[Update (16:33 EDT): The AP has changed its lede to read "The Vatican insisted Friday that it is properly following Christian tradition by excluding females from the priesthood as it issued a new warning that women taking part in ordinations will be excommunicated." (h/t Damian G. of Conservathink).]
According to the Associated Press, the Vatican is "slamming the door on attempts by women to become priests in the Roman Catholic Church." But it's rather hard to slam shut a door that was never open, which is what Catholic Church teaching holds about women serving in the priesthood.
From a May 30 article entitled "Vatican: excommunication for female priests" (paragraph break removed):
VATICAN CITY - The Vatican is slamming the door on attempts by women to become priests in the Roman Catholic Church. It has strongly reiterated in a decree that anyone involved in ordination ceremonies is automatically excommunicated. A top Vatican official said in a statement Friday that the church acted following what it called "so-called ordinations" in various parts of the world.
Yet far from "slamming" shut the possibility of female priests, the Catholic Church holds that God, speaking to His people through the words of Scripture -- not the Pope or the Church -- bars women from clerical office. This, however, by no means diminishes the role of women in the life of the church, as Catholic apologist Jason Evert explains (emphasis mine):
There were other roles that Christ had in mind for women. For example, they played a key role in the spread of the Gospel, being the first to spread the news of the risen Christ. They were also allowed to pray and prophecy in church (1 Cor. 11:1-16), but they were not to assume the function of teaching in the Christian assembly (1Cor. 14:34-38; 1 Tim. 2:1-14), which was restricted to the clergy.
Two thousand years later, no one-including the pope-has the authority to change the designs of the Church that Christ instituted. Specifically, the Church is unable to change the substance of a sacrament. For example, a person cannot be baptized in wine, nor may a substance other than bread be used for the consecration at Mass. If invalid matter is used, then the sacrament does not take place. Likewise, since the priest acts in the person of Christ, the Church has no authority to confer the sacrament on those who are unable to represent the male Jesus Christ.
One other point: the headline choice is similarly misleading. While the Church considers automatically excommunicated those who participate in "ordination" ceremonies, those ceremonies do not in any way confer the office of priest upon the participants. Therefore no female priests would end up being excommunicated since female priesthood is in and of itself a contradiction in terms under Catholic teaching.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Yes, Ken ...
May 30, 2008 - 12:35 ET by Dave PierreCatholic Answers (Catholic.com) is an excellent resource, and Jason Evert is a terrific apologist and speaker.
In addition, Pope John Paul II addressed this issue in a 1994 apostolic letter: "ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS".
Quite simply: As explained above, the Church simply does not have the authority to change a sacrament!
...
Frankenlies.com: Al Franken debunked
Thanks, Dave. Not a Catholic
May 30, 2008 - 12:53 ET by Ken ShepherdThanks, Dave.
Not a Catholic myself, but as a Reformed charismatic I also can't agree with women holding pastoral office. Bible is pretty clear on complementary gender roles in the family and in the church. The media are free to disagree with it, but they have to understand that this is an issue of fidelity to Scripture for orthodox Christians across denominational lines.
Another sordid example of
May 30, 2008 - 12:40 ET by lotrAnother sordid example of media bias. The choice of the idiomatic phrase "slamming the door" is totally inappropriate. It would have been far more accurate, professional, neutral, and not to mention, space saving, to simply say "The Vatican is rejecting attempts..." Stupidity runs amuck, it seems, in the journalism profession.
Left wing secularists and
May 30, 2008 - 15:10 ET by celatorLeft wing secularists and Stalanists have been trying to tell the Catholic Church how to run the Church for a long time . They have been successful in warping other institutions (and have made some inroads in the Church as well, sad to say). They use, as you suggest, insulting descriptors, trendy mockery and other distorting techniques to get their way, and the MSM, of course, supports them completely.
...but the gates of hell
May 30, 2008 - 15:23 ET by Thermistocles...but the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
I agree.
May 30, 2008 - 16:23 ET by celatorI agree.
Thoughts on Women's Ordination
May 30, 2008 - 15:40 ET by lotrThoughts on Women's Ordination
Fr. John Morris
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/MorrisFeminism.php
In our supposedly equal
May 30, 2008 - 13:58 ET by ThatDudeIn our supposedly equal society, it should be that women are allowed to preach the holy word just as men do. If the Catholic church finds reason in the Bible as to why women may not do so, then it is their right to exclude women from such positions. I support the Church's right to follow their laws, but would in turn also have no obligations were they to repeal it. Cafeteria Catholics and many others of the church are skewing the traditions and therefore have left the name. Either adhere strictly to tradition, or make note of the fact that you no longer belong to the sect.
Thatdude, Reason's why
May 30, 2008 - 14:06 ET by futbolisgreat1Thatdude,
Reason's why women will never be priests...
1) Jesus Christ chose 12 men to be Apostles, not one of the Apostles was a woman.
2) A priest in the Roman Catholic Church, besides many other things, is the representative of Jessus Christ. Christ as a human being, God, chose to become a man. Not a woman.
3) Tradition.
While over simplifying the reasons, these are it boiled down.
There is nothing sexist or unequal about women not being able to become priests. Shoot, man can't become nuns in the Roman Catholic Chruch, does this mean that the Church is discriminating against men?
Those that see the Church's stance on priests only being men as something sexists and unequal are the ones with a chip on their shoulder that need to prove something. I have run into these men and women in my life and 99.9% of their time they had something to prove. I am not saying this is you.
Finally, I agree with the rest of your post. If you are going to be a Roman Catholic, adhere to its laws, traditions, etc. If you don't like them, LEAVE! no one is forcing you to be a Roman Catholic.
Women have a very, very important role to play in salvation in the RCC. The RCC has canonized countless of women that are set as incredible examples of how a human being should lead and live their lifes. The Virgin Mary is the second highest human being in the RCC after Jesus Christ.
by the way, Thatdude, the Church is not a sect. just thought I make this final correction.
»→ futbol
May 30, 2008 - 14:15 ET by Cool ArrowAre you a Meatloaf fan?
Two out of three ain't bad.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool Arrow, eh? don't
May 30, 2008 - 14:22 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
eh? don't understand the Meatloaf question.....sorry.... :(
Futbol,
May 30, 2008 - 14:38 ET by RESTLESS 1Cool is saying you are right on two out of three of your reasons above.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless 1 Oh,
May 30, 2008 - 14:40 ET by futbolisgreat1Restless 1
Oh, ok....didn't get, thanks for the Youtube link. :) Obviously, not a Meatloaf fan....
Cool Arrow, I am curious to see which one you consider I am wrong.
»→ No you're not futbol
May 30, 2008 - 15:10 ET by Cool Arrow"Tradition" is by far the most divisive,(I won't say the other adjective) contrivance known to Religion.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
"Tradition" is by far the
May 30, 2008 - 15:16 ET by futbolisgreat1"Tradition" is by far the most divisive,(I won't say the other adjective) contrivance known to Religion.
Well, Cool Arrow, according to you.
However, if you read John Paul II and other Pope's reasons of why women will never become priests in the RCC, tradition is one of the reasons, usually the last one, but one of the reasons they give.
As you have shown many times over on NB you are no fan of the the Roman Catholic Church. You have evey right to your opinion, however wrong it may be. :)
»→ futbol
May 30, 2008 - 15:26 ET by Cool ArrowDid I say "women priests" had anything to do with tradition?
As you have shown many times over on NB, you are unable to correctly digest a simple statement without extrapolating it into your persecution complex.
I disagreed with one of your enumerated statements. I did not disagree with your stance on female priests.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool Arrow, what? You
May 30, 2008 - 16:39 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
what? You seem to be the one extrapolating what I mean all the time. Stop mirroring unto me who you are.
You do this constantly and then tell those you disagree with that they are the ones doing it.
why do you always turn religion conversations so freaking personal?
»→ Here ya go Futbol
May 30, 2008 - 16:49 ET by Cool ArrowYou have evey right to your opinion, however wrong it may be. - futbolisgreat1
Did you make that comment or not? Looks like you are the one engaging in personal attacks.
I disagreed with one of your three enumerated statements. It was nothing personal, but you chose to personalize it.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool Arrow, eh? you
May 30, 2008 - 17:10 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
eh? you take the statement, "...how wrong it may be..." as a personal attack? HA!!! you fool, I said it in jest, but I guess since you are Mister "Know-It-all" you were in my mind and felt the feelings I felt when I wrote that sentence.
You are quite the paranoid one. I was truly smiling and thinking...."Hey, this is great Cool Arrow and I can have a religion conversation without insults." But you just could not resist.
It was not personal, so don't take it as such. Stop accusing me of what YOU do, pretending to know the feelings behind what I write.
Excuse me?
May 30, 2008 - 17:17 ET by tracheostomyFut: Stop accusing me of what YOU do, pretending to know the feelings behind what I write.
http://newsbusters.o...
Pot, meet kettle.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, "No Pearls to the
May 30, 2008 - 17:22 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
"No Pearls to the Swine" my little swine
»→ And there goes futbol
May 30, 2008 - 20:27 ET by Cool ArrowCalling me a fool, but certainly it's not a personal attack.
Wonderful, fut. The image you bow before must be very proud.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool Arrow, wait,
May 30, 2008 - 20:35 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
wait, wait....you make a personal attack on me when I tried to have a civil conversation with you and then you cry about me returning the favor?
Cool Arrow, why are people like you such hypocrites? yes, not it is personal.....when I said "how ever wrong it may be..." it was in jest....you were just too slow, proud and paranoid to get it then....
but as they say, you fulfilled your own prophecy....you know the good old self-fulling prophecy....you thought from the get go that I was making personal, so your replied to me in that manner, when all I was trying have a civil conversation with you.
Then when I reply in kind, to your personal attack on me you cry about me not being civil?
wow, talk about having a warped, screwed up, paranoid personality Cool Arrow.....
if you weren't so blind by your paranoia and persecution complex, you would realize that all I was doing at first was trying to have a fun, insightful exchange.....
»→ I'll stop now fut
May 30, 2008 - 20:39 ET by Cool ArrowYou're getting extremely incoherent.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool Arrow, Well pardon
May 30, 2008 - 20:44 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
Well pardon my English, since it is my second language....
However, my point stands. You started with the personal attacks and could not stand it when I returned in kind....
Don't dish out that which you can't handle.
but I see that you can't respond to the truth.
but go ahead, keep on with your hate for the Church, your paranoid ways, etc, etc. Believe me, you are not doing yourself any favors. You come accross as one crazed out tool.
Fut,
May 30, 2008 - 16:51 ET by tracheostomyYou're bringing the proverbial knife to a gunfight (again).
There's a clear ranking among the following statements:
A. You're wrong because I say so/believe so. (weak/failure)
B. You're wrong because this authority figure says so. (weak/fallacious)
Then there's.
C. You're wrong because I can show an evidential argument why you're wrong without repeating any stupid fallacies.
Based on your most recent posts, guess where you're sitting right now? Cool Arrow lives almost completely in "C" with a razor-sharp genius level of brevity that I could only dream of. It's like his job or something.
So do the smart thing for a change, turn down the dial on your hubris, and quit while you're ahead.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, "No Pearls to the
May 30, 2008 - 17:13 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
"No Pearls to the Swine" my swine.
This is all he has to react
May 30, 2008 - 17:33 ET by tracheostomyThis is all he has to react with after our little exchange here. . .
http://newsbusters.o...
Give it time to load. It's epic.
Of course, his citation of Matthew 7:6 assumes that he is protecting the real gospel (the holy). However, his arguments have never been covered by the authority of holy scripture or the holy apostles whom Jesus appointed.
Sad.
Thus, Fut's repetition rings rather hollow as well as ironic. But if it helps him sleep at night without regards to the truth, then so be it.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, You will never get
May 30, 2008 - 19:53 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
You will never get it. You are too arrogant, too proud (in the bad conotation), too foolish, too blind, too brainwashed, too selfish, to see that you don't debate to find out the truth, when it comes to religion. You debate to insult, to put others down that don't agree with you.
When it comes to debating religion, religious theology, you are no different than Leon....even Syrius respects other a lot more than you do.
So....the best way to deal with arrogant fools like you is to play with them.
So, keep on replying to my posts....I do not have enough respect for you to bother to reply. It is a waste of time to try to have a respectful, intellectual, theological conversation with you.
Fut,
May 30, 2008 - 23:01 ET by tracheostomyFut: You will never get it. You are too arrogant, too proud (in the bad
conotation), too foolish, too blind, too brainwashed, too selfish, to
see that you don't debate to find out the truth, when it comes to
religion.
Never get what? What was it you're trying to explain to me? Is it this grandiose argument to authority fallacy you worship?
Your statements assume that I am purely self-reliant. As I have demonstrated with you in the past, I am not. As a matter of fact, your problem is with the truth I present and you're unable to refute. To think I actually had to twist your arm to actually open a Bible! Not very intellectually honest, are you?
Fut: You debate to insult, to put others down that don't agree
with you.
"Everyone is entitled to your own opinions, but not their own facts." -Moynahan
Your statements are based on the assumption that I actually approve of your failure.
I don't.
It angers me that you let others handle your religion for you, as you've stated in the past. It grieves me deeply to see someone who professes Christ and embraces so much ignorance, despite the cognitive dissonance before you.
Don't tell me you didn't feel it that day. Thus, the source of your anger.
As stated earlier, stop playing the victim when we're holding you accountable for your professed beliefs. Stand up and actually face the dilemma that is before you. . .for a change.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, hmmm...WHAT?! 1
May 31, 2008 - 11:24 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
hmmm...WHAT?!
1) Me victim? nope. I am just stating a fact. You have never debated to find out the truth, you have never debated religion from the intellectual, exchange ideas point of view. You get on your soap box, grab a bullhorn and start screaming at the top of your longs that everyone else is wrong and you are right. Then you pick and chose the parts of the Bible that you so ignorantly believe suit your McDonald's menu religion.
2) Dilema? what dilema. The dilema that the voices in your head create since you do not know, understand or care to study Roman Catholic Theology? Just because something is way above your IQ level, it doesn't mean that it is a dilema to those that you disagree with. Don't mirror unto others how you feel about things. In fact, it is you the one that is full of dilemas with your McDonald's menu religion that gives an incredible amount of limitations to God, Who on one hand you claim to be all powerful, knowing, etc, etc, then you turn around and give it a huge amount of limitations. Sadly enough, you are too proud, selfish and brainwashed to see this fact. All you will do, once again, is spew out Bible verses that you believe support your point, and you ignore the rest. In other words, you will use the Bible to suit your needs, you will interpret the Bible the way that suits your warped believefs. You will do what Protestans claim they do not know, claim that the Bible is THE authority and then turn around and gag the Bible. Instead you will use what YOU believe the Bible means in order to justify your McDonald's menu religion. I told you a long time ago and just like I told Restless 1 here, if Protestans truly believe that the Bible is THE ultimate authority why don't you shut up and let the Bible speak for itself because the second you go ahead and interpret the Bible, guess what.....you are doing EXACTLY what the Roman CAtholic Church and its Theologians do. I know, I know, you aren't smart enough, humble enough, to understand this.
eh? felt what? the source of my anger towards you Trach, which you have never, never, never, never, never, and will probably never understand is how you debate, or more how you preach down to others as if you were the one with THE truth and everyone else around you are lesser beings that need to be corraled to believe what you believe. You will never, ever get it. When you compare me to Michael Moore, when you compare my religion, my Church to evil things, I will lash at you with a fury that no one has ever experienced. Get it? I will stand up for the Roman Catholic Church and I will not allow some uneducated pharisee like you, Cool Arrow, Restless 1, etc slander the Church.
No one handles my believe in God for me, don't come to conclusions that suit your warped believes of why others are wrong. What I have admitted to is that others are better versed than I am in Roman Catholic theology. I am hoping that you have the mental capacity to understand this.
I do not know why I bother. Honestly. By the way, I told you a long time ago....nothing you say or do will ever, ever persuade me from the The Truth, the Roman Catholic Church. Get it, so talk until your face is blue, you are wasting your time if your goal in all this was, is to change my religion. Many have tried and ALL have failed. My Faith in the Church created by Jesus Christ, in the teachings of the Church is unwavering. God, Christ, the Holy Spirit guide the Church in matters of Faith, nothing you say can come close to the authority, respect, leadership, admiration, etc that I have for the Church, why? Because it has God on its side. You, well, we know who you and your McDonald's menu religion have on your side and it is certainly not God.
and it grieves you deeply? honestly, save your grieve for someone who cares. Your crocodile tears are pathetic. You can wipe them off your eyes and shove them up where the son don't shine.
I told you once, apologize for your insults towards me, towards my Church, admit that you know NOTHING about the Church and Her theology and I will have a civil conversation with you.
Trach understand, I do NOT respect you. Get it? The second you started with your insults in the Woodshed and the private e-mails you lost. And understand, it is not the insults towards me, but the insults you so ignorantly threw at the Roman Catholic Church and Her theologians. Like Cool Arrow, you grab unto anything bad that anyone says about the Roman Catholic Church and believe it without first confirming it, understanding it and making sure whether or not there isn't more to what is being sad. In other words, much like Cool Arrow, you are a blind follower of anything that suits your hate for the Church.
Once again, I do not know why I bother. I know how you will respond, with the same old arrogance, stupidity and ridculousness. You are a broken record, a pre-recorded tape. Honestly, when I exchange posts with you, I truly feel that I am throwing Pearls to a swine. Why waste my valuable time on you?
»→ It's OK fut
May 31, 2008 - 11:31 ET by Cool ArrowYou say you follow the teachings of the RCC.
I guess your church tells you to call people "fool".
What a wonderful Church you must have.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool Arrow, The Roman
May 31, 2008 - 11:44 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
The Roman Catholic Chruch says to call it as it is. You, Trach and Restless1 are fools, brainwashed fools at that. Period end of story. You guys are hateful individuals that hate the Church with an incredible passion. You guys are pharisees who much like the pharisees can throw out verbatum the word of God, but do not have a clue how to LIVE the word of God.
I have met many great, decent Protestants and believe me, they are embarrassed by individuals like you.
You err fut
May 31, 2008 - 11:53 ET by Cool ArrowIf my use of the Word of God offends you, It certainly isn't God's Word that is in error.
So you argue from tradition and claim those who come at you with Scripture are the fools?
Maybe you should reassess the source of your authority. You're bondage is great. You fret over the contradictions your faith ignores between itself and the Scripture.
Do you have ulcers? I don't know why I felt it necessary to ask you that. Perhaps you do.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool Arrow,I argue from
May 31, 2008 - 12:16 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
I argue from tradition? No, I argue with the word of God which includes the Bible AND Tradition. You argue from Luthers horny point of view....oh wait....his 95 points were sincere...hahaha!!! only a fool believes that.
No my friend, YOUR bondage is great. As I told Trach, my Faith has no contradictions. That YOU believe it has contradictions because you do not understand the one and true Faith, that is your fault, not mine. The contradictions are in your mind because you do not know, or care to know the Roman Catholic Church. Stop mirroring unto me your complete ignorance and confusion that you have about the Roman Catholic Church.
You do not come from Scripture. The pharisees said the same thing to Jesus Christ, they even tried to use the Scriputer against Him and Jesus Christ showed them how they were USING the word of God to suit their personal needs, much like you and Trach.
I find it amusing that you can't understand the simple fact that God reveals things too humanity when He choses and not when YOU or your Protestant friends want it to be revealed.
I find it amusing that you would claim that using contraceptives is ok. Only someone that needs a god to serve them and not a God to serve would make such amoral claims as the ones you have done here and in other religious forums.
You, Trach, Resless1 do not want to serve God, you want God to serve you. You want a religion that makes you feel nice, warm, fuzzy inside. You do not want a religion that tells you, YOU ARE WRONG, Contraceptives are wrong, etc, etc, etc. You want a feel good religion, not THE TRUE religion created by Christ.
You need a religion and a god that tells you that the life you are leading, that the believes that you hold are good and ok. You need this, you, much like Trach, are not intersted in the Truth. All you are interested in is finding a religion that will tell you, "Cool Arrow, your believes are the right ones". That's what you want and desperatly need.
As I said, your blind hatred for the Church is embarrassing. You base your hatred on ignorance. You base your hatred on rumors and hearsay. You base your hatred on lack of education. You base your hatred on a desperate need to justify your misguided beliefs.
»→ Interesting fut
May 31, 2008 - 14:21 ET by Cool ArrowThat you didn't deny having ulcers. Does your body erupt with the pain of your bondage and your mind refuses an awareness of it?
You need to be set free fut.
I'm sorry, fut. I should be praying for your deliverance rather than taunting you.
I will do so now.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Fut: No, I argue with the
May 31, 2008 - 16:59 ET by tracheostomyFut: No, I argue with the word of God which includes the Bible AND
Tradition.
The gospel of John chapter 1, verse 1 states otherwise. All of such truth existed before eternity and therefore prior to man's tradition.
Jesus Himself also states otherwise in his disputes over tradition with the Pharisees.
Hence, the Bible and tradition are not co-equals as you continually assert. They cannot both be right and contradict each other in the same time and in the same place. One must bow before the other.
Fut: You argue from Luthers horny point of view....oh
wait....his 95 points were sincere...hahaha!!! only a fool believes
that.
Then you are therefore obligated to show us exactly which of the 95 theses were written to get Luther laid. IN-SANE!
This is all your accusation. I have never heard another Catholic make this type of insane charge before, ever.
This argument to motive fallacy also flies in the face of actual history, seeing as how Luther had no documented mistresses and waited 4 years after the Diet of Worms to marry. Even St. Augustine saw more action than Luther did!!!
Then there's this little nugget he wrote in 1524 in a personal letter:
"I shall never take a wife, as I feel at present. Not that I am
insensible to my flesh or sex (for I am neither wood nor stone); but my
mind is averse to wedlock because I daily expect the death of a
heretic."
He married one year later.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Fut: You have never
May 31, 2008 - 16:38 ET by tracheostomyFut: You have never debated to find out the truth. . .
This statement here assumes I didn't know it already, and was unable to demonstrate it. The record clearly shows otherwise. I do not debate to "find out" the truth, I debate to expose error.
Fut: . . .you have never debated
religion from the intellectual, exchange ideas point of view.
Not a fair exchange. Your ideas rely on arbitrary arguments and logical fallacies. Furthermore, back when you were still willing to be my friend, the two of us had no idea we would discover the body that was buried in your backyard. And a very embarrassing discovery at that.
With all their doctrinal errors, I never grieved for the church so hard when I came across the doctrine of gradual mitigation.
Fut: You get
on your soap box, grab a bullhorn and start screaming at the top of
your longs that everyone else is wrong and you are right.
Your allegory is rather stretched. If I had a literal bullhorn, I actually would not be able to listen to, or even respond to, your precise words as I do here. Try something else.
Fut: Then you
pick and chose the parts of the Bible that you so ignorantly believe
suit your McDonald's menu religion.
You have still not proven that I follow a so-called "McDonald's menu" religion. This accusation isn't even original, because it's merely a hackneyed variant of the phrase "Cafeteria Catholic."
Take me to the Woodshed and prove it. Otherwise, your accusation is truly empty.
Fut: The dilema that the voices in your head
create since you do not know, understand or care to study Roman
Catholic Theology?
You mean like yourself?
- For example, you simply ignore the disputes between the fathers on when baptism was instituted, settling for Nanny-Church's assurance that they have it all figured out for you. Wake up and smell the coffee!
