I never said I subscribed to "dogma" or that doing so for a particular set of those is of absolute necessity (as a Roman Catholic Pontiff "infallibly"(?) declared must be so in regards to Ineffabilis Deus) unless one wishes to refer to scripture and the Gospel which can be found therein as dogma -- which if we were to do so, would be another of those category errors if those were to compared straight across, one to another.
Unless --- Rome now regards it's own dogmas concerning scripture to be equal with scripture? If that be the case, then what are these dogmas said necessary to be believed?
I listed one, bringing portion of the written demand that it must be believed and how that is an actual dogma in the opinion of the Roman Catholic church ecclesiastical community, which all persons have been strictly required to believe under language such as;
Revealed by God? Now who are the Latter-Day Gnostics? When you earlier had pondered if I were one of those, were you lonely and looking for a friend?
See the Latter-Day Gnosticism as the above if you wish to see something of double standards?
But as applied to the set of questions, not really any "double" of my own. Not nearly enough to the extent which can let Rome off the hook, for there is no actual identical one-to-one comparison by which it can be demonstrated that differing standards are being applied to things identical enough to require identical standards.
As I also mentioned -- this was not about your personal beliefs directly either, but that which could be said to be required by "Magesterium" of the Roman Catholic church.
I have explained some of those differences, touching upon them again in the above. If you can't see them, I don't know if that is willful 'not seeing' in order to maintain the defensive dodge away from openly and forthrightly dealing with the inquiries, or if you truly do not understand the significance of the differences.
What now? Since I said 'Rome' will that open things up to be considered the city itself is on a hook?
That would make an interesting episode of River Monsters, wouldn't it?
You still haven't touched any of the other inquiry, or clarified your own statements as to precisely who and what this "church" is which you speak of, and what it is which it demands that all must believe, but by some invisible measures had told me what I think of "it", or not.
I gave some beginning clarifications, having to operate under guess and assumption of what it is you may be talking about, but which you will not here more clearly define -- even though I did supply a small "starter set".
Perhaps some albino monks could be of some assistance in clarifying what must be assented to without complaint. Either that or some RCIA instructor.
I hear the latter can be a bit more approachable than the oh-so-touchy albino monks who have a reputation for "going off" on a person who may dare disagree with the idea that "Rome" has the authority to declare pretty much whatever she pleases. Aah, but if anyone else ventures towards doing comparably similar --- then that is proof they are not "right" and cannot be correct.
Now, just who is it who really has what can be regarded as double standards?
Do these splinters in my eyes make me look as fat as a giant old tree-log?
From an acorn has grown a mighty oak.
But if an oak, it be the sightless nature of trees, which not being able to "see", may like to think of itself by itself as a lonely forest? The only one on earth, even. Oh but wait -- it kissed a Koran, and entertained "religious" dancers. Near to forest groves...
There is nothing you hold as absolutely true?
If you believe in nothing, you believe in everything. I sincerely don't that is the case for you.
In terms of your religion, what do you believe is absolutely true?
Sorry, meant to type:
I sincerely don’t *think* that is the case for you.