Time magazine writer Michael Lindenberger's dispatch "From Gay Marriage's Ground Zero," read more like puffy campaign literature for the liberal Democratic mayor of San Francisco than an objective news piece.
Here's how Lindenberger opened his paean to the thoroughly heterosexual Gavin Newsom.:
Same-sex couples began marrying late Monday night in courthouse ceremonies across California, putting triumphantly happy human faces on a debate that is nevertheless far from over. Crowds turned out to welcome - and, for some, to protest - weddings in Beverly Hills, Oakland and the wine country north of San Francisco.
Later in his piece, Lindenberger took at face value Newsom's recollection of how he decided in 2004 to challenge state law and grant marriage licenses to gay couples. Those "marriages" were later invalidated of course, but the recent decision by California's highest court paved the way for gay weddings, at least between now and November when a ballot initiative may outlaw same-sex marriage.
Lindenberger dutifully transcribed Newsom's insistence that he didn't know how big a deal his civil disobedience would be:
Newsom told TIME he never expected to be in the middle of a fight for gay marriage. "Gay marriage was not on my radar. No one had asked me what I thought about it, and I had never really given it any thought one way or another." But the Bush State of the Union address changed all that. "I just felt deeply disconnected to my country, about which I care about very much. So I decided I'd make my stand by marrying one couple, and we decided [in 2004] we'd issue a marriage license for Phyllis and Del. Little did we know, we'd have 4,036 couples marry before it was over."
Really?! It wasn't until January 20, 2004 that Newsom gave any thought to gay marriage? After all, he is the mayor of perhaps the most alternative lifestyle-friendly city in the United States and the issue had already been percolating for years in some state courts and the halls of Congress.
No, Newsom would have us believe, and Lindenberger failed to challenge the notion, that these two paragraphs towards the end of the 2004 State of the Union Address set Newsom off out of the blue:
A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.
Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.
But contrary to Newsom's protests that he acted out of conscience and not political expediency, Lindenberger later revealed Newsom's hope that the thousands of gay couples being "married" between now and November's ballot initiative on gay marriage will essentially shame voters into voting "no" on overturning the court ruling:
[I]t will be those weddings, Newsom told TIME, that will be gay-marriage supporters' best weapon in defeating the amendment. "There are some who just can't get over the idea, the image even, of two men kissing. But for most Californians, I think, if they just pause and think about what gay marriage means to the people they know, they won't want to take it away. The people getting married are your teachers, your neighbors, your cousins. They are the bus drivers, waiters and waitresses and your doctors. They are going to say, well, I never knew Doctor Bob was with his partner for 30 years. But you know, he is a good man, a good doctor. And this has made him just so happy."
As icing on the wedding cake, Lindenberger gave Newsom one last chance to give himself a gold star, noting how the engaged young mayor can sleep at night thanks to his work disobeying state law:
Come what may in November, Newsom says, he'll rest easy knowing he helped make weddings like the one he performed Monday as legal as the one he'll take part in next month, when he marries his girlfriend. "I'm extraordinarily proud of what we've accomplished. I'll sleep well because of this."
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
it's a "Beavis and Butt-Head" moment!
June 17, 2008 - 14:48 ET by UndercoverConservativeheh heh heh..he said "puff piece"..heh heh heh
sorry couldn't resist.
What's sad about this is that the last time Newsome tried this, of the few dozen couples that actually got married (out of hundreds stringing their partners along when they knew they were 'safe" from marriage, or those that only wanted it for political reasons) most of them annulled or even divorced before the marriages were declared null and void by the government. Specialist lawyers were making money by specifically handling gay divorces.
Lawyers and domestic violence counselors will be in bigger demand soon enough, because the whole "open lifestyle" doesn't gel well with "marriage" in any form. It didn't for Newsome's last experiment, and it won't now.
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
...thus proving that this
June 17, 2008 - 15:56 ET by mattm...thus proving that this whole thing is just propaganda, driven by a need to gain societal acceptance, and has nothing to do with 'rights.'
Proving? Please back up
June 17, 2008 - 21:13 ET by cleverpigProving? Please back up that statement. I know of a few cases where some of the thousands of people married in San Francisco have sought a divorce, but most? If you are going to make that claim, link a source please.
Honestly, I believe that
June 17, 2008 - 14:56 ET by futbolisgreat1Honestly, I believe that this can spell disaster for the Democrat Party.
many, many Latinos and Blacks are 100% against gay marriage and the whole gay life style thing.