- For example, let's say the FBI found a body buried in your backyard and it's looking like one of your own did something completely horrible to Doctor Augustine. What do you do? Obfuscate! Hope they don't find your Holy Mother that you tied up and gagged in the attic!
- Cool Arrow (a former Catholic whom you contest is invalid due to this status) points to the Papacy as a theological issue as well. I have done the same with clear discrepancies as to their self-given titles of
"mediator," but to you these simply don't exist.
You have failed to prove any of these otherwise, claiming to value a theological discussion at the same time. You continue to sweep these highly relevant issues under the rug as if they didn't exist.
Fut: Just because something is way above your IQ level,
it doesn't mean that it is a dilema to those that you disagree with.
Then please Fut, be intellectually honest about the superiority of your IQ level, and just once take the time to actually stoop down to show me A, B, C, D, where we are in error.
Take it back to the woodshed. Cite your facts. Pick your champions. Put up or shut up.
Fut: Don't mirror unto others how you feel about things. In fact, it is you
the one that is full of dilemas with your McDonald's menu religion that
gives an incredible amount of limitations to God, Who on one hand you
claim to be all powerful, knowing, etc, etc, then you turn around and
give it a huge amount of limitations.
What limitations? You've limited God to both time and man's ability to literally surprise God through the choice of their salvation unto themselves. You've limited God as wholly incapable of doing all the work of salvation; depending on man's merit to take up some imagined slack.
Fut: All you will do, once again,
is spew out Bible verses that you believe support your point, and you
ignore the rest. In other words, you will use the Bible to suit your
needs, you will interpret the Bible the way that suits your warped
believefs.
If this statement were true, then when I did cite a verse, you would be able to catch me compromising scripture elsewhere. Yet you haven't actually done this.
The entire tapestry of the Bible is easily disturbed when it's used in error. Just pull one thread, and you contradict many other verses that teach the same truth throughout scripture.
As a result, I accuse you of the very same thing you charge me with. Yet who is the one always citing the verses that are being violated? Wisdom is justified by her children. You failed again Fut. I really-really wish you'd stop failing. Because you're not failing me personally. You fail Him.
Fut: You will do what Protestans claim they do not know, claim
that the Bible is THE authority and then turn around and gag the
Bible.
Cite please. This accusation is unsupported.
Fut: Instead you will use what YOU believe the Bible means in order
to justify your McDonald's menu religion. I told you a long time ago
and just like I told Restless 1 here, if Protestans truly believe that
the Bible is THE ultimate authority why don't you shut up and let the
Bible speak for itself because the second you go ahead and interpret
the Bible, guess what.....you are doing EXACTLY what the Roman CAtholic
Church and its Theologians do. I know, I know, you aren't smart
enough, humble enough, to understand this.
Understood. This is a fair statement, but as always, you forget (or chose to ignore) one key fact. We Protestants don't interpret the Bible without the help, sure. But what you are unaware of Fut, is that assistance is far different from having it all done for you like the Nanny Church. We look to ministers and even theologians such as Augustine to assist in our personal study. We ask our ministers how to cut our food for us, we don't have Nanny Church spoon-feed us. We are capable of going to the bathroom on our own; not dependent on Nanny Church to change our diaper.
We inquire, ask, and learn from the likes of Augustine and the church fathers. We see the parts of the Bible they missed.
For example, the doctrine of Limbo was developed under the belief that the Bible didn't have little babies covered. Thus Augustine's soteriology was only complete for adults. The RCC found it shameful, and then they had to gradually mitigate it. Their words, not mine. Look it up in your Catholic Encyclopedia.
But if Augustine had a search engine or a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, he might never have missed what he did back then. Thus, Augustine's sotieriology is justified as stated without help from Nanny, and (ironically) it's more highly valued among Protestants than Catholics. As a matter of fact, it was Augustine's theology that started the reformation, and not Luther's sexual perversion as you have charged.
Fut: When you compare me to Michael Moore. . .
You mean that one time you had to depend on a redactor who edited Augustine's statements all Michael Moore-style to say what he wanted it to say, instead of what St. A. had actually said? You mean THAT comparison? Why haven't you repented of that, Fut?
Fut: . . .when you compare my religion, my Church to evil things, I will lash at
you with a fury that no one has ever experienced. Get it? I will
stand up for the Roman Catholic Church and I will not allow some
uneducated pharisee like you, Cool Arrow, Restless 1, etc slander the
Church.
Because you have no king but the RCC.
Fut: No one handles my believe in God for me, don't come to conclusions
that suit your warped believes of why others are wrong.
Don't make me dig up your quote. I get very angry when people make me do that.
Fut: What I have
admitted to is that others are better versed than I am in Roman
Catholic theology. I am hoping that you have the mental capacity to
understand this.
Who? Who did you say was better at theology than you? Do you mean St. Augustine, or your hand-picked redactor Mr. Windsor? Or maybe you're referring to the Catholic Encyclopedia you depend on that buries Augustine's plain theology under a ton of exceptional clauses? I am hoping you have the mental capacity to understand this.
Fut: I do not know why I bother. Honestly. By the way, I told you a
long time ago....nothing you say or do will ever, ever persuade me from
the The Truth, the Roman Catholic Church.
Your god and your Nanny. As I have stated before, no rational Catholic that I know of would ever even consider resorting to the shameful tactics that you have. Well, maybe your boy Windsor, but that's it.
Fut: . . .and it grieves you deeply? honestly, save your grieve for someone
who cares. Your crocodile tears are pathetic. You can wipe them off
your eyes and shove them up where the son don't shine.
My PMs are available for public viewing upon request. I have nothing to hide.
Fut: I told you once, apologize for your insults towards me, towards my
Church, admit that you know NOTHING about the Church and Her theology
and I will have a civil conversation with you.
We can start over if you think things will turn out different.
Fut: Trach understand, I do NOT respect you. Get it?
I-don't-need-your-respect. My faith and my doctrine stand regardless.
Fut: Like Cool Arrow, you grab unto anything bad that anyone
says about the Roman Catholic Church and believe it without first
confirming it, understanding it and making sure whether or not there
isn't more to what is being sad.
You mean like the conflict with the institution of baptism at the Jordan? You mean like Mary's gag? You mean like gradually mitigating a church father and then paying him lip service?
I'm glad I don't have your respect. If you respected me the way you do Augustine, who needs enemies?
Fut: Honestly, when I exchange
posts with you, I truly feel that I am throwing Pearls to a swine. Why
waste my valuable time on you?
Because fortunately, none of your pearls are insured by actual scripture. You're using scripture to protect a so-called "pearl" that has no foundation in scripture. Of course there is another scripture that shows whether your gem is true or not. For it will be refined with fire and proven as mere wood, hay, or stubble.
Stop trying to swindle everyone with your fake pearls.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, More verbage that
May 31, 2008 - 23:04 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
More verbage that suits your argument to a "T".
Trach: "Stop trying to swindle everyone with your fake pearls".
Why are you so desperate to prove the Roman Catholic Church wrong? why? Why the desperate need?
You some how believe that you have proven me wrong....don't you understand that this is your down fall? your pride, I know you believe that you are speaking THE Truth, but I can assure you you are not. Proven quite a few times in the Woodshed, in the the private e-mails, here, etc, etc.
And go ahead, dig up where I allegedly said that the Church handles the believe of God for me. You will probably be shocked to find that I have always said that I do not do justice to the Roman Catholic Church because I am not as well versed as others when it comes to its theology.
but you assume so much about the RCC. I am sure you are 100% unaware that the Church encourages and demands that ALL Catholics read the Bible on a daily basis. Did you know that? Of course not since you have stated other wise.
Furthermore, I find your assertion that Protestant ministers do not create Protestant "canon" to be a complete and utter lie!
Protestants have also created a set of rules and laws that govern how you need to worship God, what are sins and what are not sins. They do ALOT more than just guide you as you claim. They TELL you, just like the RCC tells you, if you want to belong to that Protestant religion you MUST follow a certain way of worship, you must abstain from certain sins, etc, etc.
This is another GREAT LIE by Protestants. They whine and cry about the RCC putting forth rules, canon, about Faith and say that the Church has no authority to do that. Then they create their own Christian religion to fit their own emotional needs and they themselves create a set of rules. Example you say....here
Anglican Church here in the USA, what is the fight over openly gay ministers and the break that has occured in the USA in the Anglican Church about this? it is all about rules, rules, rules, right? And who created this rule? The authorities of the Anglican Church.
Evangelicals, Baptists, etc forbid prayers to anyone but God and Jesus Christ, right? yes, one and the same, I know. What is this? rules, rules and more rules, created by who? the authorities of these Protestand denominations.
I could go all day long showing you how Protestants have created rules, laws, canon that MUST be follow if you want to be part of their denomination. How different is this from the RCC? It is NOT!
Futhermore, what you fail to understand is that Roman Catholic Tradition is anchored in Scripture, Her canon, Her laws are all based on the word of God Scripture. That you refuse to believe this, that is your problem.
I will also say that you are completly blind if you believe that you speak the Truth.
You also are wrong if you believe that the RCC is my king. Sorry, my only King, my only God, my only Nanny is God, Jesus Christ. Your statements saying other wise prove how you don't have the capacity to understand this.
What you fail to see is this...and I will shock you since you claimed not Roman Catholic would ever say this. Even the Pope and many other RCCs have said it now and in centuries past.
The Roman Catholic Church is THE only Church, its theology is THE only Theology. Its Faith is THE only Faith. Why? Because it was created by Jesus Christ, God. God keeps on watching over the Church through the use of the Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, it is NOT my job to take you from point A, B, C, D....that is your job.
as for debating St. Augustine, you are too dense to debate him anymore. I proved you how wrong you are and you could not stand it. what you did is insult me when I proved you wrong.
As for the gag that you so ignorantly keep on claiming that the Church has put on the Virgin Mary. I already told you and showed you how wrong you are. You claim we put a gag on the Virgin Mary.....you put a gag on the Archangel St. Gabriel whose words clearly show the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.
As for your claim that the RCC teaches that God would be surprised by men's chosing shows your inability to grasp concepts.
Let me try this and I know I am making a mistake by addressing this point for the 1 millionth time with you.
God doesn't live in Time as we do. God forsaw the choices that we are going to make. So He already knows whether or not we will chose Heaven or Hell. He doesn't pick for us. However, He knows our choice since He is not limited by time. Get it? I know you don't.
St. Augustine argued Predestination as Calvin put it, in his early years, those years in which he lived in sin and his mother for over 20 years prayed for his salvation. However, St. Augustine retracted his early statements about predestination and spoke about it in his later years of his life how the RCC teaches today.
That's the problem with you, Calvin, etc. You grab unto St. Augustines early writings about Predestination, yet you forget to talk about his own corrections to the mistakes he admits to have committed in his early years when he spoke about Predestination.
YOU are gagging the Elder St. Augustine while only using the words of the young St. Augustine.
God doesn't chose for you and me, however, he KNOWS the choice we are going to make since He is not limited by time. This is why there is a book of the saved ones that the Bible talks about. Not because God wrote the names of those that He chose to save, but rather because God wrote the names of those that chose to save themselves through the grace of God.
Oh geez, I know, I Know, I probably use some word I shouldn't have used and you will over analyze every sentence, coman, verbage, etc, etc. Go for it Trach.....however, just because you believe you have the truth, it doesn't mean that it is The Truth.
By the way, once again...
The Roman Catholic Church is THE Church. It is THE Faith, it is THE Theology. Why? Because it has THE authority of Jesus Christ, God, who created the Church.
go for it Trach....
Answered. .
June 1, 2008 - 00:43 ET by tracheostomyAnswered. . .
http://newsbusters.o...
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Futbalisgreat, I disagee with you.
May 30, 2008 - 23:09 ET by shawn228You are so wrong fut because......ummm. I have no idea why your wrong, I know absoloutly nothing about this topic, but a liberal is going to blamed for turning conservatives agains each other anyway, so that was just my cue :-)
roflpmsl Shawn
May 30, 2008 - 23:21 ET by candanceThere's yer problem folks, Shawn's name appears in the thread!
I agree Candance,
May 30, 2008 - 23:35 ET by RESTLESS 1Shawn has taken more than his fair share of grief lately.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restess :-)
May 30, 2008 - 23:39 ET by shawn228Don't you understand,? that is all part of my diabolical plan. I want to get as many people on my side as I can, so I can turn conservatives e against each other, and try to convert them to drinking soy milk and eat tofu....bwahahahahaha.
You are truly evil Shawn.
May 30, 2008 - 23:41 ET by RESTLESS 1You are truly evil Shawn. ;>)
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
No one said Shawn was evil Restless
June 1, 2008 - 13:48 ET by Dee Bunkhe's just manipulative and disrespectful
Youre a regular riot
May 30, 2008 - 23:51 ET by bigtimerYoure a regular riot shawn.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
thanks bt
May 31, 2008 - 00:27 ET by shawn228Ummm...I think.
Cut the crap Shawn - no one said it was a diabolical plan
June 1, 2008 - 13:43 ET by Dee Bunkyou are just rude. If two conservatives are fighting - especially about religion then stay out of it. You have nothing to offer there other than trouble. You are not religious.
It's not required, you can do what you want, but don't expect me to treat you with respect when I see you acting so disrespectful.
Oh please Dee
June 1, 2008 - 17:01 ET by shawn228I never asked you for anything. I was in no way disrespectful to futbol and I just made a lighthearted joke. Futbol does not seem to have problem with me, in fact we had nice conversation, if anyone is having a hissy fit or interjecting uninvited it is you.
Here I thought you were back to your normal self, but your getting that sulky attitude back. Hopefully common sense is as contagious as your laugh.
Oh so now I have to be invited - by who Shawn - You?
June 1, 2008 - 17:12 ET by Dee BunkYou are really disgusting.
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds
June 1, 2008 - 17:19 ET by shawn228First you tell me I am not allowed to join in someone else's conversation because I don't know about the topic, then you do exactly the same thing and now your mad because I am calling you on your hypocricy.
Candance and Restless and I were just having a light hearted conversation and there you were throwing stones about me being manipulative and disrespectful, which you can't back up because details don't matter.
Yes I can - and I have - without drudging up the past
June 1, 2008 - 17:21 ET by Dee Bunkand you know it. You are such a sleazy creep
sticks and stones Dee
June 1, 2008 - 17:27 ET by shawn228Wow, resorting to name calling without backing things up, something you accuse liberals off. Again with the hypocrisy.
This is getting tired, no one asked you to respond to my post.
Some of us should just keep
May 30, 2008 - 23:24 ET by bigtimerSome of us should just keep out of it if we don't know what they are talking about eh shawn?
. "Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Shawn228, Well, honestly,
May 31, 2008 - 11:28 ET by futbolisgreat1Shawn228,
Well, honestly, I do not believe Trach is a Conservative. He is an extremist. Both sides of the eisle have individuals like Trach. They do great harm to the cause. Pat Buchanan, Michael Savage, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Al Franken, examples of extremists on both sides that do great harm. Trach is no different. Trach is a zealot.
He is an embarrassment to Christianity and to Conservatism. It is individuals like him who left wingers point at to prove that Conservatives are not good people.
Trach and Leon are the same kind of people. Extremists in opposite side of the eisle, but at the end the same wild eyed, crazed out zealots.
Good morning fut
May 31, 2008 - 11:50 ET by shawn228To be honest, when guys like you, botg, cool arrow and trach get deep into the bible and scriptures, I feel like I am watching a tv show in a different language so, I cannot comment either way.
My only beef with trach is he will relay the whole conservasation you had with him verbatim and analyze every sentence one by one, but I would not say he is a extremist. Even though I have had my share of heated debates with him, I like trach alot
Shawn228, "... would not
May 31, 2008 - 11:50 ET by futbolisgreat1Shawn228,
"... would not say he is a extremist." Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion how ever wrong they might be. :) Oh shoot, wait, Cool Arrow will claim this is a personal attack on your character. HA!
Well, obviously I disagree. Trach is an extremists, at least with his McDonlad's menu religion. It just becomes pointless and useless to debate him since after two minutes he will spew out his same old talking points over and over again. he will get on his soap box, get a bullhorn and yell at the top of his longs "YOU ARE WRONG, HE IS RIGHT!".
and yes the whole analazying of every sentence is ridiculous, but it is who he is. He love to pretend, much like Cool Arrow to have the ability to read your mind and state your feelings, emotions and believes behind the sentence you wrote.
Cool Arrow and Trach are zealots when it comes to religion. The saddest part is that I do not believe that in their heart they believe their are right. They have an irrational hatred for the Roman Catholic Church which I bet they do not even know where it comes from.
well futbol
May 31, 2008 - 12:42 ET by shawn228This is coming from a truly unbiased pov, because I do not know much about the topic.
I see Restless, Trach and Cool Arrow are very direct and use sarcasm in their responses, but they have not insulted you.
Can you say honestly same the same?
»→ He's very sharp, Shawn
May 31, 2008 - 13:05 ET by Cool ArrowHit him with Scripture or logic and he comes back with something really educated like "you fool".
You gotta respect an illiterate college leach who knows how to spell four letter words.
And as I posted before, I souldn't have belittled what he is so profoundly except he calls me "fool" in violation of a command given by Jesus himself.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool Arrow, Is that the
May 31, 2008 - 16:41 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
Is that the best you have?
When have you pointed out to scripture? and logic? you aren't seriously calling the crap that you spew logic are you now Cool Arrow? you think too highly of yourself.
I have brought your "logic" down on its knee, I have proven you to be a liar, a hateful liar and all you have come back with...."oh please, futbol, I beg of you, stop with the insults".
From the outset yesterday you began playing the victimhood card and you keep on going.
All you have done is make claims that are unfounded and untrue. You haven't quoted Scripture once.
Shawn....I have had plenty of religious conversations with this individuals to know EXACTLY where they are coming from
As I told them, just like the pharisees they use Scripture to fit their personal needs. They want a religion that suits their needs. They are not interested in serving God, they want God to serve them.
I do love Cool Arrows pathetic attempt at insulting me by saying, "illeterate college leach". You have to love hypocrites like Cool ARrow that cry about being insulted and turn around and embarrass themselves by acting how they claim others are acting.
Cool Arrow, you bore me. but thanks for the laughs.
»→ Right here fut
May 31, 2008 - 16:50 ET by Cool Arrow"When have you pointed out to scripture?" - futbolisgreat1
I quoted Scripture right here.
But you don't recognize it. I hope your ulcers are better.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
My Take
May 30, 2008 - 23:02 ET by candanceI don't pretend to be an expert in Catholic clergy or Holy Tradition, so I won't comment on the theological debate here. However I see some serious personal arguing and bullying which I think is ridiculous.
This argument was initiated by Fut. Cool Arrow didn't attack women's role in the Church, but simply wanted to make the point that tradition was poor reason to cite for religious doctrine whatever the doctrine may be.
Instead of explaining Holy Tradition from the beginning, Fut snapped at him for having some kind of grudge against Catholics and basically said his opinion wasn't valid.
Beyond that, I'm really not getting the whole Trach is a swine thing. Yes I recognize that quote from the Bible but I can't imagine Jesus was referring to people like Trach when he said that. Trach is vigilant, strict, resourceful, and an equal opportunity outsmarter, but he doesn't set out to insult people.
Furthermore, if Trach is swine I can only imagine what God thinks of me.
And the Spanish Inquision thing was predicated by the vicious assault on Martin Luther. To use Fut's own words against him, he's proven himself to not exactly be Luther's biggest fan....
But why should we continue this discussion if we don't have the educational or emotional deepness [whatever that means] to comprehend Fut's theology?
In short, CA's post at the beginning was a self-fulfilled prophecy...Fut came here expecting the Catholic church to get dumped on and (maybe subconciously) pushed the debate in that direction. It has quickly devolved into "you Protestants manipulate the Bible."
Last but not least, name calling is unacceptable no matter how annoyed we might get.
And no, I'm not telling anyone my views on women in the clergy because that has nothing to do with my perception of the argument.
candance... What would
May 30, 2008 - 23:27 ET by bigtimercandance...
What would everyone do if you didn't insert yourself and set everything straight?
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
well gee BT
May 30, 2008 - 23:36 ET by candanceI'm sorry you're annoyed by an random person appearing on a thread to chastise someone.
LOL...I just love ya'
May 30, 2008 - 23:46 ET by bigtimerLOL...I just love ya' candance...and I find you humorous anymore, you sure don't annoy me.
Is that acceptable to your standards of how I should post?
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
well thanks BT
May 30, 2008 - 23:51 ET by candanceI find you humorous anymore too.
Why do you ask if there's anything wrong with your post? It's not like you care about my approval anyway.
Wow...candance...we
May 30, 2008 - 23:56 ET by bigtimerWow...candance...we agree.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
yay for us
May 30, 2008 - 23:57 ET by candanceAt least that's something.
Candance: 5 . Bigtimer: 0
June 1, 2008 - 18:55 ET by Free StinkerCandance: 5
Bigtimer: 0
and this time fs
June 1, 2008 - 18:58 ET by shawn228I am in agreement with you :-)
shawn
June 1, 2008 - 19:00 ET by Free StinkerEither the world is coming to an end, or I should go buy a lottery ticket. ;-)
You got this one backwards Free
June 1, 2008 - 19:28 ET by Dee Bunkbut I forgive you
FS... Once again you show
June 2, 2008 - 12:28 ET by bigtimerFS...
Once again you show your maturity level.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Candance, Well, this is
May 31, 2008 - 11:36 ET by futbolisgreat1Candance,
Well, this is what happens when you get into a debate that has been going on for months in some cases between some members of NB and me.
Cool Arrow and Trach hate the Church with an incredible passion. They have admitted this in past forums. Please make sure you know the history of something before you make alligations.
Second of all, I disagree, Cool Arrow told me that I was right two out of three. I asked which one, then he pointed out it was tradition, then I replied in jest (unless like Cool Arrow you are a mind reader) telling him that he was intitled to his opinions regardless of how wrong he might be. Cool Arrow blew up when he read this comment of mine saying that this comment was a personal attack on him. Sadly enough, that is what he does when he realizes that he has no where to go with his arguments. He becomes the poor victim.
Candance, I am sorry to inform you, and others on NB can attest to this, Trach and Cool Arrow hate the Roman Catholic Church and in every religious forum that the Church is spoken about they let it be known. Furthermore, they love to slander the Church and state things as facts that are not.
Once again Candance, please make sure that you know the history between posters on NB before you make a comment that is completly off the mark.
thanks.
thanks for the tip
May 31, 2008 - 13:30 ET by candanceThough I didn't comment on your argument with Trach in the woodshed, I was keeping up with it because I thought it was interesting, and I've kept up with some of your other adventures on here as well.
You truly have a persecution complex if you think people on here *hate* the Catholic church. Saying something is wrong or bad is not the same as hating it, and furthermore the venom you threw at Martin Luther is just as bad if not worse than stuff people say about RCC on here.
Candance... But what you
May 31, 2008 - 23:13 ET by futbolisgreat1Candance...
But what you do not have is the 20+ private e-mail exchanges between Trach and I. While they mostly mirror what he has said here, he does get more personal and a bit more insulting. It was during the private exchanges, that I lost all respect for Trach, not in the Woodshed, not in the public forums. It was his condescending demeanor, his holding a bullhorn and screaming at the top of his longs. sadly enough, he believes that he doesn't have a bullhorn since he replies to every sentence, coma, verbage usage.....he doesn't understand that you can reply this way and still not listen.
