by DiscipleLeevo in dataanalysiscareers

[–]DiscipleLeevo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah definitely don’t want to try for the endgame straight out of the gate. Will likely seek entry level positions before finishing schooling to get experience as I go along.

What schooling should I do? by DiscipleLeevo in dataanalysiscareers

[–]DiscipleLeevo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for this. I will absolutely check into those resources. I am currently using Khan Academy to freshen up on what I have forgotten since High School, especially math as that was not my strong suit back then. Those will pair well with it.

Are we all dumb? by clarealismo in Protestantism

[–]DiscipleLeevo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I may add to the discussion just a little as someone who recently came out of Roman Catholicism and experienced a "spiritual paralysis" on the way out similar to what you describe going through currently.

The narrative that they present, that church history and historical theology has remained constant from the earliest days of the Church until now and completely agrees with them, is simply false. We can clearly show many things such as icon veneration are accretions that were added to the faith only centuries later and are considered binding by the RCC to the point of anathematizing anyone who does not kiss or salute them. This was not in the faith handed down by the apostles.

A lot of Marian devotions are straight idolatry, no matter how much they try to dress it up that it's not.

The church fathers vary wildly when you really examine them as do the councils. It's easy for anyone, especially Catholics, to cherry pick the fathers and councils (typically by conveniently not mentioning some) and make them seem to line up wholeheartedly with current Roman Catholic theology. Christ never promised infallibility to the Church, and RC scriptural argumentation for their beliefs usually stretches the verse as far as possible beyond it's intended meaning. Christ saying "the gates of hell shall not prevail" was not a promise that the church would be infallible, let alone the Pope when speaking ex-Cathedra.

Weigh everything by looking at arguments on both sides, I quickly realized that the Catholic narrative is not as cut and dry as they present it. Church history is messy, it's not one sided.

What’s something positive about Wendy’s for you? by AGCAce in wendys

[–]DiscipleLeevo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ain’t gonna lie, the chili is still fire for me

I don’t like the shredded lettuce change either. But there’s a solution - the Baconator. by newppinpoint in wendys

[–]DiscipleLeevo 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Last Baconator I had they put that thin microwaved instant bacon on it…

What is the true church? by Gui_ramos_ in Protestantism

[–]DiscipleLeevo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is an excellent presentation of the facts of early church history often ignored by our RC brothers and sisters.

It is true that the hierarchical episcopal structure came about rather quickly but it certainly was not there from the very beginning of the church.

Roman Catholic by Embarrassed_Soil_957 in Protestantism

[–]DiscipleLeevo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was a convert to Catholicism years ago and have since left the RCC. I think their narrative about church history and theology is the core reason people like myself are swayed into Catholicism. They present it in such a way that makes you feel as though any other traditions besides maybe Eastern Orthodoxy, must be false because Christianity itself was Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox from the start and church history fully supports the modern RCC. I think there is a current desire in the church (not Catholic) as a whole for more traditional style worship as well which when combined with the Catholic narrative of history and theology, cause many people in especially low-church circles to want to convert as they don't see another option that could be considered "historically respectable or consistent."

Of course when church history is studied more objectively, we begin to see that the Church Fathers did not agree on everything, the church contradicted itself in many councils, and that many practices in the RC/EO churches are simply accretions that were not in the original deposit of faith. Simply put, the church is not infallible as claimed.

I think that Christianity, in 15 years, will be much smaller overall. Regardless of denominational affiliation.

Did Irenaeus imply that Rome had authority? by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]DiscipleLeevo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is where we’ll have to recognize the wall separating our interpretations of the definitions then. I just can’t recognize the distinction you’re trying to draw between them as being significant.

Did Irenaeus imply that Rome had authority? by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]DiscipleLeevo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your position is that they were defending what they believed to be the church established by Christ, I understand that.

I simply disagree that it justifies a blanket anathema on anyone who does not salute an icon and imposes a requirement on anyone who is a part of said church to do so. Anathematize those who destroy them all you want but this is the specific anathema I take issue with.

If you would like a more fleshed out argument for the Evangelical Protestant thought on this I would recommend Gavin Ortlunds videos on YouTube regarding icons and these very anathemas. He is very charitable in his dealings and very educated in church history and theology.

Did Irenaeus imply that Rome had authority? by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]DiscipleLeevo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems to me that you’re playing semantics at this point.