Many hispanics and black voted for President Bush and Republicans based on this issue.
God help this nation when the majority of Americans believe that it is ok and moral that homosexuals should be married.
Just look at history though, the great decline of most great civilizations is marked with an acceptance of homosexual practices. Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, etc, etc, etc....
As for Newsom, the man is a degenerate, disgusting, moronic, government abuser.
and please do not insult the Civil Rights movement by comparing it to this degenerate, immoral behavior. You have a choice who you sleep with, you do not have a choice as to the color of your skin.
Futbol, I want to ask you a
June 17, 2008 - 20:57 ET by Cureboy675Futbol, I want to ask you a question because I want to put this in a context that you might understand. (And I am assuming that you are a guy...If you're not, forgive me and switch all the "she" references to a "he" in the following situation)
What goes through your mind when you see a good-looking woman walk into a room, or appear on your television? A woman that you find attractive the very instant you see her. When you first see her, do you say "Okay. She's a female. Her hair is at an acceptable length. She is in reasonably good shape. This is a woman who takes care of herself. And most of all, her breasts are ample. That's it, I have made up my mind, and I have *chosen* to find her attractive".
Is that what you say to yourself? Or do you just say, "Damn, that lady is hot!"
At one point did everybody else choose to be straight? Does the government send out a form when you turn 18 and you have to check either the gay box or the straight box? Because if such a form exists, mine must have been lost in the mail.
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
I find it funny that some of
June 17, 2008 - 21:18 ET by cleverpigI find it funny that some of the people who are most physically repulsed by the idea of homosexuality also say it's a choice. I challenge them to choose to become attracted to their own sex!
You ever been in prison
June 17, 2008 - 21:21 ET by tracheostomyYou ever been in prison CP?
Oh wait. Did mentioning that mess up your entire thesis?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
If it was genetic, wouldn't
June 17, 2008 - 21:21 ET by Free StinkerIf it was genetic, wouldn't you expect that gene to be bred out?
»→ No free
June 18, 2008 - 00:47 ET by Cool ArrowNatural Selection only applies if it bolsters a Liberal talking point.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
I don't think it's genetic,
June 19, 2008 - 00:03 ET by cleverpigI don't think it's genetic, not the way you obviously mean.
"I challenge them to choose
June 19, 2008 - 00:17 ET by shawn228"I challenge them to choose to become attracted to their own sex!"
Why would I do that, when I am attracted to women? I think sex with a man would be repulsive and sex with a woman exciting, therefore I have made my choice, why would I choose something I find repulsive? Therefore it is a choice.
Cureboy, You assumption
June 17, 2008 - 22:59 ET by futbolisgreat1Cureboy,
You assumption is right, I am a guy.
However, your question falls flat on its face.
the only woman that I look at is my wife. My eyes, heart, soul, my whole being belongs to God and then my wife.
I do not look at women as pieces of meat.
Before I was married, I also didn't look at women as a pieces of meat.
Furthermore, while looks are important, to me, morality, intelligence and whether or not she would be a good mother to my childre was way, way, way more important than her looks. Yes, I find my wife very, very physically attractive, but she has become incredible more attractive as the years have gone by both mentally and physically.
I might off at 16 to 19 looked at a woman and said, "damn she is hot!" but I was immature, stupid and while I did know better, I had turned of my morality. Not a good thing to do.
Living in Chicago, you can't help to run into and actually make good friends with homosexuals. My experience, and I am just talking my experience. I find that homosexuals perceive other human beings as pieces of meat. Individuals that they can lust over and have sexual fantacies about. I also find that homosexuals believe that the social and moral rules do not apply to them. Not all, but most.
I am unsure where you are going with your questions, maybe you can shine some light into what you are thinking.
We all can chose who we sleep with. We are not animals. We are human beings.
Today's society wants to opress our humanity and want us to just act on our animal instincts. the problem with Western culture today is that we are told that we should not have any self-controlled.
We can all control who we kiss, who we sleep with. We cannot control the color of our skin.
And while you may not be able to control who you fall in love with, you can control whether or not you take the next step.
A married person can fall in love or find attractive someone of the oppositte sex. Should that individual sleep with this individual because they find him/her attractive? If you say yes, then you have your answer of why divorce rate is so hight in Western Culture.