As for your persecution complex accusation, oh please, nice try. Nice try there, really. So if I point out the obvious, the truth and what they have told me, some how I have a persecution complex. You are acting like the Obama supporters who say that if you disagree with his policies somehow you are racist. Geez.....
Cool Arrow has admitted to hating the Church. Just go read his posts on any forum that talks about the sick "priests" that abused children. He claims he has personal experience with this (not him I believe, but someone close to him).
Once again, you are trying to correct me when you do not even have half of the picture.
Trach, well sorry, he has called my Church evil, literally, etc, etc. If you have truly followed our exchanges, you would know this.
However, as I told Cool Arrow, you have the right to your opinions, however wrong they may be. (Oh now, Cool Arrow will now come to your aid since according to him, the last sentence is a personal attack on you).
um...yeah...
May 31, 2008 - 23:26 ET by candanceI've also gotten PMs from Trach when we disagree that were maddening but never hateful. You said before to ask anyone on here about Trach's hatred which he had strewn across many a thread. Now it's all in the private PMs I don't have access to.
As to your claim that they get more insulting, you jumped all over CA in this very thread for insulting you but really it was a minor smart remark and nothing more, so apparently your version of insulting is different than mine.
I know you've taken some crap for being Catholic around here before, but as I said above you don't seem to be very respectful of Protestants here either. Everyone gets ragged on a little for their faith around here but you seem to want the RCC on a pedastol.
I'm not saying this to be mean or rude, and I'm not just making it up. I've noticed a trend on many other threads here that you get angry when anyone criticizes the RCC for anything. It's not just Cool or any one person.
Incidentally, I'm not Lutheran but I found your remarks about Martin Luther pretty harsh. It's not very respectful to tell someone their religion is based on "a temper tantrum" with a bogus Bible and yet expect them to not lash back.
Setting the record straight. . .
May 31, 2008 - 15:26 ET by tracheostomyFut, why do I have to appeal to the truth with you? Can't we do this some other way?
Fut: Candance, I am sorry to inform you, and others on NB can attest to
this, Trach and Cool Arrow hate the Roman Catholic Church and in every
religious forum that the Church is spoken about they let it be known.
Wrong. Last I checked, Delsa, Queen Mum, Motherbelt, and Bigtimer were all Roman Catholics (at least that's my guess). In any case, I like them, I personally get along with them, and I have had civil conversations with them that hasn't spun out of control like it has with you.
Here's a great one I had with KC Mulville.
http://newsbusters.o...
No, this is purely your problem. I think it's because you're a sore loser when it comes to debate.
I really don't hate the RCC. However, I'm convinced there are doctrinal issues and many gross errors that the leadership of the RCC either cannot or will not deal with. I would do the same with a Southern Baptist that has fallen for the doctrine of Charles Finney. I see them all pretty much the same way. And I feel for them all in ways you cannot even conceive.
Would you stand by and allow a complete stranger to eat a dinner you knew was toxic? What if you were in a high class restaurant? Would you be intimidated because of the public environment you were in? I love you all too much to stand by and allow that to happen. The pursuit of truth in love is not bigotry! I am appealing to you; not rejecting you.
Most of the rank and file Roman Catholics have zero knowledge of the issues that I brought up with you. So therefore, it's impossible to literally hate all of them. IMO, they should sideline issues such as ordaining women and take another look at their own core systematic soteriology. It's like you're looking at tile samples for your house when your basement's flooding.
The latter part of your statement isn't true either, because the record shows that I participate in very few threads on the main board where the liberals go after Christians or the RCC. I don't even make the same criticisms that "anti-Catholic liberals" do, because I believe the libs who attack the RCC don't even know what they're talking about! Not even close.
Fut: Furthermore, they love to slander the Church and state things as facts
that are not.
You mean like the doctrine of gradual mitgation that you inadvertently lead me to? >_< If you hadn't been slapping up links to Catholic Encyclopedia so often, I probably would have overlooked it. That one doctrine is the nail in your coffin on Augustine.
Truly-truly your feast day is eaten in vain. You honor Augustine with your lips, but your heart is very far from him.
Did you find that insulting? It's not. It's an appeal to change.
- Is your God the Roman Catholic Church. . .or Jesus Christ Almighty?
- Is your soteriology the same a Augustine's?
- Would you be like Augustine and admit where you are in error? You're standing in a theological garden, and all I am is the child-like voice he heard saying, "take up and read, take up and read."
But will you actually do this, or leave your faith for the less informed to handle on your behalf?
You "feel" insulted. You "feel" forced. Your pride here is at stake. Repent Fut. Repent and follow Christ without all these substitute mediators you've placed in His way.
If I didn't care about you, I wouldn't make the appeal. Stop acting like traditions are eternal. You're not only lying to everyone else here, but most importantly you're lying to yourself.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach... Do NOT include
May 31, 2008 - 15:35 ET by bigtimertrach...
Do NOT include me in this.
I have watched you CA over time on this subject with fut, I tend to agree with fut in this regard though of him defending his passionate beliefs too.
Btw...I am not a Roman Catholic.
I try to learn a lot from all of you as far as differing religions and individual beliefs go...and I will leave it at that.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
BT,
May 31, 2008 - 20:09 ET by tracheostomyBT: Do NOT include me in this.
Please don't panic BT. You're only "included" in one direction; that of my own choosing to get along with you.
My post is not necessarily an appeal as to how others feel about me. =) So you're still free to feel any way about me you want to.
I am trying to make the case here that I don't hate on others just because I think they may be of the Papal persuasion. Period.
BT: I have watched you CA over time on this subject with fut, I tend to
agree with fut in this regard though of him defending his passionate
beliefs too.
Assuming all the information presented is equal, properly sourced, and doesn't go any deeper than that. . .right? >;)
BT: Btw...I am not a Roman Catholic.
Hence my earlier disclaimer. I stand corrected and will make a note of it.
BT: I try to learn a lot from all of you as far as differing religions and individual beliefs go...and I will leave it at that.
No problem. Please be aware also that when I name drop, I'm not trying to "draw you into it." Nor do I claim to speak for you either.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach: Wrong. Last I
May 31, 2008 - 23:24 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach: Wrong. Last I checked, Delsa, Queen Mum, Motherbelt, and Bigtimer were all Roman Catholics (at least that's my guess). In any case, I like them, I personally get along with them, and I have had civil conversations with them that hasn't spun out of control like it has with you.
Futbol: What does liking individuals who are Roman Catholic have to do with your liking or disliking the Church? That's a silly argument. I hate the sin of homosexuality, yet I have friends who are homosexual and they know EXACTLY how I feel. Shallow defense on your part on this one.
Also, The Church is NOT my King, I do not worship the Church. God, Jesus Christ is my only Savior, there is NONE other. I have stated this countless of times, yet you refuse to accept it. You cry when I call you a liar, yet you have ZERO problem calling me a liar.
My question to you is, do you love your religion more than you love God?
My question to you is, do you love yourself, your theology more than you love God?
You keep on claiming that you love us all...(oh, how dramatic), yet your actions prove otherwise. Your actions betray you and show you as a liar.
I have told you many times, great, you can spew out verbatum the Bible from Gensis to Revelation...great, good for you. Now do what is REALLY HARD! and LIVE THE BIBLE!
what you have always failed to see is that YOUR PRIDE, the FACT that you believe you are better versed than others in Christian Theology and in the Bible is your down fall.
I told you, St. Paul and St. Peter had some deep, deep disagreements and they would get upset at each other, but at the end, they knew how to LIVE the BIBLE and they TRULY loved each other and they DID NOT ALLOW their pride to get on their way. Learn to Love how St. Paul and St. Peter did, learn to Love how Jesus Christ loved and loves.
Stop preaching so much and lead by example. Stop preaching so much and show us all how a true Christian lives.
The early Christians were able to conquer the Roman Empire, not through wars, but through example. They rarely preached the Bible to outsiders, yet somehow, through their love of their fellow man they conquered the Roman Empire. Can you honestly say that your way of trying to convert others to your warped theology and religion would have conquered the Roman Empire? Do you think that your condescending manner, your pride would have conquered the Roman Empire? You can only answer this, however, if you can't convince people on a simple forum, how would you convince and Empire. Think about it.
Trach: You "feel" insulted.
May 31, 2008 - 23:38 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach: You "feel" insulted. You "feel" forced. Your pride here is at stake. Repent Fut. Repent and follow Christ without all these substitute mediators you've placed in His way.
Futbol: Repent? HA! Honestly, I feel like I am in some evangelists television show, Trach has his hand against my forehead and he is demanding that I repent. Oh please, so dramatic, so ridiculous.
Sorry my friend, no need to repent. I hold THE TRUTH, why would I repent for holding THE TRUTH? care to explain?
Mediators that I have placed on my way? Oh goodness gracious. The real problem here is that you do NOT understand the Roman Catholic Church, Catholicism, etc, etc. That's your problem.
I also find it amusing that you would claim that I put mediators between me and God, yet you constantly, constantly have thrown names at me of theologians that I should read that have helped you, sadly enough, come to your McDonalds menu religion. Hmmmm.....I wonder who has the mediators? look in the mirror Trach. Oh wait, they guide you, right?
Funny enough Trach, what would happen if you did not follow the rules, laws, canon, of the current religion you belong to? oh, that's right, you would not be a member of that religion, right?
Can you be a Baptist, an Evangelical, an Anglican Church member, a member of your religion if you do not convert to these religions and decide to follow their rules, their beliefs? of course not! Have these religions, has YOUR religion not set forth a set of beliefs, rules, laws, canons that must be followed in order to be a member for your religion? YES!
If it was true what you claim that you have no mediators, etc, and more importantly we follow your logic of mediators between you and God..... why then belong to a religion? why?
Then you are arguing for what the leftists in America and the world argue about....that there is no need for religions since we all have a direct connection with God, right?
Furthermore, if we are all priests, as Protestants claim, why then have religions, why do Protestants have ministers, why even read St. Augustine or any other Christian theologian used by Protestants? If we all have are priests, shouldn't we all, in our lifetime, come to the same conclusions as the great Christian Theologians?
The problem is that just like Liberals, Protestants preach one thing, yet live another. They preach that the Bible is THE ultimate authority, yet they have ministers that preach to them the word of God who claim they are an authority on the Bible. Wait, I thought we were all priests.
They claim that the RCC has no right to create rules, laws and canon, yet these same Protestant churches, religions have their own set of rules, laws, canon, etc. What's the difference? I mean, I know the difference, but why attack the Church when Protestants do the same thing.
Or is it like Pirates of the Carabiean, the Protestant religions' laws, canon, etc are more like guidelines than a set of rules?
wow
May 31, 2008 - 23:58 ET by candanceI feel like I am in some evangelists television show, Trach has his hand against my forehead and he is demanding that I repent. Oh please, so dramatic, so ridiculous.
No, that's not condescending to Pentecostals at all. I'm sure if one here got their feelings hurt by that you'd simply accuse them of a personal attack against you first.
if we are all priests, as Protestants claim,
Protestants claim this?
Protestants preach one thing, yet live another
Yeah, this is sooo totally different from Cool saying Catholics are misguided.
Or is it like Pirates of the Carabiean, the Protestant religions' laws, canon, etc are more like guidelines than a set of rules?
No hateful or condescending attitude here.
Let's see. So far you've said that Protestants use a bogus Bible, are all a bunch of hypocrits, are too horny to last as priests and left the Catholic church over temper tantrums. You then mocked Pentecostals for their beliefs on healing and compared an entire religion to a movie.
Is this the kind of hateful tone and distorted lies you don't want to see launched against Catholics?
Candance... Oh I love it
June 1, 2008 - 01:09 ET by futbolisgreat1Candance...
Oh I love it how you have taken Cool Arrow's side. You came in here trying to scold me and telling me how it was me the one that started with the insults.
Now you claim that my posts are full of insults towards other religions....funny though, how you do not put up all the condescending comments, all the insulting comments that have been thrown at me by Cool Arrow and Trach.....who called me an educated leach, who made fun of my English, etc, etc, etc....oh wait, I get it, it is ok for Cool Arrow to insult me, but not for me to return in kind. My bad....oops.
honestly Candance, shut up, seriously. If you had a brain (oh no insult-just returing the favor kiddo) you would have realized as 99% of NB did that the one individual in this forum to take it to a personal level and to be completly paranoid is Cool Arrow who some how grabbed my statement, "...you are entitlted to your opinion, how ever wrong it might be..." as a personal insult.
You, just like Cool Arrow are mirroring unto me who you are. Stop it already, you are embarrassing yourself.
if you want to take my statements as hateful so you feel comfortable with yourself and with your delusional Cool Arrow, by all means candance.
From the outset you took Cool Arrows side, you lied, claiming that you had follow Trach and my exchange, which is impossible that you did unless you had our personal passwords and abilities to go into our private e-mails on NB. You are mad because I called you on your half truths.
Why don't you break down like you attempted with me Cool Arrows and Trach's words? Oh wait, you can attach motivation and emotions unto my words, but not unto thers. Do you lie for a living?
I have never addressed you, or directed any posts on NB towards you until today when you got involved in a months old conversation.
Why don't you let A and B talk and "C" your way out, ok? believe me, you aren't doing yourself, Cool Arrow or Track any favors.
You are just proving my point, how incredibly hypocritical of you and them.
But let me get it straight, it is ok for Cool Arrow and you to put emotions and motivations behind my words, but it is not ok for me to do it. It is ok for Cool Arrow to call me an uneducated leach, but it is not ok for me to return in kind. It is ok for Cool Arrow to make fun of my English, but it is not ok for me to return in kind, right? This is what you are saying, right?
Please, please Candance, shut up, you are such a tool!
Cool Arrow has made fun of the Pope, of the Immaculate Conception, of the authority of priests in the Roman Catholic Church and here you whine and cry when I defend myself? WOW!!!
I told you already, get out of the way, stop putting your freaking nose in a conversation that doesn't involve you.
a couple more points and then I'll shut up
June 1, 2008 - 11:26 ET by candanceTrach and I have already had our rounds over religious doctrine and he knows where I stand. You'd know that if you kept up with our relationship.
You made it clear that you didn't want Cool's opinion here from the beginning. YOU brought up birth control out of thin air in this thread. When you couldn't move the conversation back where you wanted it, YOU started in with "you Protestants" in a clear desire to argue over Catholics and Prots. Now YOU are the only one here whining because your religion is being criticized.
If Cool was disingenuous enough to complain about his religion being attacked here, I'd tell him what's good for the goose is good for the gander. But YOU think you're the only one here with the right to ridicule Protestants as horny, baby killing hypocrits and not get anything dished back to you.
PS If you bothered to read more you'll notice I did echo lotr's urging for Cool to let the argument go. So you either can't be bothered to read the whole thread or you're simply lying about my posts.
You're not mad at me for busting into a conversation, you're mad because I didn't take your side. That's all this is. And since I'm a woman who believes in Christ, I kinda DID think this article was some my business, but apparently screaming at each other over Martin Luther's thesis is a more important issue.
Candance, Candance... And
June 1, 2008 - 13:27 ET by futbolisgreat1Candance, Candance...
And your lies and deceiving ways continue....how sad for you!
Candance: YOU brought up birth control out of thin air in this thread.
Futbol: ARE YOU FOR REAL?!!! HAHAHA!!!
No Candance, YOU need to learn and comprehend, re-read the WHOLE thread and you will see that it was Cool Arrow the one that brought up the contraceptive issue as an attack on the Church while he was debating Therm.....PLEASE!!! why are you so disgenious? why the desperate need to lie? why? you either lack reading comprehension skills or are a plain liar!
Cool Arrow brought up a whole bunch of things out of thin air with no one talking about them.
Once again, little one, the only reason Cool Arrow got upset at me was because I used this line..."...You are entitled to your opinion, how ever wrong it may be..." The poor, deranged man went off the deep end and fools like you are backing him up. Go for it.
If it makes you feel comfortable and it justifies in your mind that I am upset at you because you took the losers side, so be it.
First, get off your high horse, you are NOT that important for me to get upset at you. I find you amusing and I love toying with you. :) I find your defense of Cool Arrow hypocritical and uneducated. That's all. If you want to add to it in your pretty little head, lady, go for it.
You got in the middle of a MONTHS old conversation and you aren't woman enough to admit that you step into a land mine that you had NO business stepping into.
Furthermore, why the HECK! would I care about your relationship with Trach. I am not the one sticking my nose where it doesn't belong. Until your made your pathetic attempt to reply to me last night, you didn't exist for me. Get it?
If your whole reason for coming in here was to read the article, then why haven't you commented on the article? all you have done is commented on me and how you assume I have treated little, old Cool Arrow and his side show Trach.
In Spanish you would be called "Una metiche".
Once again Candance, let A and B talk and "C" your way out. You aren't doing yourself and much less Trach and Cool Arrow any favors.
If it helps you feel good inside to believe I am "upset" at you because you took their side....go for it lady. You have the right to your opinions, however wrong they may be. :)
»→ futsie
June 1, 2008 - 13:43 ET by Cool ArrowThey shall go to confusion together that are makers of idols. (Isaiah 45:16)
It is small wonder you turn to "great thinkers" (Aquinas and Augustine) rather than the Word of God. You cling so tenaciously to your traditions that you have no time for God's Word to you.
You chose to put tradition on the same plane as the Word of God. I strongly disagree with your characterization and cannot let it go unchallenged.
Of course I'll point out to you that the doctrines of men (and other beings) are as "filthy rags" (please investigate the true meaning of this term as modesty requires I not explain it here)
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
»→ futsie
June 1, 2008 - 13:44 ET by Cool ArrowThey shall go to confusion together that are makers of idols. (Isaiah 45:16)
It is small wonder you turn to "great thinkers" (Aquinas and Augustine) rather than the Word of God. You cling so tenaciously to your traditions that you have no time for God's Word to you.
You chose to put tradition on the same plane as the Word of God. I strongly disagree with your characterization and cannot let it go unchallenged.
Of course I'll point out to you that the doctrines of men (and other beings) are as "filthy rags" (please investigate the true meaning of this term as modesty requires I not explain it here)
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool Arrow, Cool
June 1, 2008 - 13:53 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow, Cool Arrow,
there you go again with your desperate need to justify your theological believes. Why the need to lie and slander the RCC?
Give it up. If you honestly, truly believe that the Roman Catholic Church demands the worship of idols, you are beyond help.
Your ignorant comment is as I were to tell someone that they worship the picture of their mother, of their wedding, of their brother, sister, husband, etc, etc that they have.
Please Cool Arrow, PLEASE! stop embarrassing yourself, honestly.
By the way, Cool Arrow, the ONLY reason I brought out St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine was in response to Trach's sad attempt to use them to justify his McDonald's menu religion.
Yes, I chose to put up Tradition in the same level as the Word of God, why? Becuase RCC Tradition (with a capital T) is BASED on the Word of God, not men. Stop being so dense! Tradition is ALSO the Word of God. Get it yet? Oh I know, this is going to send you back to the deep end.
Cool Arrow, what you and many Protestants fail to understand is that all of the RCC's Faith and Theology is based on the Word of God. All of it. I know you will dispute this, since you take all of the words in the Bible literally, which I already proved to Trach that would be insane.
Plus, let us not forget, Martin Luther and many other Protestants have written words, omitted words, etc, etc from the Bible so they can give meaning to the Bible which was not intended.
Tradition != tradition
May 30, 2008 - 15:40 ET by ThermistoclesNon-Catholics often don't understand that Catholics make a distinction between "tradition" and "Tradition". The first being customs, like candles, chants, etc. The second being Holy Tradition, which is a part of the deposit of Faith. The New Testimant was a product of Holy Tradition. It was recorded. Not all that was passed down was recorded.
Perhaps Cool knew this and his remark concerning the divisiveness of the matter was to the core.
»→ Thermistocles
May 30, 2008 - 15:49 ET by Cool ArrowI accept the words of Paul, Matthew, Mark . . . as the word passed to them from God Himself.
Beyond that, it gets obvious very quickly what is Tradition.
Aquinas and Augustine, for example, had no authority to add or subtract from Scripture.
As I've indicated to Fut in the past, there is much that has been added to the "list of Mortal Sins" through Tradidtion.
Creating sin, is perhaps one of the worst sins possible.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
CA's right.
May 30, 2008 - 16:05 ET by tracheostomyThe problem is when one assumes tradition has always been the way it is now.
But tradition by definition has to start somewhere.
Thus, the beginning of the tradition is where you'll find the true validity of it; not in the tradition itself.
Thus, tradition has zero authority on its own. It must rely on something else to support it.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
»→ Exactly trake
May 30, 2008 - 16:09 ET by Cool ArrowWhen Jesus said "Do these things in memory of Me" He started a Sacrament as well as a tradition.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
This is where the teaching
May 30, 2008 - 16:20 ET by ThermistoclesThis is where the teaching authority of the Church comes in. The cannon of Scripture was not settled until the 4th century. There were many more writings than what we have today in the Bible. The Church decided. Who gave the Church the authority to do this and protected it from error?
»→ Thermistocles
May 30, 2008 - 16:25 ET by Cool ArrowSo it's perfectly natural for the Church to create sins where none exist?
Is it not already hard enough to avoid the near occasion of sin?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool Arrow...once
May 30, 2008 - 16:51 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow...once again,
You show such great ignorance about Church teaching when you claim that the Church is creating sins where none exist.
Just because you disagree with the Church it doesn't mean that they created something.
Never ceases to amaze me the amount of ignorance from the people that attack the Church. You attack that which you know NOTHING about.
»→ Really fut?
May 30, 2008 - 16:56 ET by Cool ArrowWhen was it mandated that Catholics go to Mass on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception?
Who was it that proffered that "The Immaculate Conception" really happened.
Sorry, it is found nowhere in Scripture. Mine or yours.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Mine or yours? Sorry,
May 30, 2008 - 17:06 ET by futbolisgreat1Mine or yours? Sorry, there is only one Scriputure, God's. Not yours or mine.
Furthermore, if you cared to learn, and take a deep study of the Immaculate Conception you would fine that it is based on Scripture.
Once again, you prove your great ignorance about the Church Cool Arrow.
I find that most people that attack the Church know little about it, they go with the slander that has been said about Her, but they do not bother to find out if that slander is true or not.
Honestly Cool Arrow, please, please study the Theology of the Church, study it indepth before you attack it. Study it with humility, study it looking for the truth, and you will find that the Church is THE Church.
Fut,
May 30, 2008 - 17:37 ET by tracheostomyIn order to accept the only one scripture that you assert. . .
. . .you're going to have to take the gag off Mary.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Fut: Never ceases to amaze
May 30, 2008 - 17:13 ET by tracheostomyFut: Never ceases to amaze me the amount of ignorance from the people that
attack the Church. You attack that which you know NOTHING about.
You're assume to defend something you know nothing about.
The church does stand in the light of its critics and attackers.
However, yours does not.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, "No Pearls to the
May 30, 2008 - 17:20 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
"No Pearls to the Swine" my swine.
"No Pearls to the
May 30, 2008 - 17:28 ET by Blazer"No Pearls to the Swine" my swine.
"Pearls and swine bereft of me"
http://new.music.yahoo.com/videos/Audioslave/I-Am-The-Highway-Live--24533080
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
I can't read your mind CA.
May 30, 2008 - 17:03 ET by ThermistoclesI can't read your mind CA. Can you give one example that you believe backs up this claim?
