Your statement regarding Protestant Sola Scriptura versus Catholic "scripture and Holy Tradition" is not relevant to this issue. The distinction between these two is always a matter of nuanced interpretation of the precise intent of the prophets and apostles, and this -always- ends up with argument centered around scriptural support. Though you may wish to create a false dichotomy here, it is -never- the case that one can blatantly formulate a position in clear contradiction to, or utterly unsupported by, scripture. Catholicism knows Galatians 1:8 as well as Protestantism does, and I'll happily challenge to provide an example of an introduced doctrine of Catholicism -ever- for which there is -no- corresponding scriptural support. It does not happen, and cannot happen there any more than in Protestantism. A denomination or sect that attempted to make up new doctrine whole-cloth or forward a stance in contradiction to scripture would be simply found invalid, as conceptual coherence demands. You are conflating nuanced distinction in interpretation, i.e. disagreement on application, with outright invention lacking any documentary basis.

That is the situation with vaccines. There is -no- scriptural support, direct, or indirect in a manner that could be seen as applicable, which speaks against vaccines.

You are by verbal shell-game saying Protestants say "scripture" and Catholics say "scripture and Tradition" and then implicitly saying "but it's really just Tradition, and Tradition is free to contradict established scripture". No, no denomination has ever gotten away with that, and Catholicism has never tried. This scenario does not exist as a matter of actuality, and so is irrelevant to the case at hand.

Well you know what they say. He who laughs last.

Most faiths don't do that.

Wrong.

Feel free to discuss with yourself. I already know.

You could go for Round 2 of your stupid escalation though, and similarly assert because you don't know, that means I don't know. I'd suggest trying to learn to distinguish better between yourself and others, as it's disturbingly indicative of mental illness.

Well, yeah, obviously I won't be following Immermanism, for obvious reasons. Foremost being what you've pulled out of your ass here.

I guess you doing it means somebody else is doing it, rather than the obvious fact it's only you doing it, right?

Right, so your irrational grasping for anything to attack religion about doesn't actually work. Sorry.

Correction: -Including- religion, there is no reason to believe that vaccines cause any harm.

Feel free to cite any anti-vaccine scripture. Let me save you some time. It doesn't exist.

You're wandering pretty far afield from what I actually said. I said that people who sociopathically use the mechanisms of control given them by their government positions, and likewise use these positions to make up rules for themselves that extends their control and manipulation of the public and which exempt themselves from any real penalties for any of their actions, fully knowingly and making extensive effort to systematically do precisely that, should be held accountable.

And now you tell me I'm talking about mentally handicapped people and making them accountable. Ah, no. Whoever you think you're talking to, it isn't me.

So, people not being punished forever is a weird fantasy, and really they will, as a matter of what's actually true? You need to review your ideas here for internal coherence.

So again, at the time of that writing, or later in his life, say on his deathbed, when he came very close to recanting the entire Reformation, or now?

But we still need to go back to how I can address your question of "better", so again it would clarify your standards by reference to your worldview. Right now you are saying that my religion is incorrect, which we know by reference to its moral axioms, with the religion as the only source of justification of them we've put on the table.

To summarize, your stance is that my view is untrue, which we know because it is true.

So, again, what is your derivation of the basis of your implied moral criticism? Since context-dropping would be wholly invalid on your part, and Christians killing all the Jews would be fine according to Darwinian naturalism, Jews killing all the Christians would be equally fine according to it, both of them killing all the atheists would be perfectly fine as well, it's simply a matter that some DNA survived and some did not, case closed, what else do you mean by "better"?

You'll have to define your term, because right now you're doing an Argument from a Void.

At the time of that writing, later in his life, or now?

The truth is compulsory. Alignment with it is unpleasant to the degree one has been misaligned.

As for the specifics, though, I leave that to the one who can address it with a degree of precision and thoroughness I cannot.

Working on a segue to the supposed "Problem of Evil"?

Occasionally, in terms of direct intervention, but primarily this is left to us to implement, as a function of retaining our free will and avoiding making us and our actions morally irrelevant.

We do so poorly, all in all. We can, however, attempt to align ourselves with a system which can lead to better results, which alone we've shown no propensity or capability in accomplishing, for quite a few millennia now. Leaving religious presumptions aside for a moment, a structure that could reach an objective beats a non-definition of a non-plan that never, empirically, worked anywhere as a matter of history.

I'm not clear on how you think this is different from the model you currently accept from a secular standpoint. We make people accountable by putting them in prison. That doesn't revert their actions, either. That isn't a part of the definition of "accountable", and you seem to be making up a definition according to whatever you need to say it is to attack theism, contradicting the system you already have and agree with every day.

What they "honestly think" they are doing is likewise irrelevant, same as people still go to prison even if they "honestly thought" robbing that bank was perfectly fine.

Your thought process here seems very convoluted, in a self-inflicted and rather hypocritical way.

As for the afterlife, though again whether or not it undid the damage would be irrelevant, "punishing them forever" is not a model I ascribe to nor IMHO the proper conclusion to draw from scriptural sources. I am a "conditionalist"--you do not have an immortal soul by default, you receive one through God's will and your faith. If you don't accept that, you ultimately get exactly what you demanded--nonexistence in every sense.

It means that political systems that simply specify their own rules of evaluation of their actions per their own benefit, and are militarily and economically entrenched in doing so, have as a practical matter no accountability, which the OP seemed to suggest he was going to fix.

Well, no. He'll futilely rail against it ("the West", but any government can be substituted) on Slashdot, accomplish nothing, then die and become irrelevant. As will you. I suggest a more pragmatic viewpoint.

I'm not sure you understand how contradictions work, since I've made none.

I said people have free will, including to do harmful things, and suggested accountability exists in the afterlife.

Luther's stance on Jews (which may, in fact, ultimately serve as example of exactly my statement) has no more to do with contradicting this than me saying that because someone of your political party held a view that you do not, your statement is contradicted.

Ah, no.

I'm not sure what context you are presenting this from. Assuming it's atheism, please include your objection from the perspective of Darwinism. We can take it from there, on whether DNA propagation would be increased or decreased by this, that sort of thing. Everything you've got derived from your stance, whatever little that may be.