However, that married person has the ability to think rationally and realize the consequences of sleeping with someone that is not his/her spouse, right?
same thing with homosexuality, you CAN control who you sleep with, regardless of your emotions.
OK. I didn't mean to imply
June 17, 2008 - 23:13 ET by Cureboy675OK. I didn't mean to imply that you were a horn dog. I'm sorry if that offended you. But what I'm saying is, the first time you met your wife, you found her attractive right? Was there a rational decisioning process going on in your brain to determine whether or not you found her physically attractive? Or did that happen all by itself.
But, in my case, the only choice is deciding whether or not to act on my feelings (And I don't want to make it sound like I sleep with everybody...My personal sexual history is rather boring and unremarkable and would take less than a minute to describe in its entirety).
I could have made a different choice. I could have decided that I want to find some woman that I didn't have deep feelings for and marry her for the sake of appearances (which would have been pretty selfish because it would have deprived that woman the chance to find somebody who could love her completely).
But I decided to be honest with myself.
And yes, you have made the choice to only be with your wife (and thats terrific, the world needs more of that). But when did you make the choice that you were never going to have romantic feelings for a person of the same sex? When did you sit down and have that talk with yourself? Or is it something that never even occured to you because that is simply not how you are wired?
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
Cureboy, You are right,
June 18, 2008 - 00:18 ET by futbolisgreat1Cureboy,
You are right, the very first time I saw my wife I found her very attractive.
But there was a very rational, very, very rational process and thinking before I even thought about dating, proposing and marrying my wife.
You made my point for me, Cureboy. Your animal instincts is what makes you find another human being attractive. But it is our human and supernatural being (our soul) that should take over and have us take RATIONAL decisions, not animalistic, instinct based decisions.
Yes, cureboy, I took a very rational process before I dated, proposed and married my wife. Both her and I thought about it before we married.
I understand what you are saying, that you can't help but be attracted to someone else, but what you CAN help is whether or not you take it to the next level.
That is whether you are single, married, homosexual or heterosexual.
The problem with our society today, is that BOTH homosexuals AND heterosexuals allow their animal instincts rule their life.
I can understand that you may think you are wired that way, fine, so be it.
But do you believe you can't control who you sleep with? Of course you can.
OK. I appreciate the fact
June 18, 2008 - 10:42 ET by Cureboy675OK. I appreciate the fact that you can understand that I never made the choice to be gay. And, although I get tired of doing the argument of "pedophiles also claim to be wired that way so shouldn't we allow that to happen", I'll put it to you this way. If a grown man takes a young child into his bedroom for sex, that young child is a victim. But if a grown man takes another grown man into his bedroom for sex, where is the crime? There is no crime. So this isn't about the law and it is about what you personally believe is a sin or what is immoral. And I always thought having rights was about treating everybody equally...And not about a certain section of the population deciding who should have what rights and priveledges based on what they personally believe is moral or immoral.
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
CB, you're falling behind.
June 18, 2008 - 13:32 ET by tracheostomyCB: If a grown man takes a young child into his bedroom for sex, that young child is a victim.
Not according to certain "child rights" movements, who are obtaining a lobby of their own.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1640511/posts
The NVD is real Cureboy. You cannot move the goal posts on a societal standard and then claim, "Here's where it will stay."
This is what you are doing. Sure, you got your cake like you wanted, but you inherited an entire bakery to boot. Others want cake now. You cannot deny them their piece while you sit and eat yours.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Cureboy, You missed the
June 18, 2008 - 14:31 ET by futbolisgreat1Cureboy,
You missed the whole point. While you may not have the ability to chose who you are attracted to physically, you do have the ability to chose who you have sex with, right?
Furthermore, with your whole child in the bedroom example. Cureboy, what do you say to countries like Holland and other nations around the world which have lowered the consensual age for sex to 12 years old? now what? You MUST answer this question because that is what is happening around the world, countries lowering the legal age for consensual sex. now what?
Also, while something may be legal, it doesn't make it moral.
homosexual sex acts are a crime against morality, against our very human nature.
lastly this statment of yours, "And I always thought having rights was about treating everybody equally...And not about a certain section of the population deciding who should have what rights and priveledges based on what they personally believe is moral or immoral."
Cureboy, we do this ALL the time, we do this with children, we do this with adults. Our government and we the voters decide what sections of society have what rights based or what is moral and amoral.
how can a society function if morality is thrown out the window?