I don't believe the Church creates sins. Avoiding sin is easier if you avoid the near occasion of sin. Something about not putting God to the test.
»→ Thermistocles
May 30, 2008 - 20:36 ET by Cool ArrowHow about 6 of the 7 Holy Days of Obligation?
How about "No meat on Fridays"? All those people who went to hell before the command was lifted, did they get out of hell all of a sudden?
Can you honestly say God condemns all married Catholics who use birth control? (and as we both know that includes all forms of sex that prevent fertilization, as well as manual/oral)?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Things to meditate on...
May 30, 2008 - 21:33 ET by lotrAccording to Scripture, the very first Commandment from the mouth of God was to "be fruitful and multiply." There's also that little thing about "spilling" one's seed.
All of Christendom preached against artificial contraception until the 1920s (that's ~1,893 years), when the Anglican Church first capitulated. To my knowledge, the Eastern Orthodox still preach against it alongside Catholicism. Can you honestly say God condemns all Catholics and Orthodox, past and present, who adhere to these teachings? That God "allowed" such "heretical" teachings to persist for 1,893 years before the enlightened Anglicans set the record straight?
That much said, we don't know who God condems and who He doesn't. Jesus did not condemn the Adulteress. But, by the same token, He did not say "Go then, and BTW, F whoever you want."
Good luck finding the Commandment against oral and/or manual sex. And for what it's worth, the Catholic Church does not forbid "birth control" (aka, birth regulation), per se. It does forbid artificial contraception, and one need not go any further than that great secular resource <gasp> Wikipedia to find out there's a difference.
On a final note, can we dispense with this whole Protestant versus Catholic triumphalism here? "Can we all just get along?" One is free to disagree with Catholic teachings. One need not be a Catholic -- no one is forced. However, the difference between orthodox (with a small "o") Christians pales in comparison to Modernists, Socialists, Islam, Atheism, etc., as well as the garbage spewing from the pulpit of Obama's church.
»→ Onanism lotr?
May 31, 2008 - 11:45 ET by Cool ArrowOnanism is one of the weakest arguments ever offered as evidence against birth control.
There are People who read their bibles rather than listen to the "interpretation" offered as an excuse for laying a needless guilt trip on people.
Onan was given one command to perform one act for one purpose, one time.
He disobeyed that one command.
The greater error you offer is that since it's been going on for years, it must be so since God wouldn't allow His Church to be polluted with unsound doctrine.
Once again, I submit, those who read the Scripture rather than listen to an interpreter fully invested in perpetuating a myth, would find the introduction of "doctrines of devils" is prophesied.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool Arrow
May 31, 2008 - 14:42 ET by lotrI'm just throwing things out there. I've read the entire Bible, some books more than once. When I read the bit about Onan, my simple mind (I'm not speaking for the Church) took it at face value. Bottom line is, I have found that Church teachings are always rooted in Scripture.
I'm not here to preach the Catholic position on artificial contraception. I am merely submitting that there are Scriptual reasons behind it, and one ought to respect that. All of Christianity, including all Protestant denominations, held the same position for over 1,900 years.
I am also suggesting that this whole Catholic versus Protestant triumphalism thing is passe, so 19th Century. One would be far more fruitful to direct one's attention to more substantial issues in today's "enlightened" world.
starts slow clap
May 31, 2008 - 15:08 ET by candanceAmen lotr, amen!
How on earth this thread drifted from women in the clergy to why Protestants use birth control...
»→ That's easy candance
May 31, 2008 - 15:38 ET by Cool ArrowSomebody put "tradition" on the same authoritative plane as the Word of God.
Somebody else had a problem.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
»→ But lotr
May 31, 2008 - 15:15 ET by Cool ArrowGood luck finding the Commandment against oral and/or manual sex.
According to the RCC, both oral and manual methods are Mortal Sin because they are preventive.
Of course all good Catholics condemn these practices even when they are engaged in by married couples, don't they?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool Arrow
May 31, 2008 - 19:48 ET by lotrTo be blunt: My understanding is that oral and manual methods in and of themselves are not mortal sins, so long as the one-flesh union is still open to life (hopefully you can read between the lines -- I really don't want to be more blunt than that).
And, surely you must already know that God's Commandments are not contingent upon what "everybody's doing." I really don't care if every Catholic Tom, Dick and Harry disregards the Catholic teaching (hypothetical, mind you: in my social circles, this is not the case) -- God's Commandments are not subject to popular vote.
Again, with regards to Catholicism (or Christianity in general) folks are free to choose. These are "hard teachings," no doubt ("who can accept it?"). Everyone here is free disagree, and no one is forced to be Catholic.
Wrong again lotr
June 1, 2008 - 00:27 ET by Cool ArrowBoth methods, if not culminating in vaginal penetration are the sin invented by the Church known as Onanism.
You already knew this because you already referred to it.
And, no, Catholics are not free to choose those actions they deem sinful.
Now that you are aware of the true meaning of "onanism", you are bound by it under pain of Mortal Sin if you are a Catholic.
BTW, taking matters into your own hands, so to speak, is also a Mortal Sin.
Sweet dreams.
Cool Arrow
June 1, 2008 - 20:16 ET by lotr"Both methods, if not culminating in vaginal penetration..."
Correct. The "if" is key, though. Glad you have clarified it, for that's a big difference from your original spin on it.
Yes, I am aware that a sin committed with foreknowledge plus freedom of will coupled with grave matter constitutes a mortal sin. God is quite logical, isn't He?
You do agree that God forbids "sexual immorality" (as is translated in the NIV Bible)? Or are you one of these "if it feels good, do it" types?
And I sleep quite well, thank you.
Be cool,
lotr
»→ I sleep good too lotr
June 1, 2008 - 20:21 ET by Cool ArrowKnowing Onanism was a very grave sin . . . for Onan only.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
»→ That's good lotr
May 31, 2008 - 15:45 ET by Cool ArrowExcept one member in this thread chose to deify tradition.
To me, tradition that replaces or sets itself equal to God Almighty is anathema, and the member who raised the point knew it.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Therm: This is where the
May 30, 2008 - 17:15 ET by tracheostomyTherm: This is where the teaching authority of the Church comes in.
Argument to authority fallacy. Very shaky. Are you absolutely sure you can say your particular church for sure without hemming and hawing and a "some say; others say" explanation? Careful. Others here have failed in the attempt.
What if I assert that my church is holy, catholic, and apostolic? Then you fall back on your argument to authority. "The pope said it based on the total authority of divine revelation given to him by. . .???"
Therm: The cannon
of Scripture was not settled until the 4th century.
Foul. Hearsay argument. The official agreement cited here fails to consider its wider use in previous times (which is one of the tests of canonicity). The agreement was not arbitrary. Also, from now on, you're not allowed to argue Canon until you can first spell it correctly. =)
Therm: There were many
more writings than what we have today in the Bible. The Church decided. Who gave the Church the authority to do this and protected it from
error?
Very good question. I promise you that if you pursue this with all your heart, mind, and soul, you'll be surprised.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I do profess the Nicene
May 30, 2008 - 18:04 ET by ThermistoclesI do profess the Nicene Creed. You forgot a key word there. The church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. I claim membership in that one and same Church that Christ founded. Knowing that I am Catholic and you Protestant, I expect we disagree on a number of things. Will you argue that the Church that the Apostles and writers of the New Testament belonged to did not have authority granted by Christ? This was the authority to which I was speaking.
As for Canon. ;-) I'll learn to spell if you can refrain from straw man arguments.
I simply stated that the New Testament was a product of the Church. This is a historical fact, not hearsay. For the most part, there was widespread agreement, true. There was still some disagreement, also recorded historical fact. I never claimed it was arbitrary decision. The Church did assert its authority, though.
The last question was rhetorical. I believe Christ gave the Apostles the authority and the Holy Spirit has protected the Church. It is a suprising thing. Are you of a different opinion?
Therm: I do profess the
May 31, 2008 - 00:18 ET by tracheostomyTherm: I do profess the Nicene Creed. You forgot a key word there. The church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
No I didn't. Else I wouldn't have implied "which one?" If the church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, then your church is the only valid church. However, no Roman Catholic would dare say it out loud.
Therm: Will you argue that the Church that the Apostles and writers of the New
Testament belonged to did not have authority granted by Christ? This
was the authority to which I was speaking.
Then you are not a Roman Catholic. The authority to which you speak extends further than those apostles appointed by Christ alone.
Therm: As for Canon. ;-) I'll learn to spell if you can refrain from straw man arguments.
Such as?
Therm: I simply stated that the New Testament was a product of the Church. This is a historical fact, not hearsay.
Prove it. I assert it was in use and regarded as authoratative prior to Augustine, only not officially stated as such.
Therm: The Church did assert its authority, though.
Too vague. You're holding back quite a bit.
Therm: The last question was rhetorical. I believe Christ gave the Apostles
the authority and the Holy Spirit has protected the Church. It is a
suprising thing. Are you of a different opinion?
Then with this statement, you invalidate the first statement that I disputed to begin with. The council of Nicea becomes redundant at this point.
Or maybe they weren't establishing their authority per se, but rather asserting a statement of faith in the face of prevailing heresy?
That's what I think anyway.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trake,
May 31, 2008 - 00:36 ET by RESTLESS 1You told me 6 hours ago to pop open a cold one. One 12-pack later, we are still here. You are the epitome of understatement. :>)
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
R1,
May 31, 2008 - 00:45 ET by tracheostomyHeh, I went out for a few hours. LOL!
It's funny how when you leave an exchange, you tend to worry about your assertions if they'll hold up on their own or not. I was totally expecting the logic of my "foundation of tradition" argument to get attacked, but it was simply ignored in favor of lower-hanging fruit.
I didn't see Fut elaborate on his Luther accusation. Maybe that was something he didn't want to share out loud. >;)
R1. I think it was a good thing you and I had our falling out that day. It's platinum-plated-proof you're capable of thinking for yourself.
You're right though. Complete dependence on a minister/priest, and consulting their opinion to help you along are two completely different things.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trake,
May 31, 2008 - 01:01 ET by RESTLESS 1We'd better watch out or Fut will think one of us talking to himself. LOL.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Straw Man Army
May 31, 2008 - 22:16 ET by ThermistoclesCA, most of your arguments are straw man arguments because most of your assertions and assumptions about the Catholic Church are incorrect. You've driven Fut to the point of incivility by your diabolical tactics, but I refuse to take the bait.
I'll shock you and prove you wrong at the same time. Not only do Catholics believe that their Church is the one true Church, it is a matter of public record.
The Bible came from the Church and not the other way around. Perhaps you've got a narrower definition of "Church". Your answer did not refute mine but it reinforced it. The authors of the books of the Bible were a part of the Church. Of course they would be in use, etc.
I guess I'm at a loss. All your replies seem to have this 'Ah ha, now I gotcha' zinger to them. You seem bound and determined to uncover or trip me up on some hidden point that should send my house of cards tumbling. I guess I missed the memo on that one.
Do me a favor, though. How bout you show your hand and tell us which Creed / denomination / belief, you hold? It might help me to understand where in the heck you're coming form on some of this stuff. With 30K Protestant denominations out there, it's a bit hard for a Catholic to guess who they're talking to.
Therm: CA, most of your
May 31, 2008 - 22:32 ET by tracheostomyTherm: CA, most of your arguments are straw man arguments because most of your assertions and assumptions about the Catholic Church are incorrect.
Then it behooves you to take each argument point-by-point and bring the corrected version to the table. I've seen the evidence to back his assertions. So what have you got? I'll give it fair regard as long as you honestly bring it.
Therm: The Bible came from the Church and not the other way around. Perhaps you've got a narrower definition of "Church".
*rubbing hands together*
Therm: Your answer did not refute mine but it reinforced it. The authors of the books of the Bible we a part of the Church. Of course they would be in use, etc.
I guess I'm at a loss.
Flip-flop. Go back to your original assertion. Oh wait. It didn't happen unless I re-print it myself. Okay. . .
Therm 5/30/08 17:20 hours: This is where the teaching authority of the Church comes in. The cannon
of Scripture was not settled until the 4th century. There were many
more writings than what we have today in the Bible. The Church decided.
Who gave the Church the authority to do this and protected it from
error?
Canon refers to rule or authority. Ever since then you've been acting dodgy about it. Personally, I don't care what conclusion you come to, as long as you settle on something.
Therm: You seem bound and determined to uncover or trip me up on some hidden point that should send my house of cards tumbling.
No, not "hidden" per se. It's sitting right there in the text history for anyone to see.
Therm: I guess I missed the memo on that one.
Do me a favor, though. How bout you show your hand and tell us which Creed / denomination / belief, you hold?
I know you're not "talking" directly to me, but since it's an open forum, I'm an Augustinian Monergist. Fut swears we don't exist, but a quick Google fixes that.
Therm: It might help me to understand where in the heck you're coming form on some of this stuff. With 30K Protestant denominations out there, it's a bit hard for a Catholic to guess who they're talking to.
Actually, if soteriology were all that mattered (which it pretty much does) there are only 3 denominations calling themselves Christians with over 30,000 differrent names.
I can tell you're really assuming a lot at this point.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, I find your posts
May 31, 2008 - 22:41 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
I find your posts amusing, especially when you use verbage that fits YOU so well...
example...
Trach: "I can tell you're really assuming a lot at this point".
HA! look in the mirror Trach, this is your to a "T"! you assume beyond assuming.
Oh, okay Fut. You care to
May 31, 2008 - 22:47 ET by tracheostomyOh, okay Fut. You care to demonstrate what I'm assuming?
For a change?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Show me the link the the
June 1, 2008 - 02:01 ET by ThermistoclesShow me the link the the Augustinian Monergist Church? Would there be an actual congregation anywhere in the world? Who's your pastor? Give me a rundown on your church history. Does you Church have a written creed? What do they believe?
At this point, it is fair to assume that I really don't know what you believe. You aren't making it any easier for me to guess either. This is perhaps the most ironic part of things. Catholics are on record for what they believe.
As a show of good faith, why not go on record also? Are you sincerely interested the welfare of souls?
The authors of the books of
May 31, 2008 - 22:27 ET byThe authors of the books of the Bible were a part of the Church. Of course they would be in use, etc.
yes indeed the authors were members of the universal church, actually the bishop of Rome did not even have standing until the books were written. Did you know that the holy see did not have a representative at the council of Nicea?
Support our Troops
Cool Arrow, No one
May 30, 2008 - 16:47 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
No one created extra sins....that you do not understand St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, etc is something else.
Don't blame the Church for your lack of understanding and knowledge of Her, her Doctors, etc, etc.
All the "extra" sins as you claim can all be found in the Bible. All of the Churches teachings are based on the Bible. the fact that you do not know this is a great reason of why you left the Church.....your own ignorance.
»→ futbol
May 30, 2008 - 16:52 ET by Cool ArrowYou know you're statement "no one created extra sins" is patently false.
You won't find any Catholics agreeing with you on that one. They'd have to go to confession after such an agreement.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Simply saying so is not a
May 30, 2008 - 17:12 ET by ThermistoclesSimply saying so is not a very convincing argument. It really isn't an argument at all but simply an assertion.
This is silly. I now declair that being really silly is a mortal sin. ... oops, you caught me.
Cool Arrow... Once again,
May 30, 2008 - 17:18 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow...
Once again, you show your great ignorance about the Roman Catholic Church....
The Catholic Church has not created any extra sins. Period.
You can repeat how many times you want that the Church has done this, but it won't make it a fact.
Just because you believe something to be true, it doesn't make it so.
The Truth is The Truth, regardless of what you believe. And the TRUTH is that the Church has NOT created any new extra sins.
As my swine, trachy boy, loves to point out......just because you say so, it doesn't make it so. Granted the poor fool is so dishonest that he only points this out when someone he disagrees with says it, otherwise, he is too dishonest to point it out when ssomeone he agrees with says it.
Cool Arrow, why do you hate the Church so much?
Cool Arrow, where to do you get your fallacies about the Church?
Fut: No one created extra
May 30, 2008 - 17:19 ET by tracheostomyFut: No one created extra sins....that you do not understand St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, etc is something else.
Yes, the doctrine of gradual mitigation is truly something else indeed.
And that you do not understand that your pals buried Augustine in the backyard is too much for you to handle.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, "No Pearls to the
May 30, 2008 - 17:21 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
"No Pearls to the Swine" my little swine
Cool Arrow, No one
May 30, 2008 - 16:47 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
No one created extra sins....that you do not understand St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, etc is something else.
Don't blame the Church for your lack of understanding and knowledge of Her, her Doctors, etc, etc.
All the "extra" sins as you claim can all be found in the Bible. All of the Churches teachings are based on the Bible. the fact that you do not know this is a great reason of why you left the Church.....your own ignorance.
Why would you accept the
May 30, 2008 - 16:51 ET by ThermistoclesWhy would you accept the Gospel of Mark but reject the Gospel of Thomas? Are you aware the Martin Luther wanted to remove four books from the New Testiment?
Neither Aquinas nor Augustine ever claimed the authority to add or subtract from Scripture. Martin Luther did.
I've no clue what you're talking about when you say creating sin. I'm familiar with the seven deadly sins. Can you give me a short list of a half dozen new ones added to the list in the past 100 years?
»→ Thermistocles
May 30, 2008 - 16:53 ET by Cool ArrowHave you ever missed Mass on the Feast of the Assumption?
Has any Catholic?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Missing Mass on holy days
May 30, 2008 - 18:50 ET by ThermistoclesMissing Mass on holy days of obligation has always been a sin. Are you claiming that, because a change in the liturgical calendar was made that some how a new sin was created?
Would you also claim that digital porn on the PC is somehow a new sin since it is a recently invention?
»→ Wrong Thermistocles
May 30, 2008 - 20:45 ET by Cool ArrowThe Immaculate Conception was declared as infallible in 1854. For some 1800+ years before that, it was not a required belief of the Church.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool Arrow, Again with
May 30, 2008 - 20:56 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
Again with your lie....wow, talk about being dense! and stupid
I corrected you on this quite a few times and you still preach your lie!
the concept of the Immaculate Conception was taught long, long before 1854. That it wasn't formalized until 1854 is completly different.
What you fail miserably to understand is the FACT that the Virgin Mary was always the Immaculate Conception, just like Jesus Christ was always the Son of God. But God did not reveal His Son to hunanity until centuries after humans had been around on Earth.
If we go with your dense mentality, then we would need to say that Jesus Christ didn't become the Son of God until 2,000 years ago or so.....but that is not the case, that is when humanity learned about Jesus Christ.
Same thing with the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Mary was always the Immaculate Conception, long, long, long before 1854, long before the creation of the universe. Just like Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God LONG before the creation of the universe, but we didn't learn about this until God chose us to learn about it.
I know, I know....this is too deep for you to understand, so you will just repeat your empty, and mindless attacks on the Church.
»→ Sure fut
May 30, 2008 - 21:00 ET by Cool ArrowAnd you claim this is found in Scripture?
Where?
It's nothing more than tradition.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Which books belong in the
May 30, 2008 - 22:15 ET by ThermistoclesWhich books belong in the Bible?
Where is the list given in Scripture?
Would you mock the Bible as nothing more than tradition?
»→ Change the subject, Therm
May 31, 2008 - 11:01 ET by Cool ArrowSince you can't find the Immaculate Conception in the Bible, you play "Woman at the well"
I'm not gonna tell you everything you've ever done. (Jesus didn't tell the woman either, but she felt it important to lie about it for some reason)
Now back to the subject. Where is "The Immaculate Conception" in Scripture? And why would you insult Jesus with the concept that he came to save everybody except His mama who (according to you) was the first Perfect human being?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Care to back you assertions
May 30, 2008 - 17:16 ET by RESTLESS 1Care to back you assertions of Martin Luther? Links? Proof?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless,
May 30, 2008 - 17:22 ET by tracheostomyPull up a seat and crack open a cold one. You're going to LOVE what they got to say about Martin Luther.
Hey Fut, tell him your story about how Martin Luther wrote the 95 theses because he wanted to get laid! It's priceless. XD.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, "No Pearls to the
May 30, 2008 - 17:25 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
"No Pearls to the Swine" my little swine
Trake,
May 30, 2008 - 18:00 ET by RESTLESS 1They aren't still sore in the ass about that whole Reformation thing are they?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless 1, No, we aren't
May 30, 2008 - 20:09 ET by futbolisgreat1Restless 1,
No, we aren't sore in the ass about the whole Reformation thing...started by a disobidient priest who got upset that he didn't get his way....Luther had a temper tantrum.....you know, the same sin as Satan, pride and disobedience....
but just to let you know...and take this or leave it....I advice you not to align yourself with Trach....he is not in search of the truth...he is in search of insulting everyone that doesn't agree with his obtuse view of his wacked out, self-made theology, his McDonald's menu theology. He is one wacky, crazed out looney-bin tool, I mean fool at least when it comes to religion.
»→ Luther
May 30, 2008 - 20:50 ET by Cool ArrowLuther had a temper tantrum.
No kidding Sherlock. I guess you're all proud of that prepaid indulgence thing as well as the bloody inquisition.
BTW, the pope apologized for the Inquisition.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Prepaid indulgences? done
May 30, 2008 - 21:12 ET by futbolisgreat1Prepaid indulgences? done by a few amoral priests and Bishops, not a widely accepted practice as Protestants and atheist have claimed it was......
As for the Inquisition, sorry....I don't care the Pope apologize...not Doctrine.
The Inquistion was also a blown up thing by atheists and Protestants that love to attack the Church.
In fact, if you knew anything about history, which you obviously don't.....you would know that for its time, the Inquistion was benevolent compared to the punishments and authorities of the secular world. In fact, history shows us that people rather fall under the justice of the Inquistion than under the justice of the secular authorities of the same time. But don't worry, once I again, I do not expect your simple mind to understand or know this.
"...done by a few amoral
May 30, 2008 - 21:18 ET by RESTLESS 1"...done by a few amoral priests and Bishops..."
I seem to remember the Pope having something to do with it as well. St. Peter's ring a bell?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless 1=Trach, What?
May 30, 2008 - 21:24 ET by futbolisgreat1Restless 1=Trach,
What? The Pope could have done whatever...it doesn't mean that it was right....once again, not widely accepted and just like Protestants have had their crisis in their churches, so has the RCC. Furthermore, it never became Doctrine, or law to have to prepay in order to obtain indulgences. And you could have prepaid all you wanted, once you reached Judgement Day, God could careless what you paid to the Church.
The RCC was created by Jesus Christ, but He put humans in charge of it. Only when it comes to matters of Faith will the Church not make any mistakes....and unless you are ready to lie right now, having to prepay for indulgences never became part of RCC faith, but rather it was something done by corrupt Church members.
But why don't you talk about the sins of Protestants? Trach, I mean Restless 1.
»→ Fallback position fut?
May 31, 2008 - 11:07 ET by Cool ArrowThe Pope could have done whatever...it doesn't mean that it was right.
Wow fut, you feel real comfortable allowing "The Vicar Of Christ On Earth" to seamlessly slither between infallible and demonic, don't you.
You admit it was wrong for him to sell prepaid indulgences? I submit it was a thought slipped him by a greedy green demon.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
The Inquistion was also a
May 30, 2008 - 21:21 ET by balboaThe Inquistion was also a blown up thing by atheists and Protestants that love to attack the Church.
Don't forget Mel Brooks.
