There is plenty of historical evidence that Christ founded a Church which still exists after two thousand years, that St Peter was chosen as the leader of the Apostles, that there has been a constant succession of popes and the texts we call the Bible were selected by the apostolic Church centuries before the Protestant sects existed.
I would say that there is plenty of evidence that a religious movement was initiated by Jesus. But I don’t trust the gospels as accurate accounts of his life and ministry, nor do I believe there is any indication, other than an ambiguous statement in the gospels, that he intended to create an institution as we think of the Church now. Church history is also very hazy in the early period. Paul and the church fathers seems to suggest there are other Christian groups which are in error or preaching a false Christ, which is no doubt was those other groups would have said about Paul and the fathers.
I am no friend of Protestantism - I mean its theology and vision oh history, I am not against protestants themselves. So I agree that a sola scriptura Christianity ignores the fact that someone must have held the beliefs before writing the theology.
The faults and mistakes of individuals are not a good reason for rejecting the Church founded by Christ.
Of course you are right, and I was not suggesting otherwise. I was just saying that, equally, the holiness of individual Catholics does not prove the religion right.
Which doctrines do you reject?
The trinity (as everyone on this thread is probably now aware of). But I also do not believe the account of genesis literally, and I think this position undermines the idea of original sin.
In fact, I don’t see the sense in a sin you inherit which puts you in a condemned state automatically. I know the claim is that we are living with the effect of original sin and not with the guilt, but if original sin can send you to hell then it seems we really do inherit the guilt.
The whole premise of fall and salvation seems strange to me. Of itself it seems to make little sense, and is not even the traditional Jewish reading of Genesis. I have studied Iranian religions, such as Zoroastrianism and Ismaili Islam, which explain how some kind of fall and historical process of salvation is occurring. But these religions present man as a partner of God, helping Him complete creation after it experienced a setback. In these religions it is man’s job to bring about the end of history by bringing the world to a state of perfection - there is no concept of the world falling into an irrevocable mistake which must then be aborted at the end of time. Existence is inherently good, as Aquinas would say, and our mission in these religions is to increase this goodness-existence. Personal judgment in these religions has to do with how well we contributed to perfecting the world by being moral and respecting nature, rather than looking to the next world at the expense of our life in this one. There is no concept of spending your earthly existence making up for an irrevocable imperfection, as is the case in Christianity. Nor is there any obligation to love God under the threat of going to hell, which is absolutely not a loving attitude. Instead we are partners in doing good works, and our motivation is that the perfected world is as much in our interest as it is in God’s.
The bottom line is, I don’t believe the world being imperfect is my fault. Since I live in an imperfect world and am imperfect myself, I often contribute to this imperfection. But I can’t bear the blame (if it even is a question of blame) for the context I was born into. Nor can I inherit the blame of any person who is responsible. This is simply not justice.
For this reason I also do not believe in atonement. It is not clear to me what this attainment of worthiness is or what justifies this whole sin-salvation mechanism.
