So you believe the speech but not the speaker. That is silly.
why is the Church at odds with some points of Scripture?
Which points? Repeating it without putting evidence up is slander. Please show me.
So you believe the speech but not the speaker. That is silly.
Would you agree that you (Rome) and I (non-Rome) have profoundly different definitions of the word (capital-"C") "Church"?
I think I see the central point of frustration between the two very different religions. I keep seeing things like "the Church wrote the Scriptures" in these threads. For a non-Roman, that is an awkward way to say that God inspired the prophets and the apostles to proclaim the Truth in writing. When we, (non-Rome) look at the canon of Scripture, we see men inspired by God to write, and other men through prayer and study, compile what they believe are inspired and relevant texts. We don't think "Church" as if it was singular living, breathing personal entity, yet when a Roman Catholic makes such a statement, its like saying "Joe Smith wrote the Scriptures". I understand that your "Joe Smith" keeps reincarnating as various Popes and Bishops over the span of time, but that appears to be the best analog of how y'all keep using the word "Church".
That is why it is frustrating to the true believers in Christ when we keep seeing Rome say "The Church did this... " or the "Church did that...". You speak collectively where the whole entity of saved and unsaved alike who bow the knee to Rome that resolves ultimately to a single man. When true Christians refer to the "Church" it refers exclusively to a collection of those who are saved which ultimately resolves to the finished work of Jesus Christ.
An excellent comparison to how Rome defines "Church" is found in statements like "The White House issued out new executive orders..." Here "White House" is used in a similar way to how Rome says "Church". We all know that when the press says "The White House" it is similar to a Catholic saying "The Church" we all know that it ultimately resolves to the guy sitting in the Oval Office (or in today's regime, to wherever George Soros happens to be), and we also know that these singular men didn't dream up this on their own, but the proclamations evolve organically under the command and ideology of the President/hedge fund manager/Pope.
I think when the definition of "Church" is understood in those contexts, the vast difference in the religion of Roman Catholicism compared to true Christianity can be seen, and thus reduce the animosity that exists between us.
You can call yourselves Christians, just like the Mormons and the unredeemed within the American Religion do, for it is a deconstructed label that says "I'm not a Muslim, Pagan or Hindu", but please understand that the true Church of Jesus Christ is very different than the Church of Roman Catholicism and trying to deceive by rewriting the definition of "Church" or using it deliberately in a deceptive manner is only going to continue the frustration.
I for one, truly appreciate your tireless efforts to help clarify the profound distinctions between the cult of Rome and true Christianity. I have learned plenty from these discussions, and I no longer feel that I am dealing with the Apostate, rather it is more like talking shop with my Muslim friends where I know that ecumenism between the two religions is impossible and we can get along for as long as they don't try to cut off my head.
Actually, what is silly, is to believe that men and their ideas are superior to God's Word. Which was my point. I said that the "Church" is not the arbiter of truth OVER the inspired Word of God. It is not a matter of believing the "speech but not the speaker" but rather believing the Author over the readers.
Regarding the accusation of "slander" by saying the Catholic Church has areas of doctrine contrary to Scripture is hardly that at all. In fact, examples can be found in this very thread. You may want to take some time to read them.