Cool Arrow, Funny how you
May 30, 2008 - 21:15 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
Funny how you cry over the Inquisition but stay quiet about the horrific prosecution that Catholics suffered in England after England turned against the Roman Catholic Church simply because Englands king was a horny bastard that couldn't accept the fact that the Church was not going to grant him an annulment so he could go marry and screw another woman.
Funny how you don't talk about this, right? Your simple hatred of the RCC is embarrassing fool.
you are quick to blow up things against the RCC so it suits your attacks and your pathetic mind stays at peace with your RCC ignorance, but you turn a blind eye towards the sins of Protestants....what are the typical hypocrite.
Futbol,
May 30, 2008 - 21:20 ET by RESTLESS 1You are right about the King. I never said that he was righteous whichever side he was on.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
»→ fut
May 30, 2008 - 21:27 ET by Cool ArrowIf you'll read history, you will find the rift between the King of England and the Pope had nothing to do with Martin Luther.
But go on excusing bad behavior with more bad behavior. To step into that room is an admission of wrongdoing.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool Arrow, What? there
May 30, 2008 - 21:34 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
What? there you go again, extraplolating what I ment. You fool.
I am not excusing bad behavior with bad behavior...I find it quite hypocritical of you to attack the Church for the sins of men that have run it, but you stay quiet about the sins of Protestants churches that include the Church of England and the horrific prosecution that Catholics suffer there.
but nice try there Cool Arrow to try to hide your hypocrisy. I find it amusing when fools like you bring up the Inquistion without knowing what it truly was, instead spewing out like mindless parrots what you have learned in school about the Inquistion.
you know, an education would really help you right about now.
The Inquistion for its time, was Heaven compared to the secular authorities of the same time. How come you don't attack the secular authorities of the time? The Church's Inquistion was benevolent compared to the justice everyone outside of the Church knew and practiced.
please tell me you aren't so stupid and dense as to not understand this? c'mon....even you blind hatred for the Church can't make you this stupid.
»→ Sorry fut
May 30, 2008 - 21:40 ET by Cool ArrowI know it is silly of me to expect a higher standard of the Catholic Church than the King of England.
Guess you set me straight.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool Arrow, eh? no, nice
May 30, 2008 - 21:46 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
eh? no, nice try on your part to spew out mindless, age old attacks the Roman Catholic Church so you feel comfortable going on hating the Church.
I told you you were not educated enough or had the educational or emotional deepness to understand what I am telling you.
If you want to simplify it to a superficial level so you feel comfortable with your irrational hate of the Church....go for it son.
but once again, a good education would have truly helped you and you would not sound like such an ignorant, hateful fool.
you failed to prove your points, you are proven a hateful liar and all you have left is age old attacks against the Church.
I am embarrassed for you.
»→ Hey fut
May 31, 2008 - 12:59 ET by Cool ArrowYou're really big on this "education" thing you keep throwing out.
What is most apparent is that you have only rote logic, and very little ability to reason on your own.
When you aren't calling people "fool" in direct violation of a command given by Jesus (possibly your savior), you're touting the need of others to get education.
Sorry about your worship of institutions of higher learning, but for me it was a means to a productive life rather than one of sucking off the Government trough. You wouldn't be one of those admin losers, would you?
OK, you got me. I did my homework.
You are an illiterate loser, fut. But I have not stooped to calling you a fool, as you did me.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Futbol,
May 30, 2008 - 21:06 ET by RESTLESS 1Touchy, touchy.
"Luther had a temper tantrum.....you know, the same sin as Satan, pride and disobedience...."
Satan had a "temper tantrum against God. Luther had one against the RCC. Geez, you Catholics love to put yourselves on the same plane as God, dontcha?
Btw, Trake does not define my belief system. I only align myself with Jesus.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Touchy, touchy? respect
May 30, 2008 - 21:08 ET by futbolisgreat1Touchy, touchy?
respect and you shall be respected...period.
And yes, the Catholic Church is THE Church of God, created by Jesus Christ.
Quick 2 min on
May 30, 2008 - 18:31 ET by ThermistoclesQuick 2 min on Google....
http://en.wikipedia....
Here's a quote from C. M. Jacobs, Holman's Edition of Luther's Works, 6:444
"St. James is really an epistle of straw compared to them for it has
nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it . . . [It is] not the
writing of any apostle."
From you highly reputable
May 30, 2008 - 19:01 ET by RESTLESS 1From your highly reputable Wiki link:
"Luther did not, however, remove them from his editions of the
Scriptures. His views on some of these books changed in later years."
Feel free to try again.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Dig a little deeper. There
May 30, 2008 - 19:11 ET by ThermistoclesDig a little deeper. There are citations in the wiki as well as the other quote I gave you. This is not Catholic / Protestant bashing but a matter of public record.
Would you believe a Lutheran source?
http://www.wels.net/...
The fact that Luther did not get his way or that he changed his mind on some of the books later in life is hardly a point in your favor. In part he was against the books for theological reasons.
I know. He took issue with
May 30, 2008 - 19:26 ET by RESTLESS 1I know. He took issue with the books that stressed good works over faith. He took issue with Revelations because, in his words, it "revealed nothing". You are inferring that he did not get his way. In the end, he simply wanted the books in a different order, based on his interpretation of theology.
Again, from YOUR link:
"An excerpt from his "Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude"
-- "...I praise [the Epistle of James] and consider it a good book,
because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the
law of God.... However, ...I do not regard it as the writing of an
apostle, and my reasons follow.
"In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of
Scripture in ascribing justification to works [2:24]....
"In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this
long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or
the Spirit of Christ....
"In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without
works, but was unequal to the task. He tries to accomplish by harping on
the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love.
Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not
thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases,
for there are otherwise many good sayings in him,"
Again, feel free to try again.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Btw, I appreciate you doing
May 30, 2008 - 19:27 ET by RESTLESS 1Btw, I appreciate you doing my research for me. :)
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless 1, Riddle me
May 30, 2008 - 19:57 ET by futbolisgreat1Restless 1,
Riddle me this....
You Prostestans claim that the Bible is THE ultimate authority, right? You claim that only The Bible speaks the truth, right?
So, if only the Bible speaks the truth, aren't you and all the other Protestans that tell others what the Bible means filtering the Bible through your means? Thus, no longer making The Bible THE authority, but rather making YOUR interpretation of the Bible the authority?
If The Bible is THE authority, why don't Protestans stay silent and let people read the Bible and let the Bible speak to them?
You are speaking to
May 30, 2008 - 20:21 ET by RESTLESS 1You are speaking to interpretation. All can read the Bible, but not all interpretations are correct. How can a Church sell indulgences, yet at the same time say they are interpreting the Bible correctly?
An example"
"If all who are in the Church are priests, by what character are those
whom we now call priests to be distinguished from the laity?" I reply,
By the use of these words, "priest," " clergy," " spiritual person,"
"ecclesiastic," an injustice has been done, since they have been
transferred from the remaining body of Christians to those few who are
now, by a hurtful custom, called ecclesiastics. For Holy Scripture
makes no distinction between them, except that those who are now
boastfully called popes, bishops, and lords, it calls ministers,
servants, and stewards, who are to serve the rest in the ministry of
the word, for teaching the faith of Christ and the liberty of believers."
The Catholics made the distinction between Priests and laity, the Bible did not. Protestants are content to let people read the Bible as they please, but as we are all Priests according to Gospel, we are compelled to share the Word.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless 1, Well, nice
May 30, 2008 - 20:30 ET by futbolisgreat1Restless 1,
Well, nice try there....but no go on that. You still didn't answer the question.
How can you claim that the Bible is THE authority yet have ministers preach the word of God to others? you can't reconcile the two, period.
The second that the Bible is interpreted by a minister in a Protestand church, the Bible is no longer the authority....well according to what Protestans say all the time...that the Bible is THE authority.
Furthermore, Jesus Christ and the Apostles made the distinction of priests and laity.....or did Christ and the Apostles allow anyone in the crowd to preach the word of God?
Reading comprehension
May 30, 2008 - 20:38 ET by RESTLESS 1Reading comprehension problems? We are all priests in the eyes of the Lord, sent to serve and spread the word. Protestants go to Church in the spirit of communion, not necessarily to be preached to.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless 1, Don't be the
May 30, 2008 - 20:50 ET by futbolisgreat1Restless 1,
Don't be the typical condescending Protestant....
Second of all, we are not all priests in the sense that the word priest as used in the Roman Catholic Church...
Yes, we can all spread the word of God, in fact it is my duty as an RCC member to spread the word of God, but I cannot deliver the priestly sacraments since I am not a priest.
it seems that it is you the one that has the comprehension problems and can't seperate the two meanings of the word priest.
Thridly, if Protestant do not go to church to be preached at....then why do you have a minster that preaches to you? Why not stay quiet and read the Bible and let the Bible, THE authority of the word of God speak to you?
and I see that you ignored my answer to your question.
Jesus Christ and the Apostles did not allow everyone in the crowd to preach the word of God to others. In fact BOTH Jesus Christ and the Apostles chose a few to preach the word of God to the masses. Will you deny this now?
»→ fut
May 30, 2008 - 20:56 ET by Cool ArrowWho "chose" Apollos?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
"Second of all, we are not
May 30, 2008 - 20:58 ET by RESTLESS 1"Second of all, we are not all priests in the sense that the word priest as used in the Roman Catholic Church..."
See, you are almost there. The RCC has no authority to determine who the priests are. The Bible makes no such distinctions. Through the hubris of man, has the RCC made the distinction.
And if you were listening to Jesus himself, would you add your two cents?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless 1=Trach... Ok
May 30, 2008 - 21:18 ET by futbolisgreat1Restless 1=Trach...
Ok man...stop it, be a bit more mature.
Once again, you failed to answer to the FACT that Jesus Christ and the Apostles chose who should preach to the masses. Jesus Christ gave the Roman Catholic Church the authority to ordain priests.
Close but no
May 30, 2008 - 20:42 ET by ThermistoclesClose but no cigar.
Protestants excluded the deutercanonical books of the Old
Testament from the Canon but kept them in their Bibles in the back. The quote you highlighted shows he held the New Testament books in essentially the same status as the deutercanonical books. Where did he end up putting these books when he rearranged the order? I've read that they were essentially put in the index without page numbers in his earlier editions, but I don't have a verifiable reference on that. Why don't you do some of the footwork. I'm getting worn out. ;-)
The historical evidence is there also. There was controversy over his opinions among his fellow Protestants. He simply lost and his opinions softened a bit with time. You will note that his preface to these books was revised multiple times.
Luther was dead set against marriage when he started out but was later pressured into a marriage. The fact that he later married does not negate his earlier opnion.
Thermistocles
May 30, 2008 - 20:54 ET by RESTLESS 1But you are doing such a great job of proving my points. ;>)
The fact that you can't verify should tell you something. Luther took exception to some books, but did not actively dissuade their inclusion. You should know that Protestants believe in "Faith, not works", so it is understandable that Luther would take exception to these Books.
BTW, have you found where Luther said that man can say what a sin is yet?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless 1=Trach, Wrong,
May 30, 2008 - 21:29 ET by futbolisgreat1Restless 1=Trach,
Wrong, no where in the Church does man create sins. When the Pope shows that something is a sin, it is the Holy Spirit, God speaking through him. Man cannot create any sins.
You show your lack of understanding of the RCC by saying that it is man creating a sin, when the Church says that something is a sin.
Trach, please stop with the ignorance already.
Futbol,
May 30, 2008 - 21:51 ET by RESTLESS 1You have accused me of mirroring Trake twice now. You have lost the right for debate further between us. I have nothing against you or Trake, but I told you before, Trake does not define my beliefs, nor does he speak for me.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless 1=Trach, Lost my
May 30, 2008 - 22:02 ET by futbolisgreat1Restless 1=Trach,
Lost my right to debate with you? Oh you miserable fool. My Rights are not for you to take and give. Not only are you a condescending Protestand....you are completly ignorant as to what rights mean.
I have every right to debate you, you have every right to not reply.....
get it? but a right is not soemthing that a few fools like you can take a give at their whim.
i hope that youar e at least smart enough to understand this.
if you are not trach, I apologize, but your verbage, personal attacks, pride, arrogance, etc, etc are all mirror images of Trach's way of debating.
Fut,
May 30, 2008 - 22:12 ET by RESTLESS 1You can only debate me if I participate. When you accuse me of being someone else, you have no merit. So why should I continue? See ya.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless 1, Sure see
May 30, 2008 - 22:19 ET by futbolisgreat1Restless 1,
Sure see you. You act as if this is a big deal. Regardless, the verbage, sentence structure, words, etc, etc are all Trach's.
You are Trach....you have been caught with your pants down and now need to run away with your tail between your legs.
Ooops!! try harder next time.
Well, if I am Trake, take
May 30, 2008 - 22:45 ET by RESTLESS 1Well, if I am Trake, take it up with the mods. They will be able to tell it is the same server or not.
Btw, Trake and I are both Protestants. Wouldn't stand to reason that our arguments might be similar?
Also, I guess I was arguing with myself here?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
»→ fut
May 31, 2008 - 13:10 ET by Cool ArrowYour profuse abuse of the word "fool" seems to prove you are no Christian.
But whoever says, "You fool!" shall be in danger of hell fire (Matt 5:22).
But I'm sure there's some "tradition" in your Church that supersedes the words of Jesus. Kinda like that "graven image" thing you skip over in the Ten Commandments.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Proving your points? You
May 30, 2008 - 22:51 ET by ThermistoclesProving your points? You are clever. I'll trust you are not disingenuous. I feel as if I'm fighting the black knight who is arguing with me about his severed limbs. ;-) Ignore this if you aren't a Monty Python fan.
Can you point me to a first version copy of Luther's Bible? I don't have one handy. I'm not sure what that's supposed to be telling me.
Your turn on the Luther sin thing. I'm not quite sure even what you're getting at with that.
Huh???
May 30, 2008 - 23:25 ET by RESTLESS 1Luther's version of the Bible? Doesn't exist. He translated the Bible into German. He took exception to some books' inclusion by the RCC, but he didn't write his own version.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
King James version of the
May 30, 2008 - 23:54 ET by ThermistoclesKing James version of the Bible? Doesn't exist.
Restless, get some sleep. You're getting a bit punchy. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.
Which four books are left
May 31, 2008 - 00:01 ET by RESTLESS 1Which four books are left out the KJV? And you can't find a reference to it?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
»→ Restless
May 31, 2008 - 13:44 ET by Cool ArrowI think fut's mom must've read "Bel and the Dragon" to him when he was a kid.
Apparently that's the closest to inspired Scripture he ever got.
And he can't remember who won that battle.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Restless1, Luther's
May 31, 2008 - 12:22 ET by futbolisgreat1Restless1,
Luther's verison of the Bible doesn't exist? HAHA!!!
talk about desperate need to justify yourself with your misguided beliefs.
Luther wrote his Bible in order to suit his own misguided believes. He left out chapters, verses, etc that he needed to leave out so he could justify in his mind his hatred and disobedience of the Church. He rerworded chapters and verses to suit his own needs.
He re-wrote the Bible. How dishonest of you. At least have the guts to admit to as much.
Fut,
May 31, 2008 - 13:18 ET by RESTLESS 1Thanks for not calling me Trake again. At least that's somethin.
Your post sounds like something right out of Bible School. I know when I went to Bible School, there were things taught about RCC that are probably not completely true, and I am sure the same is true of the Catholic Church. I could ask for links. You would provide them. I would poke holes in them. You would poke holes in hole poking (?), etc, etc, etc... I'm really just not up to that today.
I don't hate the RCC. In fact, my blood boils when it is attacked, especially by secularists. You need to remember that disagreeing with the RCC is not bashing it.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
»→ Hey fut
May 31, 2008 - 13:35 ET by Cool ArrowWhat was it Luther left out or changed to suit his "misguided beliefs"?
You claim it was done. I expect you to put up.
I'm aware of only one doctrine based on any of the books you speak of, but I'd rather let you discover it for yourself since you're so well educated and all.
So, great and educated fut. Tell me where the Bible used by Protestants is in error. Better yet, tell me where the New Testament is any different from yours.
BTW, the NT clearly states "unto the Jews were entrusted the Oracles of God". Augustine and Aquinas were not Jewish. But they were real good at thinking deep thoughts to further a philosophy, but not a Faith.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool,
May 31, 2008 - 13:40 ET by RESTLESS 1"I'm aware of only one doctrine based on any of the books you speak of..."
I'm not sure I even know what you are talking about, unless it involves the word "alone"?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
»→ Restless
May 31, 2008 - 13:51 ET by Cool ArrowPrivate Message sent.
I couldn't reveal it here because I'm sure fut is already aware of it. Of course he'll act like he's already aware of it.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
My mistake, the word that
May 30, 2008 - 14:21 ET by ThatDudeMy mistake, the word that alluded me was "denomination." I don't particularly see any sexism in it. It's more of an adherence to tradition and beliefs. If they want to remain the RCC, then they need to stick with what it means to be Roman Catholic. On the other hand, I'm not Roman Catholic and would be interested to see a female priest/pastor/"spiritual guide" and the unique perspective she would give. I go to church to hear the sermon and gain some time to collect my thoughts as well as pray. Should I find a church with a preacher I really enjoy listening to, whether male or female, then that's where I will go.
Thatdude, yeah,
May 30, 2008 - 14:46 ET by futbolisgreat1Thatdude,
yeah, denomination makes a lot more sense.
As for hearing a woman spiritual guide....The Church has these, nuns....priests are not the only spiritual guides in the Church. It is a great misconception to believe this.
Some of the greatest and most respectful theologians of the Church are women.
Premises
May 30, 2008 - 14:20 ET by KC MulvilleIt's all in the premises. Secular America takes some things for granted that the Catholic Church doesn't, specifically, in how "rulers" are supposed to behave, and whether gender matters.
In the first place, most people associate power with superiority. We take it for granted that we want people with superior skills, wisdom, or character to exercise power over us, and certainly not to give power to thieves or fools. Taking that a step further, logically, we assume that if we don’t give power to someone, we must be making a judgment about their skills or morality. But the church doesn’t see power, at least the administrative power wielded by the church, in the same way. In the church, power is supposed to be a ministry. It’s a service. It’s what servants do. And within the scriptures, Jesus often tells his apostles that rulers must be servants. “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant.” This is why the church argues that women are not being insulted or demeaned by the fact that they don’t serve as rulers. Only someone who considers a ruler to be superior would be insulted by that, and the church doesn’t presume that power = superiority.
Second, the church goes completely against the modern tide, and holds that gender matters. God made them male and female, and in the church, we think that’s important. We live in an age where all differences between people are flushed down the egalitarian toilet. Marriages are simply living arrangements between multiple persons. As TV once said, “But last night I thought what is family anyway? It's the people who make you feel less alone and really loved.” Well, in the Catholic Church, we don’t sweep all distinctions away. Marriages are between one man and one woman, and they have children, and that’s what families are. We have mothers and fathers, and each role has a proper dignity. Genders are not interchangeable. As long as you don’t treat men as superior, or deny basic human rights to one sex, making distinctions about sex is perfectly legitimate.
You’re perfectly free to argue that the secular perspective is better. You can argue that power should always indicate superiority, and that no differences between the sexes should ever be allowed. It’s a free country. But before anyone rushes to outrage, it’s important that they realize that the Catholic Church doesn’t hold the same premises of life that secular America does. And, since the church’s view does nothing to demean and insult women under its premises, it shouldn’t be a cause for outrage.
That door was never
May 30, 2008 - 15:07 ET by mjgThat door was never ever opened to begin with. We can't go against Christ's teachings.
It's the agenda, not the preaching, that matters to them
May 31, 2008 - 09:28 ET by AvusThese ultraliberal feminists - and the equally liberal and gutless priests / bishops who support them - are not the least bit interested in participating in the priesthood itself. If that matters so much to them then they can very easily go over to the Anglican Church and be ordained there.
No, the only thing that really matters to those women is their usual selfish agenda of destroying anything that excludes them. If they were suddenly allowed to be priestesses, the radical feminists would simply drop the broken toy and move on to the next men-only issue (ignoring the reverse discrimination of thousands of women-only organizations, programs, issues, etc.).
Behind them, though, would be the less radical women who would flood the priesthood, because women always join things en masse. Before long, male priests would become a scarce novelty.
Sadly though, despite the official line against priestesses, the liberals in the Church hierarchy (which make up the vast majority) have virtually ensured that it will happen within 20 years. In nearly every parish in the world, altar girls are not only permitted but strongly encouraged, sometimes to the deliberate exclusion of boys, just to satisfy women.
As a result, the number of altar boys have been steadily declining for the last 10 years as it is being more and more seen as a "girl thing". More often than not, priests begin their calling as altar boys. Unless there is a sudden change in the Vatican's policy and enforcement about altar girls - both highly unlikely - the pool of boys will soon dry up and the liberals will once again win another one of their ongoing battles against traditional values.
Trach: "PAY
June 1, 2008 - 01:39 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach: "PAY ATTENTION!!!"
Futbol: Using words like the above really don't help your case. This is where you show your pride, arrogance, use of the bullhorn to scream how you are right and everyone is wrong.
Regardless, God is not surprised. You do not understand the concept of God being out of time, thus having the capability of knowing all of our choices, past, present and future.
Yes, God allows us to choose, Free Will....oh geez, we have debated this to the ground, what's the point...seriously.
What you fail to understand and explain is....why be good or bad since God already chose for me? what's the point? According to you, a person that behaves bad, a person that makes evil choices can actually reach Heaven, since he was Predestined by God to be in Heaven. On the other hand, someone that is good, always makes the right, moral choice can actually go to Hell, since God made the choice for him.
how can you not see the other limitation that you have given God, the limitation of cruelty.
Explain what is the point of living for 80 years on Earth when God has already decided your eternal life? Why doesn't God, if we follow your "logic" just throw our souls into Heaven or Hell instead of teasing us here on Earth?
Futbol,
June 1, 2008 - 22:11 ET by RESTLESS 1Predestination is where you and I agree. I believe that by Grace, all people have faith. I believe the Passion was for all man's sins, and through God given faith, all people are eligible for Heaven. Trake has argued that it is more of a crap shoot. That is why I didn't understand your calling me Trake.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
AP slammed door on truth along time ago
May 31, 2008 - 14:02 ET by wdhorningThe bulk of the radical, left-wing, anti-God, anti-justice, anti-fairness crowd of the AP could not find truth if it walked up and slapped them in the face.
The AP has absolutely no business "interferring" with the personal choices with respect to religion. Somehow they think they have rose to the arrogant state of being equal with God and deciding how it is God thinks and thus everyone else should goose-step to their bigotry.
Everyone's interpretation is different with respect to scriptures and to God, or even which scriptures to use. So how come the AP is trying to dictate how anyone should believe? I mean, we can turn the tables and say, "The AP has 'slammed the door' on Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and thus is bound for hell.!"
So how does if feel, you, bigoted AP writer?
Where'd you pearls
June 1, 2008 - 00:47 ET by tracheostomyWhere'd you pearls go?
Fut: Why are you so desperate to prove the Roman Catholic Church wrong? why? Why the desperate need?
I've explained why. You refuse to believe it. I oppose anyone who believes they can surprise God and pat themselves on the back for a portion of salvation. I have stated numerous times that the focus of my opposition isn't necessarily on the RCC as it is much more with the doctrine of semi-Pelagianism. <--- Which you continually embrace and endorse.
Fut: You some how believe that you have proven me wrong....don't you
understand that this is your down fall?
My downfall? What about your Catholic encyclopedia? I never planned for that to happen. It just fell into my lap. I truly wish gradual mitigation were not a rule of the RCC.