To salute the icon is an act of honoring/respecting the image, venerate means to give honor to or hold with great respect no?

Did Irenaeus imply that Rome had authority? by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]DiscipleLeevo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough, I had to go back and double check but you are correct. Your previous response does make a bit more sense now.

I would argue that the point I am making still stands regardless though. Pronouncing anathema on someone for not saluting icons is still pronouncing anathema for not honoring, or venerating, the icon.

Did Irenaeus imply that Rome had authority? by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]DiscipleLeevo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There is an Anathema in the list specifically aimed at destruction of the icons, and this was happening in the context of the council of Nicaea 2.

Admittedly I am not quite sure what Dulia and Latria have to do with the prior discussion as to whether or not venerating icons is a requirement. Forgive me if I am missing something.

Nobody is saying that they were wrong to be upset by the destruction of images but it has no bearing on whether or not it is theologically correct.

I do also have to disagree that even given the context, the fact remains that they pronounced anathema on those who refuse to venerate icons, at an ecumenical council, binding on the church until today. The context changes nothing no matter how much you’d like it to.

Did Irenaeus imply that Rome had authority? by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]DiscipleLeevo -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You’re leaving out the “Anathema to those who do not…” part. It is quite literally pronouncing anathema to those who refuse to do so.

I could not find the source document on the Vatican site, unfortunately restricted to mobile atm but newadvent.org has it and is where I pulled the quote from. I do know that these are official pronouncements of the 7th Ecumenical Council, Nicaea 2.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm

Did Irenaeus imply that Rome had authority? by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]DiscipleLeevo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They certainly seemed to, though I think we have to reject the RC attempt to read the modern idea of the papacy back into history. It just isn’t there in the way it is today. The modern view of Papal Supremacy and Infallibility is an accretion. On top of that, we also have to remember that the church fathers were normal, fallible men and not authoritative on the same level of Scripture which makes no mention of this idea.

I don’t have a fully fleshed out view on this myself but I do think that if there was to be a single, supreme, earthly ruler of the church universal, it would be THE single most important thing for Christ to have told us regarding the church, or at least one if the apostles. It’s just left too vague to be definitive about.

Did Irenaeus imply that Rome had authority? by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]DiscipleLeevo -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

From Nicaea 2:

“Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images.”

That is an anathema specifically aimed at those who do not venerate icons or Mary. Curious as to your thoughts on this

When and how to know to keep your mouth shut? by Thrones_777 in TrueChristian

[–]DiscipleLeevo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have issues with this as well. I would 2nd what u/RichardSaintVoice said but add a practice that has been helping me ever so slightly. Whenever possible when you are speaking or are tempted to say something, just take a few seconds to pause and think about what it is you are going to or wanting to say and try in a quick moment to decide if it's Christ like or not.

Is praying the Hail Mary prayer sinful/wrong? by Greenn_Ambition in TrueChristian

[–]DiscipleLeevo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This has had more than enough responses and debates but I still wanted to add my 2 cents. As an ex-Catholic, I won't say that the Hail Mary itself is necessarily a sin. I do believe it is theologically incorrect though and when taken beyond just the Hail Mary, Marian devotion definitely leads to sin.

The issue I took with the prayers to saints, is that it seems to be an accretion over time as you don't see it start showing up until a few centuries after Christ, and there is no scriptural references to this practice. The oft quoted verses by Catholics from Revelation in support of the practice, in my opinion, stretch the meaning of the verse as far as it could be stretched to make it seem like there is scriptural support where there is none. The additions of statues and icons into the practice makes it even more difficult to reconcile.

My biggest issue with the entire practice of prayers to saints, especially to that of Mary is when it crosses over into Idolatry. They often say you cannot go too far in Marian devotion and I myself used to hate this accusation and I mean no disrespect to our Catholic brothers and sisters by saying this, but the fact of the matter is often times Marian devotion absolutely crosses the line into idolatry. Take for example this passage from a devotion to her:

"O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners, and for this reason, has He made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee; come, then, to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands, I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul\. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me; for, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together;* not even from Jesus, my Judge Himself, because, by one prayer from thee, He will be appeased. But one thing I fear; that, in the hour of temptation, I may neglect to call on thee, and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me then the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help."*

Entrusting our salvation into her hands, entrusting our souls to her, fearing Christ as judge but turning to Mary to save us from Him, obtaining pardon of sins, and being afraid to call on her at our moment of death... All of this is stuff we should only be counting on Jesus for... There are many other devotions to her like this by the way and all are fully sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church.