Do we not constantly decide to take away the rights of a murderer? rapist? based on what? the personal beliefs of Americans on what is moral and amoral.
are you suggesting anarchy?
and then who decides what is right and wrong?
are you suggesting that it is ridiculous to take away the right from a person to have sex with their sibling, mother, father, etc because the incest laws are based on someone's personsal beliefs of what is moral and amoral?
Your argument is a slippery-slope argument, Cureboy, where does it end?
and remember, we ALL have a choice who we decided to sleep with.
Nailed down. Don't even
June 18, 2008 - 14:59 ET by tracheostomyNailed down. Don't even think of editing this one.
-PJ
Homosexuality is an
June 18, 2008 - 00:42 ET by Dan The Man 2Homosexuality is an aberation of humankind, it is unnatural. Male and female were designed for each other not the same sex. But in any production run there are defective products and homosexuals are those defects in society as is pedphelia and bestiality.
I mention those because if you are going to define or more aptly redefine marriage why does it have to stop with 2 people. I mean a man and a woman are needed for procreation and society has relied on this arrangement for the protection and propagation of families and of the species.
So cant we have 3 or 4 or 20 in a marriage?
And why stop with the number why not work in ages there, why not a 10 year old or even a 4 year old and you know some person out there really loves their dog so lets include them.
Yep it really opens the envelope.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
"the only woman that I look
June 17, 2008 - 23:41 ET by shawn228"the only woman that I look at is my wife. My eyes, heart, soul, my whole being belongs to God and then my wife."
Wish I could say the same fut. I'm married as well but I believe you can look at the menu as long as you don't order anything.
My point is lot of spouses look at people of the opposite sex. My wife admits she likes to look at handsome guys too.
I am repulsed by the act of homosexuality, but I far be it from to tell anyone else who they can be with.
I don't have as much issue with gay marriage as a moral issue, but i am scared of the impact it can have on our medical system and other government laws when it comes to spouses.
shawn228, Thanks guy.
June 18, 2008 - 00:41 ET by futbolisgreat1shawn228,
Thanks guy. But it is true, my wife is all I look at, nothing else. Believe me, I had to learn to not allow my eyes to stray and get "distracted".
But out of complete respect to her, when she is in the room, she is the only woman I look at. When she is not in the room, she is the only woman I think of and I have a mental picture of her in my mind.
As for the gay issue, I honestly believe that wide acceptance of homosexuality marks the great decline of a society.
From health issues, to moral issues, it brings all societies down.
I understand cureboy's position, but emotions and feelings cannot over rule our human and supernatural side. We cannot rationalize the acceptance of a sin because something feels good, or because we supposedly do not have a choice.
There have been many studies of some mass murderers which show that they were "wired" to believe that murder was ok. Should we then not punish these individuals because literally it was beyond their control to murderer other individuals? of course not.
Weren't ancient Greece and
June 17, 2008 - 21:16 ET by cleverpigWeren't ancient Greece and Rome accepting of homosexuality during the periods when they were the pinnacle of civilization on earth, as well as when they declined? How do you get see cause and effect there?
"Pinnacle" and decline
June 17, 2008 - 21:26 ET by tracheostomy"Pinnacle" and decline still equals zero upward trend.
Hello?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, We completly
June 17, 2008 - 23:10 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
We completly disagree on religion, but damn, you hit the nail on the head on this one.
thanks for the backing on this one!
What the person above did not get is that homosexuality started the decline, destroyed these societies and ended the pinnicle of these empires.
Historically, it can be proven that the mass acceptance and practice of homosexuality marks the decline of all great societies.
»→ Wait a second
June 17, 2008 - 23:25 ET by Cool ArrowWas Israel a great society?
Was it homosexuality that brought it down?
I don't agree with your sweeping analysis.
Come to think about it, didn't Israel get led into captivity because they knelt down to idols?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool Arrow, My other
June 18, 2008 - 00:04 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
My other angry friend.
Hmmm....
doesn't matter if you agree with my "sweeping" analysis...the FACTS don't need you to agree with them in order for them to be FACTS.
Much love my bretheren.
»→ Hey footsie
June 18, 2008 - 00:13 ET by Cool ArrowHistorically, it can be proven that the mass acceptance and practice of homosexuality marks the decline of all great societies. - futbolisgreat1
Well we certainly agree on one thing. Your Church is a great society.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool - I'm sure there are homosexuals in your faith also
June 18, 2008 - 00:21 ET by Dee BunkCatholics don't have any more percentage of them than anyone else. Others don't get as much attention - that's the only difference.