Fut: your pride, I know you believe
that you are speaking THE Truth, but I can assure you you are not.
Proven quite a few times in the Woodshed, in the the private e-mails,
here, etc, etc.
Still waiting for your proof. You're all talk. You think if you fill a space up with enough text that you can fool everyone else into thinking there's some substance to your words. You cannot really point exactly to where I'm allegedly "twisting" anything. You also fail to demonstrate flaws in my own theology. All you can do is throw more empty text at it.
Fut: And go ahead, dig up where I allegedly said that the Church handles
the believe of God for me.
*SIGH* All right. . .BRB.
Fut (3/16/ 14:25): And yes, at the end of the day, when it comes to religion, when it
comes to the RCC, it IS Liberal (if you want to compare it this way) to
the fact that it says, "We know better than you to interpret the Bible,
St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the rest of the Doctors of the
Church". This is part of being a Roman Catholic. We do not question
the authority of the Pope, of the Church when it comes to religious
Dogma, Doctrine and Theology.
Conclusion: They're doing it for you. You don't have to think about your faith. Nanny Church handles that for you.
Fut (3/16/ 14:25): Nothing I say, or don't say, will convince you that the RCC is not
Pelegian, that is obvious. You are much better versed than I am on St.
Augustine and honestly, I don't have the time (family to take care of,
work, family to visit, involved in soccer, getting a Masters Degree,
volunteer work, second job etc, etc) to sit down and read all of St.
Augustine's works and bring this debate to the level that you want it.
The level of debate I required was only a basic knowledge of your salvation. But you don't have the time for that.
Conclusion: They're doing it for you. You don't have to think about your faith. Nanny Church handles that for you.
Fut (03/17 2:35): Do I have to sit down and study every single Theology, Dogma, etc of
the RCC, no. Yes, I have blind Faith in the RCC and that the
teachings, Dogmas and Theology of the RCC will lead me to God if I
follow them. The Church does encourage us to read the Bible everyday,
to read the teachings of the Doctor of the Church and RCC theological
books, which I do. But I don't have the time to refute every single
thing you seem to want to challange, which is EVERYTHING about the
Church, from its moral authority to its Dogmas and Theological
teachings. My friend, honestly, I don't have the time. I would urge
you that if that is what you are looking for, you find a priest, a RCC
theologian that has the time to refute your disbelief of the Church.
Conclusion: They're doing it for you because you float the excuse that you don't have the time to study. You don't have to think about your faith. Nanny Church handles that for you.
The problem is I'm only trying to address the one thing that's the highest priority over everything else. Your faulty semi-Pelagian soteriology. You endorse an "Original Sin" in name only (OSINO)
Fut (3/20 18:42): Trach, please people are busy with work, life, etc. You say it often,
this is a site in which you post to faceless people. At the end of the
day, how important is this? You have taken this whole thing WAY more
seriously than I have.
Why don't you take it seriously Fut? I'm pretty sure it's because you have someone to do this for you. "Blind faith." <--- Your words, not mine.
Fut: You will probably be shocked to find that I
have always said that I do not do justice to the Roman Catholic Church
because I am not as well versed as others when it comes to its
theology.
I remember you saying that part. What shocks me is that you never got anyone to help you out as you said you would. Not even your own philosophy/theology major friend or any of your sisters were able to back you up.
Fut: but you assume so much about the RCC.
Again, you haven't specified what "much" is. And how could I assume "so much" if I want to constantly focus only on the major doctrines?
Fut: I am sure you are 100%
unaware that the Church encourages and demands that ALL Catholics read
the Bible on a daily basis. Did you know that? Of course not since
you have stated other wise.
Why do you even read it to begin with, if someone else interprets for you?
BTW, I knew that Catholics were allowed to have their own Bibles, so you'll have to quote where I "stated otherwise."
Fut: Furthermore, I find your assertion that Protestant ministers do not create Protestant "canon" to be a complete and utter lie!
Words in my mouth again. Where did I say that?
Fut: Protestants have also created a set of rules and laws that govern
how you need to worship God, what are sins and what are not sins.
Nothing extra-biblical though. I'd love to see them if you got 'em. Don't forget that I oppose extra-biblical protestantism as well, so I'm pretty sure you're just flailing at this point; hoping something will stick.
YOUR ACCUSATIONS ARE WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE!
Fut: They
do ALOT more than just guide you as you claim. They TELL you, just
like the RCC tells you, if you want to belong to that Protestant
religion you MUST follow a certain way of worship, you must abstain
from certain sins, etc, etc.
Based on what, again? What created sets or rules or laws?
Fut: This is another GREAT LIE by Protestants. They whine and cry about
the RCC putting forth rules, canon, about Faith and say that the Church
has no authority to do that. Then they create their own Christian
religion to fit their own emotional needs and they themselves create a
set of rules. Example you say....here
*YAWN* Your rhetorical filler is so redundant.
Fut: Anglican Church here in the USA, what is the fight over openly gay
ministers and the break that has occured in the USA in the Anglican
Church about this? it is all about rules, rules, rules, right?
LOL! What rule where?
Fut: And
who created this rule?
I dunno. You said there was one. There isn't any in your post. You expect me to guess what you're talking about?
Fut: The authorities of the Anglican Church.
What makes you think I'd defend the authorities of the Anglican Church?
Fut: Evangelicals, Baptists, etc forbid prayers to anyone but God and
Jesus Christ, right? yes, one and the same, I know. What is this?
rules, rules and more rules, created by who? the authorities of these
Protestand denominations.
These rules are not arbitrary. Nor are these rules an argument to the authority of a "protestant church."
But then, you don't even know your own scripture. If you actually read it as your church told you to, you'd come across the same verses that CA, botg, and myself tend to beat you over the head with.
Fut: I could go all day long showing you how Protestants have created
rules, laws, canon that MUST be follow if you want to be part of their
denomination. How different is this from the RCC? It is NOT!
Wow, where did you come up with this? A statement of faith does not equal dogma. In all the churches I've attended, if you're not willing to adhere to the church's faith statement, you're still welcome to attend, but you cannot hold official church membership, church office, or a vote.
Fut: Futhermore, what you fail to understand is that Roman Catholic
Tradition is anchored in Scripture, Her canon, Her laws are all based
on the word of God Scripture. That you refuse to believe this, that is
your problem.
Where in scripture are the concepts of condign merit and congruent merit taught? Jerome made a single translational error with Mary, and it becomes a scripturally unsupported doctrine unto itself. Your church fathers can't even agree when, how, or even if Jesus instituted baptism. Where is the doctrine of Papal succession taught in scripture? Where is the dogmatic definition of ex cathedra from 1870 written in scripture, especially after St. Paul openly corrects Peter himself? Why is the doctrine of Limbo even included? Why did your church have to make up the doctrine of gradual mitigation to cover over Augustine's writings?
Fut: You also are wrong if you believe that the RCC is my king. Sorry,
my only King, my only God, my only Nanny is God, Jesus Christ. Your
statements saying other wise prove how you don't have the capacity to
understand this.
You claim Christ needs help for your salvation. Want me to dig up that quote? Your Jesus also depends on mediators who come between you and Him. Not to mention a co-redemptrix. <-- BTW, where is THAT taught in scripture???
Fut: The Roman Catholic Church is THE only Church, its theology is THE
only Theology. Its Faith is THE only Faith. Why? Because it was
created by Jesus Christ, God. God keeps on watching over the Church
through the use of the Holy Spirit.
THE only Faith? Then you contradict yourself if Muslims can go to heaven. Your words, not mine. You cannot have this both ways.
Fut: Furthermore, it is NOT my job to take you from point A, B, C, D....that is your job.
Then it's not proof.
Fut: as for debating St. Augustine, you are too dense to debate him
anymore. I proved you how wrong you are and you could not stand it.
what you did is insult me when I proved you wrong.
Revisionist history. Gradual mitigation is the albatross around your neck. Sorry that snuck up on you, but it's like I said before. I didn't see that one coming either.
Fut: As for the gag that you so ignorantly keep on claiming that the
Church has put on the Virgin Mary. I already told you and showed you
how wrong you are. You claim we put a gag on the Virgin Mary.....you
put a gag on the Archangel St. Gabriel whose words clearly show the
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.
Translational error. I proved this, yet you still claim the NT was written entirely in Aramaic, don't you? *rolleyes*
Fut: God doesn't live in Time as we do. God forsaw the choices that we
are going to make.
PAY ATTENTION!!!
1. That statement still makes it man's choice; not God's. That makes man capable of doing good and saving himself. This is a violation of original sin. Hence your Pelagianism.
2. In this example, God is still a passive spectator of man's choice; nothing more.
3. In this example, God is a slave to His own foresight, which is framed within the confines of time; not eternity as you immediately and oh-so-subtly flip-flop.
4. In this example, God is surprised because this "choice" is entirely determined by literally watching what man will do. God doesn't know what man will do even when He uses foresight (within time, no less). <-- Stop confining Him to time and then saying He isn't. It's deceptive of you to do so. Just because God sees ahead on the time-line, it's still somewhere on a time-line.
5. Oh yeah. I almost forgot. In this example, man's choice then becomes a merit he can boast of. This nullifies Eph 2:8-10, "that not of yourselves." <-- Is not false humility on your part. Salvation is not of yourself in any way, shape, or form.
Fut: St. Augustine argued Predestination as Calvin put it, in his early
years, those years in which he lived in sin and his mother for over 20
years prayed for his salvation. However, St. Augustine retracted his
early statements about predestination and spoke about it in his later
years of his life how the RCC teaches today.
You cannot prove this statement.
Fut: That's the problem with you, Calvin, etc. You grab unto St.
Augustines early writings about Predestination, yet you forget to talk
about his own corrections to the mistakes he admits to have committed
in his early years when he spoke about Predestination.
You first have to date the writings you are referring to. You're not specific.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
quick question. trach
June 1, 2008 - 01:03 ET by shawn228Serious question., half joking. How many words can you type in one minute?
Trach: I've explained
June 1, 2008 - 01:29 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach: I've explained why. You refuse to believe it. I oppose anyone who believes they can surprise God and pat themselves on the back for a portion of salvation. I have stated numerous times that the focus of my opposition isn't necessarily on the RCC as it is much more with the doctrine of semi-Pelagianism. <--- Which you continually embrace and endorse.
Futbol: Two choices you leave here....Either you do not understand semi-Pelagianism, or you are ignorant about the Church not being semi-Pelagianism. Take your pick.
You do not understand the Roman Catholic Theology on this matter. The Church teaches and shows that God is NOT surprised. I even explained above. No one can surprise God. Do you read what I post? wow!!!
Trach:Still waiting for your proof. You're all talk. You think if you fill a space up with enough text that you can fool everyone else into thinking there's some substance to your words. You cannot really point exactly to where I'm allegedly "twisting" anything. You also fail to demonstrate flaws in my own theology. All you can do is throw more empty text at it.
Futbol: I have proven more than enough times how you twist and twist Bible verses and words to mean what you want them to mean so you can justify your religious beliefs.
You want another example? How you read things that I gave you and somehow you twisted it all to mean that the Church was semi-Pelegian.....when you made this claim I was like WHAT?! holy smokes this guy really knows how to twist words and give them meaning that do not mean what he believes they mean.
Or how you say....well the Church may say that it is not Pelegian or Semi-Pelegian, but you will find they are. eh? what twisted logic is this from you? The Church is NOT Pelegian or semi-Pelegian. The Church teaches that God is NOT surprised by our choices, He knows everything we have done, everything we are doing and everything we will do. No surprises for God.
Get it? understand it? I can guarantee you that you will come back with some twisted logic to fit your own needs. Just wait and see.
Trach:
Fut: St. Augustine argued Predestination as Calvin put it, in his early
years, those years in which he lived in sin and his mother for over 20
years prayed for his salvation. However, St. Augustine retracted his
early statements about predestination and spoke about it in his later
years of his life how the RCC teaches today.
Trach: You cannot prove this statement.
Futbol: OMG!!!! for claiming that you are well versed on St. Augustine, you really show how you do not know him, his writings or the corrections that he made to his early writings. I proved this statement a long time ago either in the Woodshed or the private exchanges, but it was done.
As for your claim that the Church is somehow a nanny Church that I allow to come between God and I. Oh please man, seriously, more twisting of my words from you. You come to erroneous conclusions through your twisted logic! This if further prove of how you twist words to mean what you want them to mean.
I have said a million times....i am not as well versed as others in Roman Catholic theology, period end of story. Nothing you cut and pasted shows other wise. That you want to twist my words to mean what you want them to mean so you feel comfortable with your beliefs....now that is something else.
As for getting help to debate you, sorry, don't need it. The one that needs desperate help is you. I have prove you wrong, over and over again, you are just too blind, too proud to admit it.
funny that you claim that i fill up the posts with empty rhetoric and words. Obviously, you don't read what you post since it is you using empty rhetoric and age old attacks on the RCC to defend your McDonald's menu religion.
The problem that you have is that you can't understand the concept of living outside of time....well neither can I. But it is obvious. Once again, how the heck is God going to be surprised by the choices that we make if God knows all the choices that we have made, all the choices we are making and all the choices that we will make. Care to explain? You have some twisted logic. Sorry, you are wrong.
God can't be surprised, but God will never force Himself unto us. You are too blind to understand this. If God does make the choices for us, what was the point of Jesus Christ dying on the Cross? what was the point? If God is going to choose for us, why send His only Son to die for our sins so we could be saved? care to explain?
Explain the logic of God chosing for us, yet sending His only Son to die for our sins? If God chose for you and me whether we go to Heaven or Hell.....what the point of Jesus Christ dyong on the Cross? ADDRESS THIS PINT through logic.....c'mon! explain! There you go again, giving God limitations, the limitations of being illogical and irrational. Oh how many limitations you put on God. Aren't you ashamed of yourself? oh ooops, sorry I know the answer, you are not well versed in theology or have the logic to understand what I am talking about, thus you will not be embarrassed.
»→ The doctrines of men
June 1, 2008 - 10:36 ET by Cool ArrowColo 2:8 (KJV) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Messiah.
Hey fut! Want some more Scripture?
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them (Ex. 20:4)
That's pretty simple. Don't make statues and pray before them!!
Strange your church has rearranged the Ten Commandments to skip over this one. (even though the pope and all his minions could not delete it).
You just can't allow the Bible to say what it means and mean what it says. If it isn't mentally manipulated by "great thinkers" you reject it.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Fut,
June 1, 2008 - 16:11 ET by tracheostomyFut: My question to you is, do you love your religion more than you love God?
This is nothing more than a variant of "do you still beat your wife?"
Pathetic. I simply believe that Divine revelation doesn't need the propping up or extensive debate that the RCC puts into it without settling anything. Yet I'll answer your question regardless.
My God speaks through His word, and He doesn't need mediators to filter it according to their non-biblical agenda.
Fut: My question to you is, do you love yourself, your theology more than you love God?
My
theology is my direct access to God through scripture and prayer. It is
not dependent upon any self-appointed priests or mediators, but rather
God's revelation and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Now then, you'll jump on this and scream, "Yes you do, PJ!" But you always miss (either
deliberately or through your own ignorance) that the last word is not
with man, but with scripture.
That's it. Every instruction, teaching,
opinion, and interpretation I hear from men about the Bible (regardless
of denomination) stands or falls on. . .the Bible. Period. If it fails
to line up, then I reject it. This means that I can agree with a Roman
Catholic if we take it straight to what the Bible says. What's wrong
with that? You can bring all the official RCC interpretation you want,
but if it's not there then it's just not there. What's wrong with using
the Bible as a bridge?
Fut: You keep on claiming that
you love us all...(oh, how dramatic), yet your actions prove otherwise.
Your actions betray you and show you as a liar.
Then why do
I keep coming back to appeal to you? Your hit & run accusations are
tiresome. My actions are consistent and can either include you or not
if you choose. It's purely dependent on the tactics you choose. I think
you're just playing to the audience without anything to actually back
it. Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and
clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is
neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand.
I can do no other. God help me. Amen.
Fut: I have told
you many times, great, you can spew out verbatum the Bible from Gensis
to Revelation...great, good for you. Now do what is REALLY HARD! and
LIVE THE BIBLE!
How can you live what you don't even know in
the first place? ANSWER THAT! You state clearly and continually that
you rely in blind faith on the church (people) to have the last word on
God for you. For you, the RCC is your substitute brain. You cannot
think for yourself without direction from the collective. Sure, you can
do it with politics, but not religion.
Fut: what you
have always failed to see is that YOUR PRIDE, the FACT that you believe
you are better versed than others in Christian Theology and in the
Bible is your down fall.
I am totally within my rights to
boast in the Lord and in His revealed word. One minute, you yourself
tell me that I am more well-versed than you in Christian Theology and
in the Bible, then later on you state that I merely believe I am better
versed than others in Christian Theology and in the Bible. Pick an
opinion and stick with it!!!
You cannot accuse me of dependence
on throwing verses at one time, and then self-reliance at another. This
is a non-sequitur on your part, Fut. You're not thinking again. Either
the proof I rely on outside of myself is true or it isn't. Therefore,
your enemy is the Bible itself; not me.
Fut: I told
you, St. Paul and St. Peter had some deep, deep disagreements and they
would get upset at each other, but at the end, they knew how to LIVE
the BIBLE and they TRULY loved each other and they DID NOT ALLOW their
pride to get on their way. Learn to Love how St. Paul and St. Peter
did, learn to Love how Jesus Christ loved and loves.
But
one apostle had to back down after being rebuked. One understood the truth of
the rebuke and didn't accuse Paul of pride, hate, lies, etcetera. Why didn't Peter pull rank on Paul, huh?
Fut: Stop preaching so much and lead by example. Stop preaching so much and show us all how a true Christian lives.
You first.
You claim to hold the true doctrine anyway. How can I do what you say if I don't have the truth?
Fut: The
early Christians were able to conquer the Roman Empire, not through
wars, but through example. They rarely preached the Bible to outsiders,
yet somehow, through their love of their fellow man they conquered the
Roman Empire.
Wrong! Read Matt 24:14! The gospel relies on the preaching of it! Your naive assertion flies in the face of the Great Commission and contradicts history! The Word of God and the revelation of Jesus Christ were both preached
to others as per the orders given by Christ before His ascension into
Heaven. Your "somehow" there leaves a mystical gap so wide, you could
drive a truck through it!
Fut: Can you honestly say
that your way of trying to convert others to your warped theology and
religion would have conquered the Roman Empire?
St. Paul
(also a self-described preacher in 2 Tim 1:11) did it all the time! He
reasoned and debated with others daily in the marketplace with the
Skeptics, Stoics, Jews, Epicureans and pagan Romans of his day. He
personally mentored Timothy (a teacher/preacher) and told him to do
what Futbol? What? What? To preach the word.
"I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and
out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and
teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound
doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their
ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be
watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an
evangelist, fulfill your ministry." 2 Tim 4:1-5
You
sir, urge others as well as yourself to turn aside from the preaching
of God's word. You're hanging yourself on your own words, and I'm
spending all this time telling you to quit while you're ahead. My
ministers are secondary to my relationship with God and his word. Yours
are not.
Fut: Do you think that your condescending
manner, your pride would have conquered the Roman Empire? You can only
answer this, however, if you can't convince people on a simple forum,
how would you convince and Empire. Think about it.
*thinking*
See above. The Empire took years to "convince" as you say, and many
laid their lives down for it. Why'd they die Fut? Because the message
that was preached was offensive to them. What about you, Fut? Do you
find it offensive? It's only a condescending manner if you feel you're
truly equal to that message. You keep trying to substitute me
personally in the place of the message that I present. Dirty pool old
man. You have a choice to make. Oppose the message, or surrender to
what I have given myself over to as well.
Fut: Repent?
HA! Honestly, I feel like I am in some evangelists television show,
Trach has his hand against my forehead and he is demanding that I
repent. Oh please, so dramatic, so ridiculous.
To repent = to turn away. No drama here. I am completely serious.
Fut: Sorry my friend, no need to repent. I hold THE TRUTH, why would I repent for holding THE TRUTH? care to explain?
Because your truth is continually contradicted and opposed by God's word.
Fut: I
also find it amusing that you would claim that I put mediators between
me and God, yet you constantly, constantly have thrown names at me of
theologians that I should read that have helped you, sadly enough, come
to your McDonalds menu religion. Hmmmm.....I wonder who has the
mediators? look in the mirror Trach. Oh wait, they guide you, right?
See above. One gives you the fish; the other teaches you how to fish. Can I make it any more simple than that?
Fut: Funny
enough Trach, what would happen if you did not follow the rules, laws,
canon, of the current religion you belong to? oh, that's right, you
would not be a member of that religion, right?
Correct.
I'd also be in direct violation of scripture, which comes before the
rules, laws, and canon. Your's is the reverse. Saying that I don't
understand this is merely "say so" on your part.
Fut: Can
you be a Baptist, an Evangelical, an Anglican Church member, a member
of your religion if you do not convert to these religions and decide to
follow their rules, their beliefs? of course not! Have these religions,
has YOUR religion not set forth a set of beliefs, rules, laws, canons
that must be followed in order to be a member for your religion? YES!
Regardless
of the denomination, either the Bible takes priority, or the doctrines
of men take the throne. Of course, no church was a success that
ever openly admitted "doctrines of men" with a flashing neon sign above
their door. The lie is always more subtle that way.
Your faith is not
exegetical, but rather eisegetical. You can claim the same source, but
what you do with it is another thing entirely. Purely eisegetical. You
don't deal with your own sources in an honest manner. This is why I can
hear the distant voice of St. Augustine crying underneath six feet of Catholic loopholes, exceptions, and clauses!
Fut:
Furthermore, if we are all priests, as Protestants claim, why then have
religions, why do Protestants have ministers, why even read St.
Augustine or any other Christian theologian used by Protestants?
Because
you're asking the question based on your eisegetical church ranking
structure. All believers are priests, and then some serve in the
ministry in order to create more ministers, but not to continually hold rank over them during their lifetime.
"And
when the ten heard it, they were greatly displeased with the two
brothers. But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the
rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great
exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And
whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— just as
the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His
life a ransom for many." Matt 20:24-26
Does this not apply
to the other 10 (including Peter) as well as to John and James? So then
the RCC turns around and, through the wonderful power of eisegesis,
ignores Jesus completely and then elevates Peter to the level that
Zebedee's mother sought for her sons. Fut, your priesthood serves in name only.
They are a ruling authority with the final word on your doctrine and
you are a slave to them. This is not so with my ministers, who welcome
and even encourage disagreement as long as the final resolutions rest
upon scripture alone. When I have a question, they always-always point
the way to the scripture. They never resort to an argument from
authority fallacy, or "because I said so" explanation. They encourage
me and teach me to feed myself.
"For though by this time
you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first
principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and
not solid food." Hebrews 5:12
That was to an entire
community of believers! You sir, are enslaved to a system that forces
you to live in a state of perpetual immaturity!
Fut: If we
all have are priests, shouldn't we all, in our lifetime, come to the
same conclusions as the great Christian Theologians?
YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! Finally, you're starting to figure it out! They were human beings just like us with less than half the tools at their disposal!!! Stop making them out to be something more than they really are! Given the current population, odds are that there are more than a dozen New Augustine's alone running around debating heretics right this very moment! Hallelujah!
Shawn: Serious question., half joking. How many words can you type in one minute?
