"So do you think people cannot be rationally honest?"
Close, I believe that it's extremely difficult for someone to be near-wholly rationally honest. Our brains don't have the capacity to catch every premature assumption and come to every logical conclusion without bias. The result is, I think, that one in ten thousand people have a mostly correct belief system (and one in ten thousand of that ten thousand have it due to unbiased reason) and that about one in one billion imagine it mostly correctly too.
"I disagree it only takes a major consensus to be a world view"
Not what I meant. That was supposed to be sarcastic, in context of how I said that every worldview claims to be intellectually honest.
Though, my typical definition of worldview means that it has to potentially exist to be a worldview (for example, if nobody believed in Marxism, it'd still be a worldview) and that there are about 8.28 billion different worldviews in the world right now, because everybody's view of the world differs, even in the slightest of ways. If you defined worldviews as general umbrella worldviews, (like marxism, secular humanism, Christianity, etc.) You're mostly right, though I would still say the worldview only has to be potentially existent.
My imagination applies to your imaginative response to my simple question.
"he is alive in another dimension, like the hearts and minds of humans."
That's true according to Christian doctrine. However, what's not true is that Jesus WAS king. King Louis [insert any Roman numeral] was king of France, but he lost his throne when he left this world, because his kingdom is of this world. Since you've proven yourself to know so much about Christian, specifically Catholic doctrine, I'm surprised you don't know that Jesus's kingdom is not like Louis's kingdom. Jesus's kingdom is not of this world, meaning it's not limited to this world [John 18:36]. The Pope is the head of the One True Church, assuming we're Catholic (which neither of us are. To me, his jurisdiction doesn't apply to squat). So he's the head of the Christians of this world, yet he still recognises Jesus as his king (You know, King of kings. If he doesn't the Catholic church is seriously messed up.) Call him a king if you like. His kingship is akin to Louis, not Jesus, who still rules right now, while all the popes so far have lost their kingdom because of their deaths.
"Catholics refer to the Pope as (Jesus in the flesh) the walking Christ."
Anyone who believes that knowingly and obstinately is a heretic. Any doctrinally consistent Catholic will tell you that, and I suspect most Protestants, too. The Catholics refer to the pope as the Vicar of Christ, meaning that he is a representative of Christ, not Christ himself.
So, most people argue it is contradictory because they see like it's 1+1+1=1. That doesn't make any sense. But that's not really how it's done. It's more like 1 Being who is 3 Persons. It's sort of in between Modalism (One God of three personalities) and Tritheism (Father, Son, and Spirit are separate divine beings). It's hard to explain how to define "persons." A possible way to describe it would be that person defines the "who" of God, and being describes the "what" of God. A non-God example would be like asking, "who is this person," and the answer being, "John," whereas when you ask, "what is this person," the answer is, "a human." The what of God, the divine being, cannot be physical because then he would not transcend the physical world, putting him inside time and space meaning he needs a cause to exist (curtesy of the Cosmological Argument). God is necessary, not contingent, so he has to exist without a cause. Not being physical (inside space and time) among other things allows this.
