And I would argue that the Catholic church's offical teachings on faith and morals help us to do that most effectively.

Didn’t Peter start the Catholic Church?

I think people believe him to be the first pope. But I can't be for sure.

He's believed to be the first, yes.

The Catholic Church believes him to be the first Pope

Makes you think, Catholics believe that the rock upon which the true church was built, Peter, was the same man who ,at one moment, was willing to kill Roman soldiers to protect Jesus. And within a day, denied knowing him three times before the rooster crowed. Kind of shows that nobody, not even the most noble, walk the path without stumbling once or twice.

Yeah they claim him as their first pope just so they can make catholicism look legit

Whether he was or not doesn't matter much to me.

I understand certain misgivings about different churches to different denominations. it would have been far better had the pope answered Martin Luther's concerns. but if that would have happened, the world would not be the way it is now and we could have been enduring a far worse fate today.

A concern if mine, is that a great deal of people that I've talked with, both Protestants *and* Athiests, seek to either misconstrue events as a means to bludgeon Catholics over the head to demean their doctrine, or to weaken Christianity's validity. (Chronologically speaking, Catholicism is the oldest. If it can't be trusted,what others can?) A common thing I see when insufferable Athiests (not to be confused with regular people who happen to be non-believers, but ones who have that as their core personality foundation) talk of demeaning Christianity, is to take certain events out of context then frame it as the Bible, and by extension God, being okay with it. An example would be comments about slaves needing to be obedient to their masters, even cruel one. They remove the second part stating that masters should be kind and understanding to their servants, as they themselves have a master in heaven. I see similar attempts by some malicious Christians against other denominations. The misconstruing of the statues of Saints and the Virgin Mary. Calling it idol worshipping, when it's far closer to being reverence or remembrance. We have statues of some of the greatest heroes in our history. We also have pictures of our loved ones it does not mean we worship them. This is also why I'm guarded around individuals who demean Islam. I personally find many acts and policy's in Muslim majority countries to be repugnant to my moral sensibilities. it does not mean that I will blindly listen to things that genuinely appear to be taken out of context.

If the events *are not* taken out of context, then I shall judge it as it ought to be.

What do you think of salvation is by faith and not works?

Some people are less able to bring about great works. I'm far less likely in my current financial situation, to be able to help as many people as say an amoral billionaire.

Judging by motivation or end result, has always left me in a conundrum.

Being an Evangelist Christian, the only way to Heaven in through faith.

That's why Jesus came, is to give us the opportunity to join him if we simply believe.

The issue of it being on "works" is that it could very well involved in individuals to do otherwise morally horrible acts for the quote "greater good". I could very easily justify the forced sterilization and elimination of certain demographics in America to lower the tax burden on others. This of course will only ever lead to moral damnation

If I had to buy my way into heaven by good acts, why did the hell did Christ have some type of need to be nailed to a cross? It kills the whole purpose of the crucifixion.

Works was never the way to join God. Even the Jews had to have faith to go to Heaven.

Yes

Raging Smurf, what are you?

Non denominational. I've attended both Lutheran and Catholic schools.

I have family members who are lutherans

Ah, so a mix of the two.

Interesting.

Yes, which is why I can see both perspectives far better than most.

It's less academic and more personal if you know what I mean

Both doctrines aren't simply words on a page I've seen them with my own eyes, I've heard them

I listened to a message online today about living selflessly. What are your thoughts on being selfless but keeping a balanced life. And how would that apply to your views on universal healthcare?

Universal healthcare is a government mandate. I stress the word *mandate*. I should be afforded the opportunity of choosing to help my fellow man, I should not be forced into it. If I gave up one of my kidneys to save a father of three, I'd be celebrated as a hero as I ought to be. if the government decided that my own personal convenience was worthy of being sacrificed so they could save one of their taxpayers, it would be tyranny.

I meant to put the word convenience in parentheses

They will determine it as a convenience on my part and not as an imposition

Agreed, I don't support it. But it really just got me thinking about what I shoukd be doing. Also the subject of universal healthcare gets brought up frequently in nursing school

I've personally seen how absolutely toxic low-income healthcare subsidized by taxpayers is. I'd rather not subject the rest of the country to it.

If Christianity didn't start with Peter and the Apostles then all Christianity is false as it has no structure or origin that can have any claim to teaching authority.

Jesus said to go make believers of all men, that upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church. Binding and loosing, forgiving sins, baptizing, those who reject you reject Me, etc.

Also, if Peter didn't have the authority of the Pope then that means we need to still be practicing the bulk of Jewish law as Jesus himself did not abolish it.
How many Christians follow ALL of the laws from the Old Testament? It is the Catholic church that decided which things were still binding and which were not.

It was the church that complied with the Bible, changed dietary restrictions, and taught believers what things were true and what things were false.

You cannot hold the Bible to be true without leaning of the Authority of the Catholic church which authoritatively declared it as such.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqLBeCmyaKY -Did the Emperor Constantine found the Catholic Church?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWR2fnRw2Eo - Why Should I Be Catholic?

If it's offered as a cheap alternative for individuals that can't afford it, they'll simply tank the prices in order to defeat their competition, in this case the Private health sector, absolutely Rockefeller in nature.

The cornering of the market then lowering their standards

You can still hold the Bible to be true without the authority of the Catholic Church because yes they are the oldest denomination but the authority of the Bible has never come from the Catholic Church, rather it has come from the apostles including Paul, and Jesus.

On making the comment about it being "the oldest", I was using that as an example of how certain atheists like to paint it, "if there's such an argument about Christian doctrine with the oldest one in comparison to new ones, how can any of it be trusted", I was quoting a talking point that I don't share.

@Danos Dawn Dachshund christianity didn't start with peter, it started with Christ

"rather it has come from the apostles including Paul, and Jesus."- who were the leaders of the Catholic church. And the Bible was compiled long after them. There were many different writings and it was the Church who decided which writings were Canon and which were not and declared that the Bible was the word of God.