45-50 WPM. On a good day. When I'm not double-checking my sources or verifying the sources of others.
Futbol: You
do not understand the Roman Catholic Theology on this matter. The
Church teaches and shows that God is NOT surprised. I even explained
above. No one can surprise God. Do you read what I post? wow!!!
In name only. The system of your explanation plainly demonstrates otherwise, because the choice lies with man.
Fut's God (at the beginning of time; looking through His crystal ball):
Wow! Futbol chose Me! How wonderful! Good thing I'm sitting all the way
back here at the beginning of time, so that I can claim that I knew it
beforehand! I'd better keep watching here, just in case he commits a
mortal sin or something.
The problem is you don't even have
assurance of your so-called "choice." You violate one doctrine through
your semi-Pelagianism, and at the same time you damage the Biblical
doctrine of assurance. I'm doing you a favor by showing you that you
can have that assurance and that abundant life.
Futbol: I
have proven more than enough times how you twist and twist Bible verses
and words to mean what you want them to mean so you can justify your
religious beliefs.
You mean by merely saying "twist" about
a million times over and over for dramatic effect? That's not proof. I
cite the verse and all you do is claim, "That's your interpretation,"
without even providing an alternate interpretation or even another
verse that is violated through my interpretation. All you have is your
unsupported claims and accusations.
Fut: You want
another example? How you read things that I gave you and somehow you
twisted it all to mean that the Church was semi-Pelegian.....when you
made this claim I was like WHAT?! holy smokes this guy really knows how
to twist words and give them meaning that do not mean what he believes
they mean.
LOL. Your subjective; emotional "WHAT?!" reactions count as proof?
Fut: Or
how you say....well the Church may say that it is not Pelegian or
Semi-Pelegian, but you will find they are. eh? what twisted logic is
this from you? The Church is NOT Pelegian or semi-Pelegian. The Church
teaches that God is NOT surprised by our choices, He knows everything
we have done, everything we are doing and everything we will do. No
surprises for God.
See above.
Fut: Get it?
understand it? I can guarantee you that you will come back with some
twisted logic to fit your own needs. Just wait and see.
The
choice still relies upon man. No twisting necessary. It's right there
in your systematic theology.
Therefore logically, your "choice" = a
work. Thus, you follow a religion of merit or works and not the
Christianity of the Bible that clearly states "no works." Period.
It
doesn't matter if you're a fan of the Pope, Jerry Falwell, or Charles Freakin' Finney!
I'm pretty equal opportunity about this gross error of pride in the
doctrine of salvation. We would have had the same conflict if you
weren't a member of the RCC. Get it? That has been, and continues to be,
my assertion all along, and you can't wiggle out of it.
Futbol: OMG!!!!
for claiming that you are well versed on St. Augustine, you really show
how you do not know him, his writings or the corrections that he made
to his early writings. I proved this statement a long time ago either
in the Woodshed or the private exchanges, but it was done.
You
failed because (a.) you copy-pasted Scott Windsor as your Augustinian
redactor. That's bad enough. But then, Windsor's own argument
deliberately violates Augustine's quotes (b.) and places a false dating
upon them (c.). In the thread you refer to, you are clearly endorsing a
Michael Moore-style apologist and a cheat. The comedy really begins
when it's apparent that neither you, nor Windsor actually realize that
your source material is endorsed by leading Calvinists both on the
hosting site and in the introduction to the material you rely on (d.)!
http://newsbusters.o...
Do
you have anyone else; anywhere else you can rely on? Because this was
all you had and it's downright hilarious. Probably my fave sub-thread
to this day. And your continuing to stand by it just makes it funnier.
Fut:
As for your claim that the Church is somehow a nanny Church that I
allow to come between God and I. Oh please man, seriously, more
twisting of my words from you. You come to erroneous conclusions
through your twisted logic! This if further prove of how you twist
words to mean what you want them to mean.
LOL! Merely saying,
"twist-twist-twist" a million times and sincerely wishing it were so, does not
magically make it so.
"Twist-twist-twist" is nothing but Futbol's
magic words, "a-la peanut-butter-sandwiches!!!"
http://www.youtube.c...
Mekka-lekka-high, mekka-heiney-ho!!!
http://www.youtube.c...
Fut: The problem that you have is that you can't understand the concept of living outside of time....well neither can I.
Augustine states that God's grace is assuredly "not grace if any merits precede it." The merits of "choice" that God passively foresees are the principal engine of faith in your system.
Fut: God can't be surprised, but God will never force Himself unto us.
Where is that written?
Fut: You are too blind to understand this.
Because you and your pals made it up.
Fut:
If God does make the choices for us, what was the point of Jesus Christ
dying on the Cross? what was the point? If God is going to choose for
us, why send His only Son to die for our sins so we could be saved?
care to explain?
Because the belief on man's part isn't
enough. Someone had to pay the price for the wages of sin (daeth).
Therefore, Christ died on behalf of those who believed ibn Him. He
didn't simply die for everyone that ever lived. His sacrifice covers
only those who adhere to it in faith. Your answer to your question is
the doctrine of substitutional atonement itself. Yet some will reject
Christ and His atonement. Therefore, Christ died only through believers
and the world will be saved through that remnant that was foreordained
not by man or his will alone, but by God. The power to make the choice
of belief is given by the unknown will of the Holy Spirit according to
John 3. The Holy Spirit moves some to take the sacrifice provided by
Christ in faith. A faith not of themselves, but a gift of God and not
of works, lest any man should boast.
Fut: Explain the
logic of God chosing for us, yet sending His only Son to die for our
sins? If God chose for you and me whether we go to Heaven or
Hell.....what the point of Jesus Christ dyong on the Cross? ADDRESS
THIS PINT through logic.....c'mon! explain!
See above. In
your pride, you never even thought I was capable of an answer according
to both logic and the word. And by the way, I never said
predenstination was double for Hell as it was in Heaven. That's you forcing your words into my mouth again. The doctrine of original sin that you reject in practice makes Hell our responsibility; not God's. We only have ourselves to blame. Hell is not a gift and we make the choice of Hell when we commit sin. Only Christ's perfect sacrifice can cover it.
Fut: There you go again, giving God limitations, the limitations of being illogical and irrational. Oh how many limitations you put on God. Aren't you ashamed of yourself? oh ooops, sorry I know the answer, you are not well versed in theology or have the logic to understand what I am talking about, thus you will not be embarrassed.
What limitations have I put on God that are not already in scripture?
Can you accuse me of "limiting God" if I state that God cannot lie?
God does have some limits, the question is as to what those limits are.
So then, how do you explain the limits you place upon him as above?
All you have is some mystical ". . .you can't understand the concept of living outside of time....well neither can I."
Stop failing and think for a change.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
»→ Wow Trake
June 1, 2008 - 16:25 ET by Cool ArrowYou've got the patience of Job. Excellent analysis.
I wonder sometimes though about something you brought up.
"Why didn't Peter pull rank on Paul, huh?" Doesn't it seem later popes (if one accepts Peter as pope) pulled rank on Peter and referred to Jews as perfidious?
"Bring me something better, something worth my IQ of 160." - futbolisgreat1
»→ fut?
June 1, 2008 - 14:09 ET by Cool ArrowTradition is ALSO the Word of God. - futbolisgreat1
Which Scapular do you wear now (brown, black, green, red)? What special power has been blessed into it?
Have you ever bowed before a statue and prayed to the saint it represents to intercede on your behalf?
The "thinkers" of your church have polluted it and you are confused.
They shall go to confusion together that are makers of idols. (Isaiah 45:16)
Cool Arrow, Nope, sorry
June 1, 2008 - 14:32 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
Nope, sorry you have it wrong. I DO NOT PRAY TO SAINTS, I pray THROUGH! saints and the Virgin Mary so they interced for me with God.
get it? Once again, I do not pray TO saints, I pray THROUGH saints.
It is no different than when you are growing up and you want to get something, but you know that if you ask your father directly he will say no, but if you ask him through your mother, he will soften up and say yes. Get it?
Since the saints and the Virgin Mary are already in Heaven, they have the ability to interced for me. Much like my mother could intercede for me with my dad.
and.....
Cool Arrow, I do not kneel in front of a statue of the Virgin Mary, of a Saint, of our Lord and pray TO that statue. Cool Arrow, just like I take out pictures from time to time to remember those that I love here on Earth, the statues in the RCC play the same role as pictures that we all take on a daily basis. Why is it so hard for you to understand this? Well, obviously you CAN'T understand it because if you did, well guess what, then you would finally realize how wrong you are. Furthermore, those statues are there to honor (not worship, very different) the Virgin Mary, Saints, etc.
Don't you have a photo album of your wedding? why did you create it? or why do you keep it? when you open it and look at the people in the pictures, are you not remembering them? Don't you honor your wife and family members by keeping a special album of your wedding day? Why would you do this for your wife, family, friends and NOT FOR GOD?! Is your family more important than God? Is your wife, your kids more important than God?
So, you will create things to remember your earthly, human beings, but you will not do the same for God? Why is God less for you than your family, than your wife, kids, etc?
Cool Arrow, the RCC fobids the worship of idols, it forbids the worship of any type of statue. Get it? The statues are there to remind us of our Lord Jesus Christ, they are there to remind us of the Virgin Mary, Saints, etc. They are not there to be worship.
Once again, your problem is that you believe that we kneel to the statues, no Cool Arrow, I kneel infront of God and God alone. I ask for the saints and the Virgin Mary to intecede for me, to help me out. I do NOT worship the Virgin Mary and I do NOT worship any Saints or the body of any incorruptable.
Furthermore, look up the meaning of the word veneration. It doesn't mean worship. Honestly Cool Arrow, your attacks are 2nd grade attacks on the Church. They are old and tyring and you are unwilling to understand or more like YOU CAN'T admit to understanding what I am saying.
No, the "thinkers" of your religion, which you refuse to say what it is, have polluted your believes. As I told you, it is quite sad.
The only person confused here is you, since you constantly assert things about the Church, how it demands that people pray, etc, etc which are NOT true.
You do not have a clue about the Church, yet you try to make yourself be an authority of RCC theology so you can attack it.
Cool Arrow, you are NOT an expert on RCC theology as you have proven time and time again.
For whatever reason, you believe you are and you constantly mispeak about the Church. You constantly make assertions about the Church that are completly, completly wrong.
Incredible that you would believe or assert that I pray, or that any RCC prays to saints. Wow!! shows how confused about the RCC you are.
By the way, will you answer....what religion do you belong to?
»→ but fut
June 1, 2008 - 14:43 ET by Cool ArrowNow you're really cracking me up. Be careful with those ulcers.
BTW, you hide your intellectual prowess very well.
"Bring me something better, something worth my IQ of 160." - futbolisgreat1
Cool Arrow, So, you have
June 1, 2008 - 15:08 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
So, you have every right to put me down, my Faith, my religion, but God help anyone that dares treat you like you treat those you disagree with, eh?
C'mon Cool Arrow, it is not me the one that is hiding what religion they belong to.
Why don't you be man enough and let us all know what religion you belong to....what are you afraid of?
Just remember, I will reply to your posts with the same condescention, mannerism, insults that you respond to. If you are nice and intellectually honest, I will return in kind, if not, I will treat you like dirt. Get it? Respect and you shall be respected.
You know the problem with you, Cool Arrow, that just like Trach, you refuse to use the logic and brain that God gave you. You allow the "thinkers" of whatever religion you belong to do the thinking for you. Then, you turn around, and make the claim that it is us in the RCC that are doing what you and your "thinkers" are doing. AFter this, you become a deranged lunatic if you are called on your lies, distortions, half-truths and all lies about the Church.
Cool ARrow, anyone that claims that Roman Catholics pray to sains shows their immense ignorance, lack of education and lack of understanding about the Church. How sad that you are such a deceiver and try to make others believe that you are an authority of RCC theology, thus you have the authority to criticize it and attack it. how truly sad and intellectually dishonest of you.
Anyway, be man enough and tell everyone here, in public, what religion you belong to.
»→ It's no secret, fut
June 1, 2008 - 15:29 ET by Cool ArrowI'm Pentecostal. I don't pray in tongues, though I'm not averse to it if I should experience it. Not so fast there, fut. Wouldn't want you condemning many Catholics who claim they speak in tongues.
It's really pretty simple. I believe the Bible is God's Word. I listen to preachers, but have a duty to search the Scripture to show those things they say are true.
I'd rather not blindly embrace the doctrines of men (or other beings) ever again.
You asked for Scripture. I gave it. You made excuses for choosing the musings of men rather than God's Word. Your quarrel is with God, not me.
"Bring me something better, something worth my IQ of 160." - futbolisgreat1
Cool -Pentecostals are even more discriminated against
June 1, 2008 - 15:54 ET by Dee Bunkin the media than Catholics. There are more stories on Catholics so the volume against them is more, but they are much harsher on Pentecostals and other Evangelicals when they do talk about them.
Can't you understand how fut feels? Doesn't it make you mad when the media misrepresents your faith?
I don't want to get into a religious argument with either of you, but can't you at least come together on the fact that the media discriminates against all Christians except for the most liberal one's? Catholics, Pentecostals and Evangelicals and other Born Again religions have a lot more in common than they do differences. Most differences are in style and not core beliefs.
I was raised Catholic but in a very liberal Catholic church and didn't go to Catholic school. I've spent a lot of my adult life searching and visiting different churches and have been to Pentecostal and other Evangelical ones, Lutheran and many other Protestant one's and I still haven't found what I think is right but respect them all.
There is a great Book that everyone who has a problem with the Catholic Religion should read called "Why Do Catholics Do that?" I learned so much more from that then I did being raised Catholic.
Fut explains things really well. We've all been brainwashed against the Catholic church (even us Catholics) and we shouldn't let liberals and the media have power because the more successful they are with Catholics, the more time they will have to come after your religion.
When a religion starts trying to force their doctrine on people with suicide bombing then it's fair to criticize without understanding, but if no one is forcing their religion on you, you should be able to respect it. Liberals don't.
»→ Dee
June 1, 2008 - 16:08 ET by Cool ArrowI guess I was just letting the mentally superior Futbolisgreat1 toy with me.
Can't apologize for rejecting the notion that the doctrines of men (tradition) is on a par with God's Word.
But I suppose "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" does apply in the sense you present.
"Bring me something better, something worth my IQ of 160." - futbolisgreat1
Right Cool - I don't expect you to agree or apologize
June 1, 2008 - 16:22 ET by Dee Bunkjust to understand that the media misrepresents all Christians and that his religion is attacked more frequently. Their favorite target is Catholics only because they are the biggest group. The media don't understand Catholics or any Christians.
I think you and fut would probably agree most of the time when the subject wasn't Catholics. He does a good job of sticking up for Christians in general also. You guys just got off on the wrong fut (corny I know ; )).
Pretty cool, Cool Arrow!
June 1, 2008 - 18:29 ET by candanceMe too.
Trach and Cool pretty much summed up a lot of my ideas. We have pastors and ministers who serve as mentors but use no kind of canon outside the Bible. All sermons, advice, and interpretations must be persuaded through a Biblical source.
One of the big differences between Catholics and Prots is the issue of Holy Tradition. Cool's assertion is that Holy Tradition places human understanding on a level plane with the Word of God. Fut's assertion is that these humans are endowed with spiritual knowledge to accentuate the Bible.
(since Fut has insisted I'm not allowed to speak here unless I debate the issues at hand, I guess I will)
I'm reminded of Paul's words in 2 Timothy 3
All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is useful for doctrine, reproof, correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the men of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for good work.
Also Jesus speaking in Matthew 24
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My Word will never pass away.
These two scriptures speak to me that the Scripture is sufficient to teach us what we need to know and that no human teaching can stand next to God's word. The doctrine of Holy Tradition seems to imply that God forgot a few things in His Word and must now rely on humans to be His messengers.
Feel free to correct me where I'm wrong but that's the way my retarded little Pentecostal brain figures it.
Candance, Well thanks for
June 1, 2008 - 18:57 ET by futbolisgreat1Candance,
Well thanks for refraining from writing about Trach, Cool and me. It is a silly fight between them two and me. We'll figure it out.
Ok, let's get to the point.
You, Cool Arrow and Trach either cannot, or refuse to understand this.
The Pople, The Bishops, the Priests, the Doctors, Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church cannot make a mistake in matters of Faith and Doctrine, why? it is NOT because it is their words that they speak, rather it is God, the Holy Spirit speaking through them.
This is why they can't make a mistake, in matters of Faith and Doctrine only. Everything esle, they are fallible.
Holy Tradition was put into place by God, by the Holy Spirit, not by men.
This is what the RCC teachings and believes.
Once you understand this, it makes a lot more sense, I hope, even if you think that I am wrong, why I say that the Word of God, the Bible is at the same level as Holy Tradition. Also, not to mention that all of Holy Tradition is based on Scripture.
Get it? For me to say that Holy Tradition is less than Scripture is to say that Scripture, the Word of God is nothing, not worth anything.
For example, Cool Arrow keeps on bringing up the Immaculate Conception. These theology, this Doctrine, this RCC Theological Doctrtine is based on Scripture and Scripture alone. St. Gabriel's words the Virgin Mary. Jesus' dying words to St. John and the Virgin Mary at the foot of the cross, etc, etc. It is Holy Tradition based on Scripture, get it?
Now we can argue the meaning of those words by Jesus and St. Gabriel, but the RCC does not base its Holy Tradition on thin air and the word of mere, mortal, sinful men or women.
Not picking a fight, no insults, just trying to explain my point of view. Not claiming that anyone is right and wrong.
fair enough fut
June 1, 2008 - 19:20 ET by candanceSometimes we all let our tempers go overboard, me included. I didn't take anything in your post as being rude.
I'll try to engage you without being too annoying.
I'm greatly interested in this topic. I understand where you're coming from, believe me, that if a teaching comes from God it's still God's word. That makes sense. But I have some reservations.
Just because someone says they've heard from God doesn't necessarily make it so, which I'm sure we both agree on. So how do you know when God is really in it? When two people claim superior knowledge of a certain subject (see Augustine vs Pelagian) who decides which way is correct?
Also, when the church decides that something is divine inspiration, does it apply to every believer as official canon? Say the RCC makes a new doctrinal point that I feel in my gut is off base. Does that mean I'm being insubordinate?
One more question: why must God continue to explain Himself anyway? Why is the Scripture not enough?
Not asking to be obtuse or to play gotcha. I'm curious since my church doesn't talk about stuff like this.
Candance: why must God
June 1, 2008 - 21:48 ET by futbolisgreat1Candance: why must God continue to explain Himself anyway? Why is the Scripture not enough?
Futbol: GREAT QUESTION!!
Scripture IS enough, but our understanding of it takes a while, unfortunatetly. We are, but mere humans.
To take the example of the Immaculate Conception, this truth has always been, I belive, the RCC believes (even though ALL Protestants will disagree) that the Immaculate Conception truth is in Scripture. It just took a long time to make sure that it was right, get it? The truth of Immaculate Conception has been taught in the Roman Catholic Church since at least the 10th or 11th, I think, if not the 9th or 13th Century, that's when the firsts writings about it start to emerge ( I believe that through word of mouth it was taught earlier, but that is my personal believe).
Believe it or not, the RCC is very, very slow (and it is a criticism by some RCC members of the Church) to finally declare something an infallible Truth. In fact, since the Immaculate Conception Doctrine, I believe that there has been no infallible truth since passed by the Church, that is since about the late 1850s. The Church is very cautious.
Let me explain it this way....we know today that atoms are not the smallest particles in the universe, but for centuries this is what humanity believed, right? Does this mean that the atom was the smallest particle since that is what humans new at the moment? Of course not, there were subatomic particles all the time, we just didn't know, our science, our knowledge was just not there. Same thing with the Truth. There Truths of God and His family and Heaven, Hell, good and bad, etc, etc are all there, they already exist, they have always existed, but since we are limited by our humanity, it takes us time to figure it out, just like it took scientist time to figure out that the atom was not the smallest particle in the universe.
Another example, Jesus Christ has always been, is and will always bee the Son of God, right? However, Jesus Christ did not reveal His Son until 2,000 years ago, right? He didn't reveal His son from the beginning of time, but does this mean that Jesus Christ became the Son of God 2,000 years ago? Of course not, all that it means that we humans figured it out just a mere 2,000 years ago, but Jesus Christ HAS always been, IS and WILL always be the Son of God, regardless of what we know at any point in time.
Does this explain it a bit more or did I complicate it more than I should?
futbal
June 2, 2008 - 08:39 ET by candanceDoes this explain it a bit more or did I complicate it more than I should?
It's always hard to explain theological points with earthly metaphors, not matter which denom you belong to. I've tried to explain some of my beliefs to my in laws and they usually walk away scratching their heads. :-)
So from what I've understood you saying...Holy Tradition and Church canon is when God allows a higher level of understanding for His Word and once this is achieved, it becomes the Church's official interpretation of that scripture.
I don't agree with arriving at Immaculate Conception, BUT I respect your theory behind it.
Though in the future, I wouldn't use the metaphors you brought up. For the science of the atom, I'd say that's apples and oranges because God never told us either way, we were left to our own devices on that one.
As for your insistence that Jesus was not revealed until Joseph and Mary, I find that odd since (according to Paul) Abraham knew about the promise and rested his salvation on it. Also, the book of Daniel recounts the story of Nebudchanezzer seeing the Son of God inside the furnace.
infallibility - footnotes
June 1, 2008 - 20:00 ET by ThermistoclesJust wanted to add a footnote on Catholic teaching on infallibility. Folks that are really interestied in understanding what the Church teaches, might want to check this link for a fuller explaination.
http://www.newadvent...
Thermis
June 1, 2008 - 20:03 ET bymaybe you can do a forum topic on this?
Support our Troops
yeah yeah!
June 1, 2008 - 20:06 ET by candanceThat would be awesome cause I started reading that website and it was like deciphering Chinese.
»→ Certainly intended candance
June 1, 2008 - 20:15 ET by Cool ArrowI tried reading it also, and it is conspicuously, if not deliberately, vague.
I doubt that by reading it whether any of us could conclude of a certainty the teaching on birth control is considered infallible. An interesting thought if the restrictions are relaxed.
The Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are the only "settled" matters presented "infallibly.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool Arrow, Did you
June 1, 2008 - 21:30 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
Did you honestly find the site vague? really?
I think it is quite to the point and it shows exactly where the Theology, teachings, Doctrine of the Church comes from. It gives you exactly what part of the Bible the Doctrine of the Church is based on.
As for contraception, just like ordination of women to become priests, I can assure you that the Church will never relax on it.
But anway, the beauty of the newadvent catholic encyclopedia online is that you go to the search engine in it, type what you want to find out about and boom! you get it and it goes deep into the why and the Scripture that the Tradition, Doctrine, etc is based on.
honest to God futbal
June 1, 2008 - 21:38 ET by candanceI'm not used to reading stuff in Catholic jargon. It looks very comprehensive but I don't think I can get the most out of it just by reading it.
Wanna take it to the woodshed?
Therm, Fut, CA, Can
June 1, 2008 - 21:47 ET byi have prepared a place specially for this:
http://newsbusters.org/forums/woodshed/infallibility-forum-thermistocles-21650
please continue there
Candance, Ok, let's go to
June 1, 2008 - 21:52 ET by futbolisgreat1Candance,
Ok, let's go to the woodshed....
»→ yes, fut
June 1, 2008 - 21:41 ET by Cool ArrowIt is definitely vague, and appears deliberately vague.
