Luckily, arguments are judged by their merits and not where they come from. In this case, the argument should be judged on its truth, and since it is true, it should be accepted. In any event, this was not obtained from any Muslim or Christian forum, but self study when I was younger, and, in particular, when I didn't have access to the internet but only books, like the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example.

You are confusing heresy and blasphemy. Heresy pertains to adherence to the doctrines and beliefs of a religion. You can be a heretic from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church by making a certain statement, while not being a heretic from the viewpoint of another Christian denomination by making the same statement. Your statements about both the divinity of Jesus and the nature of the Trinity are examples of this.

Two points. First, you are the one bringing in the distinction of "good standing." I have spoken only to whether or not someone who questions core doctrines of the Catholic Church is thereby not a Catholic (or, more broadly, Christian). I really am not concerned with whether or not thekid345 (or others with his putative claims and questions) is or is not a Catholic in good standing.

Second, you claim that we should use the criteria of the Catholic Church to determine whether or not someone is a Catholic. Fine. So show me that canon law says that someone who was baptized in the Church and now is questioning whether the Trinity is true (or whatever it is that thekid345 appears to be doing) is thereby apostate. I'm no expert on this matter so I can certainly be swayed.

Don't think he's made that claim. He's said thekid is guilty of being a heretic, which is defined by the Catholic Church as:

I say that thekid is a muslim pretending to be a Christian.

I think the evidence is overwhelming at this point.

He's propagandizing in this forum as if he was being paid to do it.

The people who are paid to proselytize are much better at it than the_kid. I don't suspect he's a Muslim in Christian clothing at all. At most he's a guy who's heard a lot of good things about the Islamic faith while asking a lot of questions.

My religion, Catholicism, teaches me to be respectful toward Islam.

Doggg, you don't miss a beat when it comes to praising the gospel. But go ahead and capitalize that M, when you type Muslim

BTW once you are baptized you are pretty much permanently considered part of the Church. Even after excommunication or a declaration of atheism, the Catholic Church still considers the person to be a member of the church.


See New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law p. 63 for more info.

If this is true, it is saddening to hear. I was baptized in a Catholic church before the choice could be made for myself (my parents decision) so its a shame that their regulations do not permit people to rethink this decision once they are old enough to think for themselves.

I do not want to be associated with this organisation in any capacity whatsoever.

This is why the whole "Catholic in good standing" was brought up earlier.

No offense friend, but You have been thoughtfully and thoroughly debunked

Probably pretty embarrassing to be ASDF right now.

Just as it would be an incomplete statement for VeeDDzz, the atheist, to refer to himself as a Catholic without qualifying it, it is an incomplete statement for you to refer to yourself as a Catholic without qualifying it. You could go with "Hi, my name is thekid345, and I am a Catholic and a Heretic as judged by the Catholic Church". Or, you know, you could have just been straightforward, and said you were born into Catholicism, but now gravitate toward Islam—which would have saved everyone a lot of virtual ink.

But you have contributed practically nothing substantial to this thread, other then continuing to be on some sort of a high horse with short posts that often have nothing to do with the subject. The worst posts you have made is when you try and explain to folks that you can decide on who a "Catholic in good standing" is or not. And then you attempt (and fail miserably) to back it up with one piece of literature(not the Bible) that doesn't even necessarily back up your argument, in full that is. We don't know what early Catholics beliefs were, in full.

Referring to the Catechism of the Catholic Church as simply "one piece of literature" when the topic is Catholic doctrine is pretty laughable.

In addition to the above which is grounds for latae sententiae excommunication (CCC 1321-1330), there are also five precepts that a Catholic must follow in order to remain in good standing (CCC 2041-2043):

• You shall attend Mass on Sundays and on holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor.
• You shall confess your sins at least once a year.
• You shall receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season.
• You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church.
• You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church.

Perhaps it would be more accurate of me to refer to you as a muhammadan from now on instead.

Oh so ASDF is the one who has trouble staying on topic!?

I wouldn't of believed that either. But im often wrong so...

By this criteria I wouldn't say that thekid345's statement taken on face value shows that he is a heretic. He has expressed doubts but, at least in my estimation, his comments on both the Trinity and the Incarnation haven't been very obstinate.

Anyway, maybe mSed84 is concerned with heresy, but I'm talking about apostasy. There are a number of people in this very thread who have claimed that thekid345 is not a Catholic (or Christian). My comments are directed towards them. Again, maybe he isn't--he could certainly be pretending, which is I think what those who think he is really Muslim are saying. I am just stating, as a hypothetical, that if he is sincere in his statements then I wouldn't challenge his claim to be a Christian (even if only a heretical Catholic Christian).

Isn't the bolded more or less what thekid345 has said? Anyway, why should he have to say what his religious background is? The unpleasant implicit assumption seems to be that if it turns out thekid345 is actually a Muslim then we can discount what he says because of who he is. He's done plenty to show we can discount his claims on the merits, so why concern ourselves with whether he's really a Christian or actually a secret Muslim?

thekid345 is actually Barack Obama

I think it unlikely, however possible.

I think its likely there were many people by that name.

I think it's more likely someone has written this as a work of fiction or collated stories from near and far. It may even be possible that someone wrote it to dupe the masses especially given the lack education then. I think this is less likely then a fable book though.

There is a good conspiracy story that the Romans invented it to get a softer more manageable form of Judaism.

With defenders like that, who needs detractors?

Man, that backfired.

It would be like the definition of blowback.

I'll concede that he is a Catholic on the merit that if I argue that to be a Catholic you have to follow catholic doctrine, then of course its canon laws also apply.

I still maintain however that a revealed religion like Christianity should not only be understood as institution or belief, but also as doctrine. That is, we can look at Christianity from the perspective of institution: "How are Christians as a group". From the perspective of belief: "How is this Christian's Christianity". And finally as doctrine: "What should Christianity be?".