Catholicism in general is paganistic, ritualistic idolotry

[Sethomas]

I just thought I'd dig this back up because I was reminded of something.

As far as choosing a faction of Christianity goes, you have the orthodox group (Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Eastern/Russian Orthodox, Eastern Rite Catholicism, & cetera), the Protestant factions (Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, & cetera), and sola scriptura Christianity (non-denominational).

Of these, all but Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and sola scriptura were born of the ideas of specific figureheads in a confined historical context. It hardly seems providentially likely God would intend his message to be "discovered" in such a narrow manner. Eastern Orthodoxy has simply lacked the integrity to hold up well against the forces of time, and has far too often made logical errors and shaped itself into a tool of politics.

The main issue that can be made against Roman Catholicism is the amount of corruption it has endured, especially in the middle ages. But it has a self-sustaining rationalization of this, which is that to prevail through time it must be dynamic. To be dynamic it must incorporate a body of human intellect, and it is therefore subject to human error. The Church has often violated its own principles, but it has maintained its integrity by having never incorporated such corruption into its doctrine.

What most people have concluded is that sola scriptura is the most logically sound flavor of Christianity, which irks me to no end because this idea is inherently flawed. These people worship the bible without any sounds logic for doing so whatsoever. The books that comprise the New Testament were not made official until they were translated by St. Jerome in the 380s. By that time in history, Christianity was irrevocably catholic in nature. Sola scriptura has no sound explanation whatsoever for why it considers some books canon and not others, except for the fact that they stole the Bible from the Catholics. If this weren't so, then why haven't they introduced a single new work into the bible out of the shitloads of apocryphal literature that abounded in the early centuries?

A favorite game of sola scripturists is to point at the passage in Revelations that curses those who would modify "this book". Guess what, THE BIBLE WAS NEVER CONSIDERED A SINGLE BOOK UNTIL THE NINTH CENTURY, so that quote by John of Patmos is quite irrelevant. Furthermore, in idolization of Martin Luther and the translators under King James, almost all sola scripturists neglect to use seven books of the Old Testament that contradict teachings against the importance of good works and the existance of purgatory. The rationale is that Jews don't consider them sacred books anymore. The truth is, they DID consider them sacred in the time of Christ, Christ NEVER refuted them, Christ USED THEM himself, and they weren't removed from Jewish canon until FORTY YEARS AFTER HE WAS DEAD.

The blind hypocrisy is quite frustrating.[/i]