And though you "can assure me" on the contraception issue, you seem to have deliberately left out whether it is an infallible teaching.
Would you like to try again? Since it's "to the point"
You forget I don't have your IQ of 160. (unless you count that silly online test that keeps popping up)
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool Arrow, let's take it
June 1, 2008 - 21:53 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
let's take it to the woodshed.
What Brand of Pentecostal?
June 1, 2008 - 18:35 ET by ThermistoclesLooks like there are multiple traditions of Pentecostals out there and they all have a different take on Doctrine. There's one variation that subscribes to Oneness Theology which looks to be at odds with the Doctrine of the Trinity. They all have the same Bibles and have the similar historical origins in early 20th century American revivals.
Don't keep us guessing. Which version of Pentecostal? COGIC, AIC, UPCI, P.A.W, etc?
can't speak for Cool
June 1, 2008 - 18:42 ET by candanceOnly speaking for myself, I'm Trinity Pentecostal Holiness, most commonly found with the Assembly of God or the Foursquare Church.
Looking at veneration and
June 1, 2008 - 16:18 ET by tracheostomyLooking at veneration and worship by their very definitions is blurring the line enough. Anyone can look it up and see how dangerously close they are. How do I know you're not doing it "as to a deity?" You're expressly told not to do it, period!
It's the "I don't really mean it that way" defense!
Furthermore, in order to pray through somethng, you much come to it. You must stand before it before going through it.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
»→ Brown Scapular
June 1, 2008 - 17:25 ET by Cool Arrow"Whosoever Dies Clothed in this Scapular Shall Not suffer Eternal Fire."
This is Mary's Promise made July 16, 1251 to Saint Simon Stock.
A rabbits foot for the afterlife?
"Bring me something better, something worth my IQ of 160." - futbolisgreat1
Trach: Furthermore, in
June 1, 2008 - 19:25 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach: Furthermore, in order to pray through somethng, you much come to it. You must stand before it before going through it.
Futbol: Well, if you think with human limiations, yes. But you must think outside of human limitation. Besides, what is wrong with coming to a Saint and asking for help? what is wrong with running to the Virgin Mary and asking for help?
We Roman Catholics do not take the Bible literally as you and Cool Arrow do.
I do not believe for a second and neither does the Roman Catholic Church teach or more importantly does the Bible teach that we can't speak to dead people, or ask for help from the Saints.
And it is not my believe, but the truth.
As for veneration and worship, my man, there is an incredible difference between the two. Yes, and you MUST start by defining both words. I do not worship any Saint, or the Virgin Mary, but I do honor them.
I only worship God and God alone.
Believe me, take it at face value and do not analyze it more than what it is.
»→ fut
June 1, 2008 - 19:36 ET by Cool ArrowI politely disagree.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Fut,
June 2, 2008 - 05:58 ET by tracheostomyFutbol: Well, if you think with human limiations, yes. But you must
think outside of human limitation.
No. Because the main subject is our prayers. The prayers of limited human beings. Thinking outside of our own human limitations is dishonesty to ourselves and empty mysticism on your part. Even scripture states that we do not pray as we ought.
Therefore, in order to pray through, you must first step to and then bow to. Simple. Any object moving through another must first come to it. In this case, you stand before, kneel, and then send the prayer through while you bow toward.
Fut: Besides, what is wrong with coming
to a Saint and asking for help? what is wrong with running to the
Virgin Mary and asking for help?
1. The Bible clearly states that on Earth. . .faith, hope, and love abide. But the greatest of these is love.
So, what's that got to do with what you said?
2. There is no faith or hope in heaven. Only love. In heaven, we will have nothing left to hope for, because our hope will be fulfilled completely when the bridegroom arrives. Faith will no longer be needed either, because the book of Hebrews defines faith as the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.
3. Therefore, Mary has no need to make an appeal on your behalf. Nor is she able to. If she heard you prayer to her, through her, or sent in her general direction, she's the wrong target. The object of your hope is Christ, so therefore, why are you trying to curry favor with someone who is alleged to have more favor, when it is not done in faith toward Him directly?
4. It doesn't matter if the prayer is "to" or "through" Mary or a saint. It's a dead-letter office you're praying to. There is no heavenly bureaucracy. She can't appeal on your behalf, because the relationship you claim to have with Christ is only between you and Christ alone. . .the so-called object of your faith. So then why play around with an unbiblical mediator?
5. We agree that Mary is in heaven. Thus, she is no longer living a life of faith or hope. Therefore, she cannot pray or appeal on your behalf. Period. If you do not pray directly to Christ in faith, then logically, your faith is not directed to Him.
6. Conclusion? Your prayers to Mary or a saint, through Mary or a saint, or sent in the general direction of Mary or a saint are not heard, because they are not done in the faith. The mere act of praying to, through, or in the direction of a saint is not of faith. And whatever is not of faith. . .IS SIN (Romans 14:23).
7. The Bible does not lie! We can take Hebrews 4:16 literally and in faith! We bow before the omnipresent God in our hearts and none other. For if we bow to any other, at the very least there is an element of mistrust. There is a temptation that tells you, "Saint X here has more pull with the King than you do. So direct your prayer in that direction. He/She will then send it up the ladder." <--Truly an unsupported lie.
Fut: We Roman Catholics do not take the Bible literally as you and Cool Arrow do.
Your mistake is that you throw out the baby with the bathwater. Sure, you state the Bible can't be all literal (according to your argument from authority fallacy), but at the same time you must accept that the Bible isn't all symbolism either!
- A symbol has no meaning or point of existing without something for it to point toward. A symbol is dependent upon something else more substantial; more literal.
- Therefore, if the Bible is all symbolism, what do those symbols point toward? According to your definition, it would be nothing, because it would be all vague; empty symbolism.
- If you admit that the Bible contains some symbolism and the rest is literal, then you will come to a point where you will have to concede at least one of the verses I cite is true.
- By your accusation accordingly, if I cite any verses, then in all fairness, you must therefore tell me how they should be interpreted non-literally.
Therefore, what is the non-literal interpretation of anything I have previously written? If you cannot do this, or if you agree with the verses I cite, then you know I am honestly telling you the truth. I swear this to you as a fellow Christian. No spin. Just one bridge. Appeal to divine revelation and then allow the Holy Spirit to guide you.
Fut: I do not believe for a second and neither does the Roman Catholic
Church teach or more importantly does the Bible teach that we can't
speak to dead people, or ask for help from the Saints. And it is not my believe, but the truth.
It's not the truth. The prayers of the saints in Revelation are not the prayers of the dead in heaven. The heavenly host does not pray. When God is revealed in a vision to a prophet or an apostle, they are not praying, but speaking directly. The only other Biblical support is from Hebrews that speaks of the Old Testament saints as a "cloud of witnesses." They watch, but they do not intervene. Saul tried it with Samuel and was rebuked. Stop casting your vain; faithless prayers to the wind!
Fut: As for veneration and worship, my man, there is an incredible
difference between the two. Yes, and you MUST start by defining both
words. I do not worship any Saint, or the Virgin Mary, but I do honor
them.
Then why did you fail to actually follow through with the actual definitions? What are you afraid of?
Venerate: To regard with respect, reverence, or heartfelt deference. See synonyms at revere.
Worship: The Greek is rendered "to kiss toward," denoting reverence and devotion.
(a.) The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object. <--- Fut, do the ends justify the means? NO!!!
(b.) The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
(c.) Ardent devotion; adoration.
According to the Bible, there is only one mediator between God and Man (1 Timothy 2;5). The Bible has no other mediator.
Therefore, you're sending love, devotion, adoration, and reverence through someone else to Christ because for some reason, you doubt you can approach Him directly. This is not faith. This is sin.
Or else you are sending it directly to someone else other than Christ, which is rank idolatry. In any case, your actions are unbiblical, illogical, unfaithful, and truly horrific.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Please, no conflicts
June 1, 2008 - 14:45 ET by cheesegraterLet us Christians no go to war with one another until after we have tamed the muzzie.
lol cheese
June 1, 2008 - 14:58 ET by candanceha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
*falls out of chair and rolls around*
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Clearly,
June 1, 2008 - 17:55 ET by BlondeI have been reading this blog this weekend.
But I truly dislike what I see.
Shawn & Dee....in a huge disagreement. Cool & Fut also engaged in nastiness.
Hello....all.
What is it that we're all about?
Arguing, just for the sake of it? If that is the case...go find your little sister or brother.
I just find the entire idiocy to bring this site down about five levels....and I am disgusted by it.
Let us debate the issues....and the positions....and not take off on each other for being from a different point of view.
And finally....Noel? Noel? I know you are watching a great track meet. LOL. Hope it all was fine, fine, fine!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
I agree Blonde
June 1, 2008 - 18:05 ET by shawn228Please look at this thread. I made a lighthearted joke to Futbol. Dee came in and started with the insults.
She has had a serious chip on her shoulder for a few weeks now. So far she ways I am disrespectful, a disgusting creep and manipulative? Have you ever know me to be any of those things?
Remember when I first started on this board? I did not do very well. You taught three rules.
1st Try to debate as if you are trying to convince your boss about something and use facts instead of talking points.
2nd Admit it when you are wrong, you cannot win all the arguments.
3rd. Be respectful of others and don't suck up to anybody.
I have been trying to be respectful, but when I call her on something she dishes out an insult and launches false accusations. She has not always been this way, only the past few weeks or so.
Shawn - you won't let it go even though it's obvious you know
June 1, 2008 - 18:18 ET by Dee BunkWhat I'm talking about. You have even started changing your behavior and yet you still bring it up as if I were making things up. I told you I'd point out the activity when I saw it and not dwell on the past, something you are incapable of.
In this thread you were not disrespectful to fut you were disrespectful to me. Acting again as if I had no claims even though the last two time I brought up examples as you did them. In these two examples you retreated quickly from your rude behavior (unlike in the past).
So if you are going to bring things up like saying I don't back up my claims then you are going to keep getting it from me. And, in addition, I will continue to point out future instances. And actually maybe I will take the time to go over all the past bull since you keep saying I'm making false accusations.
Dee, I'd do the
June 1, 2008 - 18:20 ET by Free StinkerDee,
I'd do the scorecard, but then Shawn we really never let this go.
;-)
"Don't forget to vote this fall. Not for McCain, not ever, but there might be a Conservative Rep or Senator that Needs Your Vote" --Free Stinker
Hi Free! Nice to see a friendly face
June 1, 2008 - 18:28 ET by Dee BunkHe makes me crazy
Dee :-)
June 1, 2008 - 18:31 ET by Free StinkerHe makes me crazy
So, let's return the favor ;-)
Dee: 15
Shawn: 0
hi fs
June 1, 2008 - 18:34 ET by shawn228Thank you for withholding today. I am interested to see if Dee can back her points without insults.
Let what go?
June 1, 2008 - 18:37 ET by shawn228Perhaps you can explain to me what happenned on this thread. You said I was manipulative and disrespectful, even before I even responded to you. Furthermore you said I had no business in the thread.
I said you did exactly the same thing and you decided to launch a barage of insults. Did you have a problem with the lighthearted conversation I was having with candance and R1 as well? So your right, I don't see how I was disrespectful to you, I was just defending myself. You make it sound like I bring up stuff from months ago. You said details don't matter and the concept does, only one week ago. Has so much changed in one week?
Shawn do you really think people are that stupid or is it you?
June 1, 2008 - 18:38 ET by Dee BunkAre you that stupid?
here is what you said right here in this thread
You are so wrong fut because......ummm. I have no idea why your wrong,
I know absolutely nothing about this topic, but a liberal is going to
blamed for turning conservatives against each other anyway, so that was
just my cue :-)
You're going to sit here and claim that this wasn't directed at me?
Keep bringing it up and I will too. You know damn well I've given you examples and you keep playing dumb.
Actually Dee
June 1, 2008 - 18:55 ET by shawn228Your not the only one that has accussed me of that, but If say it was directed at you, then I guess it is fair to say in was partially directed at you.
You made the accusations of liberals trying to turn conservatives against each other which you have never backed up.
Don't want to go around and find examples. Fine no problem. If you want to do your female Leon impression and call people names and be a bully so be it.
Shawn, buddy
June 1, 2008 - 18:58 ET by BlondeCease and desist.
This is getting to be truly ugly.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde
June 1, 2008 - 18:59 ET by shawn228You got it :-)
Thanks, S.
June 1, 2008 - 19:07 ET by BlondeWe don't need ugliness here.
Have a great evening. :)
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Shawn, buddy...
June 1, 2008 - 18:48 ET by candanceCut your losses here. Not trying to take anyone's side, but I doubt that antagonizing Dee here will solve anything.
And yeah, no need to curry favor with Blonde.
But I don't think you've no right to engage in religious talks just because you don't know the Bible that well. Hanging around people who know something is the best way to get into it. If you have any questions I'm sure we'd be willing to "dumb it down" for you.
candance
June 1, 2008 - 19:05 ET by shawn228No problem, Some debates cannot be resolved no matter how much logic is used.
Thank you for agreeing I have a right as anyone to be on this thread.
Good Grief, S!
June 1, 2008 - 18:38 ET by BlondeI'm not your mom!
I know what I read here.
I'm glad you've taken the rules to heart...but seriously...I'm just not happy that my friends are beating the hell out of each other.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
what's going on around here???????????????????
June 1, 2008 - 19:03 ET byhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcmH1LdPNKA
Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.
Support our Troops
botg
June 1, 2008 - 19:07 ET by Free StinkerSo, I saw the first 15-20 seconds of the video.
I'm confused. What does that have to do with Female Priests?
"Don't forget to vote this fall. Not for McCain, not ever, but there might be a Conservative Rep or Senator that Needs Your Vote" --Free Stinker
free
June 1, 2008 - 19:09 ET bynot a thing it's commentary on the squabbling going on here
Support our Troops
botg... I watched the
June 1, 2008 - 19:11 ET by Clear thinkerbotg...
I watched the whole video, but cannot make the connection that you are. Maybe I'm just slow, so could you elaborate?
"Abstain from McCain"
clear thinker
June 1, 2008 - 19:20 ET bythe whole tenor of this thread has taken an ugly tone.
the song is about seeking common ground and not divisiveness which is what Paul did when going to the Greeks --- he started with their statue "to the unknown god"
i believe that those to who whom it is intended will understand, i don't think you were in it.
Support our Troops
Ok, I get it
June 1, 2008 - 19:22 ET by Clear thinkerOk, I get it now.
"Abstain from McCain"
♫ - botg
June 1, 2008 - 19:12 ET by Free StinkerAh. I get it now. ;-)
. . . we ♪ all post at ♫ Newsbusters, and ♪ that's the ♫ one thing we've ♫ got . . .
"Don't forget to vote this fall. Not for McCain, not ever, but there might be a Conservative Rep or Senator that Needs Your Vote" --Free Stinker
WOW!!! PEOPLE!!!!! What
June 1, 2008 - 19:14 ET by futbolisgreat1WOW!!! PEOPLE!!!!!
What is going on here...I have to agree with botg....
This has gotten way out of control. yes, and I have been a main culprit of it, not the only one, but a main perpatrator of this messy forum.
It seems that anyone that comes into this forum about Religion starts fighting with everyone.
Candance and me
Trach and me
Cool Arrow and me
Bigtimer and Candance,
Dee Bunk and Shawn228
Geez people at the end we are all children of God, yes Shawn228 including you.
The nice thing is that it is solid proof that we Conservatives are not group thinkers, unlike the left wingers claim, right? I know, I know Shawn that you are not a Conservative....not your fault that you were born with a defect. :)
Anyway, right here, right now, publicly I make peace with Trach and Cool Arrow. You hear me guys? I apologize for insulting you and your religion. Candance, same thing.
Whatever you guys have said in the past to me, I am putting it behind and forgetting it. Water under the bridge, all is forgiven. Clean slate, start over.
I hope that others can follow with me and let's raise the level of debate to the intellectual level.
fut... This is the exact
June 1, 2008 - 19:20 ET by Clear thinkerfut...
This is the exact reasons I don't argue religion. I will make comments from time to time when someone like Truth Monger wants us to get chummy with Islam, but other than that, religion is off my "to argue" list.
"Abstain from McCain"
Clear Thinker... You do
June 1, 2008 - 19:33 ET by futbolisgreat1Clear Thinker...
You do well my friend. You are a better man than I am.
I can't stay quiet when I hear someone speak ill of the Roman Catholic Church. I know it is a downfall since I probably do more harm to the RCC by opening my big mouth than just leaving it alone.
But I can't....My friends know me....when you are around Futbol the conversation will be, POlitics, religion, soccer, and his family.....
I just can't help it....
but what is that they say...
it is better for people to believe that you are a fool than to open your mouth and confirm that you are one....
or something like that, right?
fut
June 1, 2008 - 19:45 ET by Clear thinkerOr something like that!
Here's the one little nugget of info I remind myself of that keeps me from arguing religion....
There are hundreds and hundreds of religions if you count the sub-groups of large well established religions and even those that we might call cults. For all true belivers of their particular religion, faith in their religion means absolute belief that their's is the only one that is true and almighty. With so many convinced that their way is the only true way, hopw is it possible to argue with them? Ok, well maybe it's possible, but it's a waste of time IMHO.
I hope that makes sense.
"Abstain from McCain"
Charity
June 1, 2008 - 20:48 ET by ThermistoclesI share your passion to defend the faith. Without charity, you can still be wrong even when you are right. I tell myself this every time I get into one of these conversations.
Easy to figure out
June 1, 2008 - 19:21 ET by Free StinkerEasy to figure out
In 60% of these, does anyone see a trend?
aw cmon
June 1, 2008 - 19:25 ET by candanceWe're all getting so well now.
Free Stinker, Call me
June 1, 2008 - 19:30 ET by futbolisgreat1Free Stinker,
Call me slow or maybe the fact taht I have been writing a leadership paper on President Bush for my master's degree all day long....but can you connect the dots for me...
I get incoherent and my Spanish gets on the way..
Funny story, a few days ago my wife and I went out. We went for a nice dinner and a bar. Came back home had some wine. After about an hour of wine drinking, I could not speak Spanish....forgotten the whole language. :)
I don't know why just shared that, but I thougth I lighten up the mood.
Call me slow
June 1, 2008 - 19:33 ET by Free StinkerCall me slow
Actually, I'll let others call you Tumbler.
I just wish I kept a link to the post where someone was saying that's who they think you are the re-incarnation of.
"Don't forget to vote this fall. Not for McCain, not ever, but there might be a Conservative Rep or Senator that Needs Your Vote" --Free Stinker
Free Thinker, Tumbler?
June 1, 2008 - 19:40 ET by futbolisgreat1Free Thinker,
Tumbler? an ex-Newsbuster poster?
No, no, I have been here forever, first as futbolisgreat....I am unsure if you remember the days of Hater, Cool Blue (i think), etc.
then I didn't login for a while, forgot my password, asked NB for a new one, never got it, so I came back as futbolisgreat1.
As I said, I wish I kept a
June 1, 2008 - 19:43 ET by Free StinkerAs I said, I wish I kept a link to the comment.
Then I could tll you who said it.
"Don't forget to vote this fall. Not for McCain, not ever, but there might be a Conservative Rep or Senator that Needs Your Vote" --Free Stinker
Scoreboard
June 1, 2008 - 19:45 ET by shawn228Freestinker: 3
Cease Fire 0
Okay. Now *that* one, I guess I deserved.
June 1, 2008 - 19:47 ET by Free StinkerOkay. Now *that* one, I guess I deserved. ;-)
lol Shawn
June 1, 2008 - 19:52 ET by candanceYeah that was funny.
My rules are even easier to figure out Free
June 1, 2008 - 20:10 ET by Dee BunkMe and a liberal - liberal at fault
Liberal and Conservative - liberal at fault
Conservative and conservative - no one at fault
Dee
June 1, 2008 - 20:14 ET by Free StinkerLOL!
Easy to follow. ;-)
I'm a very simple person
June 1, 2008 - 20:19 ET by Dee BunkI find it amazing when people don't get where I'm coming from. I'm always 100% honest and open about my motives.
I'm glad you understand me.
lol Fut
June 1, 2008 - 19:23 ET by candanceSatan has a way of doing that to stop us from learning about each other.
Satan
June 2, 2008 - 05:42 ET by cheesegraterRight now Satan is wearing a blanket and a towel and shooting bullets at US Marines and soldiersin Iraq and Afganistan.
yes Shawn228 including you
June 1, 2008 - 19:26 ET by shawn228Well thanks fut:-) I appreciate you looking past me defect as well. So I will follow your lead.
Dee, your right. That was a shot against you. I thought I was making a harmless joke, but it might have come across as a little more personal that I wanted.
I apologize for that comment, and I guess In a way, I deserved the comments you directed toward me. I hope we can start with a clean slate.
»→ I'm ready fut
June 1, 2008 - 19:30 ET by Cool ArrowLikely we'll always disagree on what was once my religion.
I've had the same arguments with my mom and some of my sisters.
Hence forth, I'll try to politely disagree and leave it at that.
Sorry.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
AHHH!!! There we go
June 1, 2008 - 19:37 ET by futbolisgreat1AHHH!!!
There we go guys....much better...
Group hug?! :) HA!
yes Shawn, including you the Liberal. :)
group hug
June 1, 2008 - 19:50 ET by candanceThere, that feels good.
Fut,
June 1, 2008 - 22:48 ET by RESTLESS 1You have called me a Catholic Church basher, a fool, and even worse, Tracheostomy!!! (hey, hey, just kidding Trake). However, you are a spirited and dogged debater, so in the interest of getting back to bashing liberals, as we should, I hereby vow to hold no grudges.
Now, back to our reguarlarly scheduled battle against liberal bias.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Fut, all, etc. . . .
June 2, 2008 - 02:39 ET by tracheostomyI replied to your post.
Fut: Anyway, right here, right now, publicly I make peace with Trach and
Cool Arrow. You hear me guys? I apologize for insulting you and your
religion. Candance, same thing.
You-are-for-giv-en! ♪ (youareforgiven) ♫
You-are-for-giv-en! ♫ (youareforgiven) ♪
You-are-for-giv-en! ♪ (youareforgiven) ♫
You are forgiven, forgiven, forgiven forgiven
YOU ARE ALL FORGIVEN!!!
^_^
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Let me get this straight
June 2, 2008 - 05:47 ET by cheesegraterYou're forgiving them because you insulted them and their religion. Is that right? In my world, you should apologize and ask them for forgivness.
CG,
June 2, 2008 - 06:14 ET by tracheostomyCheesegrater: You're forgiving them because you insulted them and their religion. Is that right? In my world, you should apologize and ask them for forgivness.
No. I am forgiving him because Fut's confessing something that he feels needs an apology on his part. I am very quick to forgive.
- All religions have a point of exclusion.
- According to my religion, I am under literal orders to preach to others, defend my faith, convince, rebuke, and exhort.
- Other religions find this insulting. So be it. In "my world" (as opposed to yours), I must obey God rather than men. Furthermore, I am doing them a favor by warning them of my religion.
- This is an optional forum. No one is held captive here or forced to read these words. You are free to come and go at any time. I am no threat to you unless you choose to feel threatened by my words.
- In any case, it's invalid to feel threatened or personally insulted, since many of us aren't even using our real names.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Good answer
June 2, 2008 - 06:42 ET by cheesegraterNow, let's go get the muzzie.
A Stephen King fan are
June 2, 2008 - 10:38 ET by CortillaenA Stephen King fan are you?
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi