The only person who finds facts confusing is yourself (I assumed you got that, but I guess it was probably too tough for you to figure out). Actually, you simply ignore them. I already mentioned I have no real interest in this issue, so I won't be replying to these posts anymore. Maybe there's some Eastern Orthodox religious figure on this site you can continue this conversation with.

I chose Buddhism because it is by far the best religion on that list (atheism FTW). Buddhism is a religion I can really be in peace with.

Oh I got it... I just found it funny how it really just applied to you.  Afterall, the facts are incontravertable, no matter how you may try to escape it with unrelated statements.

Yes, the facts are incontrovertible, and they're also not on your side.

Except you know... they are.  If you consider EVERY change to religious structure or belief a new religion you'd have to argue that basically every pope creates a new religion.

All that matters is the head of the orginization, which was always, the pope.  Even the Eastern Orthrodox church doesn't debate that.

Everything else is just structural changes within the religion.

They are if you purposely misinterpret them.

Then don't do it anymore.

Don't say out loud what you're telling yourself to do. It's creepy and makes you look crazy.

There's really not more to explain.  There were three main bishops of the Catholic Church of the time.  Rome, Antioch and Alexandira, they had control over their local areas.

The Roman Bishop was considered the prime bishop and the one to be held in honor above all others.

Eastern Othrodox and some Protestant churches want to ignore that fact though because they feel it deligitimizes them that they are "break off" sects.

The reason why the Bishop of Rome (aka pope) was treated as such is because Jesus said on to Peter that he "gives the church over to him" and according to Christian Theology Peter started a church in Rome and was the first bishop of Rome.

While the Orthodox interpretation is that Jesus was talking to all the apostles and not peter....

This is a stupid arguement because

1) So what?  He made Peter the head of the church, what does that have to do with further popes.

2) the view didn't seem to originate until after the Eastern Chruch broke off... since Rome was the head before then and primacy of the roman pope was something that happened well before the split... or even the Niciean councils.   It didn't seem to come about until after the schism which was like the 11th century.

3) A better argument would be that there is no proof Peter founded the church in rome... not even proof in the scripture.

4) It's all irrelevent anyway since the pope was already accepted as the "Bishop of all others".  Meaning any change in that to form a new religion makes you the breakaway.  Heck, even when the Church of Constantinople was built, they demanded that their bishop be.... 2nd.  Behind the Pope.  Which actually drew the ire of Antioch and Alexandria that a new bishop wanted to "cut in line" just because they were in a new roman capital... when Rome's primacy came not from the Roman empire but from Jesus.  The "All bishops are equal" belief the eastern othrodox church now has clearly wasn't in effect then, with Constantinople aiming for spot 2.  Now a days it's claimed that this is just to show a position of "seniroity".

Which is problematic considering the fact that they claimed to be number 2, (Now number 1 after leaving the pope) despite the fact that they were nowhere near number 2 when it comes to seniority.

Essentially, the eastern Othrodox church wants to reject the Popes whole leadership role, because the Pope went after more leadership power then he already had.

If getting forced to it I probably would give up life but will try to take so many of those 'force me a relgion people' with me in the blast and hope more will follow so we' don't want to force a religion to people people' overthrow them!