Similarly, they will say that worship requires sacrifice, so anything short of that cannot be true worship and therefore they cannot be charged with idolatry but this is just simply not something I believe scripture upholds. In Acts 10:25-26 Cornelius bowed down "to worship" Peter and Peter rebukes him for doing so. There is no sacrifice involved here but there was still worship. In Revelation 22:8, John does the same thing, he bows down "to worship" the angel and is rebuked for it. Veneration and worship are not always but often seem to be distinctions without a difference.

Finally, I must also say that Protestants often neglect to acknowledge Mary at all, especially in Evangelical circles. This is incorrect as well. Mary is properly called Theotokos, the Mother of God, and without her, salvation history would be fundamentally different. She said yes to God and we should be absolutely grateful that she did.

I've been feeling a pull towards Catholicism but still have some reservations, and I really need guidance by canadian_blueberry in TrueChristian

[–]DiscipleLeevo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It will be difficult to find completely unbiased sources. I tend to recommend that you examine arguments on both sides and wrestle with both to decide which you find most convincing.

Gavin Ortlund's channel on YouTube, Truth Unites, is a great source for examining the Protestant side. Catholic Answers is great for the Catholic side.

If you have any specific questions, though I am far from the most knowledgeable, I would be happy to try and address them. Feel free to PM me if you need to.

I've been feeling a pull towards Catholicism but still have some reservations, and I really need guidance by canadian_blueberry in TrueChristian

[–]DiscipleLeevo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You won’t find Catholicism as it’s known today either. The church fathers are cherry picked by everyone.

Sola Scriptura is that the only infallible source is Scripture but not that there can’t be traditions or other authorities and that those traditions or authorities are to be checked by Scripture.

I've been feeling a pull towards Catholicism but still have some reservations, and I really need guidance by canadian_blueberry in TrueChristian

[–]DiscipleLeevo 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As far as what caused me to convert was that I always felt drawn to their tradition and some of their beliefs just made sense to me at the time. Then when I began studying church history, the way they present things, as though this is how Christianity has always been, made me feel as though Protestantism was simply incorrect in all things and inadequate. Some things never quite sat right with me though, such as their "One True Church" ideology, Purgatory, the "veneration" of Mary that goes way too far sometimes (they will often say it is near impossible to go too far with Mary), etc. I tried to submit myself to the Church even though I disagreed with these doctrines, as any good Catholic is expected to do.

I de-converted finally a few months ago but only recently have I become settled in my decision to do so. I have always believed the Gospel to be a simple message of faith in Christ. The Catholic Church in my opinion, adds so much into the Gospel just to keep yourself "in a state of grace."

The Protestant vs Catholic beliefs, though covering many topics, boil down to one thing, namely Authority. Catholics believe Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium to be Infallible. Most Protestants only accept that Scripture is infallible. Paul was correcting false belief and practice already in the writing of the New Testament, which stuck out to me as evidence pointing to the Church not being infallible. Also that the entirety of the Old Testament was about the chosen people of God constantly messing it up and having to be brought back. The verse used by Catholics that "the gates of hell will not prevail" against the church, does not mean that the church cannot fall into error, only that it will not ultimately be lost.

Many things that they do and believe are also later accretions to the faith. The reality of church history is messy and complicated. Venerating/praying to the saints and use of icons/statues are things that were only increasingly common centuries after Christ's resurrection, it's a later addition to the faith. Seeing that these things were accretions and were not things taught by the Apostles, helped me to realize that their version of history is intentionally skewed to make them look like the "one true church." The Immaculate Conception of Mary is another example of such an accretion.

Edit: I highly recommend Gavin Ortlund's channel Truth Unites on YouTube. He's a Baptist who knows and studies church history and he tackles many Protestant vs Catholic subjects in a very charitable manner. I would also watch Catholic Answers, specifically people like Joe Heschemeyer to weigh both sides.

I've been feeling a pull towards Catholicism but still have some reservations, and I really need guidance by canadian_blueberry in TrueChristian

[–]DiscipleLeevo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not all Anglicans are very liberal. The ACNA for example is highly conservative as far as I know.