Dee, Why do you bother
June 18, 2008 - 00:31 ET by futbolisgreat1Dee,
Why do you bother with Cool Arrow on this topic?
His heart hates the Roman Catholic Church. So be it. That's between him and our Maker.
Cool Arrow knows that he is speaking lies. let him. I am hoping that one day he realizes how wrong and intolerant he is.
Homosexuality in the RCC is a horrible thing. No one can deny this. How some dioceses delt with the problem was also pretty ridiculous AND sinful.
However, homosexuality is NOT accepted or sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church, The Pope, etc. I know Cool Arrow will try to come back with some "snarky" childish remark. So be it. He seems to get a kick out of his immaturity. Until he realizes how foolish he looks, he won't stop. But most of us have learned this the hard way.
Cool Arrow knows this.
He is just trying to get me upset. I have learned with both Trach and Cool Arrow, they are not in search of the Truth. They just want to egg you into an endless debate and insult you. So be it, I will not play their childish games anymore.
They are children of Christ, of God as much as I am and as such, they deserve my respect. I wish them no harm.
I love them as my fellow Christian bretheren and human beings.
I hope both of them find peace soon and that both realize that God, Christ is the answer.
I mean it when I say that I pray for them. They deserve as much and much, much more.
They are both my bretheren in Christ.
fut - I think that it is best to
June 18, 2008 - 00:37 ET by Dee Bunkavoid religious discussion with them. You are confident and well versed in your faith and I admire that about you. I'm sorry that you have to put up with abuse about it.
»→ I guess that means
June 18, 2008 - 00:44 ET by Cool ArrowI guess that means you're not going to cite your source about all religions having the same rate of homosexuality or pedophilia
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool - see my comment below
June 18, 2008 - 00:48 ET by Dee BunkIt's not a Catholic only problem
Dee, Thanks for the
June 18, 2008 - 00:47 ET by futbolisgreat1Dee,
Thanks for the kudos.
I truly mean it that I pray for them and I hope both of them find peace.
But I agree with you, I learned it the hard way, it is pointless to debate religion with them.
May God grant them both the peace that they so desperatly seek.
»→ Of course it's pointless
June 18, 2008 - 00:50 ET by Cool ArrowYour source is "the doctrines of men".
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
»→ Dee
June 18, 2008 - 00:37 ET by Cool ArrowWhich other Christian denomination moved their shepherds from one church to another to avoid the exposure and prosecution?
All other incidences I'm aware of involved public repentance and/or prosecution.
And now I'll ask for your source on the equal representation among other religions. You can't jump in there with that (same as other religions) remark without backing it up.
I just know I hear about it all the time
June 18, 2008 - 00:46 ET by Dee Bunkbut it's only about the person being caught there never is the follow up about what the church does to stop it from happening again.
The only famous one I know about is Ted Haggart. I've heard many stories throughout the years about local people that no one would have ever heard of and whose names I wouldn't remember. If you Google Evangelical Gay Pastors you'll find lots of stories.
It's naive to think it's a Catholic problem. All Christian churches have sinners. We are all sinners.
Dee, Don't do it. Cool
June 18, 2008 - 00:53 ET by futbolisgreat1Dee,
Don't do it. Cool Arrow is trying to egg you into a debate.
Remember, no matter what you show him, what you don't show him, what you say or don't say, in his mind, at least with this issue, you are right and he is wrong.
leave him alone.
He loves to ask and ask questions, but he can't answer one simple answer....
Why does Cool Arrow hate the Roman Catholic Church with such a passion?
Like I said, I truly believe he can't answer this question because he knows that his hate for the Church is irrational and if he dares puts his hate into words, he will see how irrational he is being.
I repeat myself, I hope Cool Arrow finds peace. He desperatly needs it.
Get some sleep
June 18, 2008 - 00:57 ET by expatriotGuys,
What are you doing up at this hour. The sun is up in Germany but night is going strong there in the US. Get some sleep and start again after the sun comes up.
Cool, the answer to your question is all Christian Churches. Good night.
»→ Expatriot
June 18, 2008 - 01:09 ET by Cool ArrowYou cannot say that with any veracity because, though conected by faith, most denominations do not shuffle their preachers. This is because individual churches go recruiting for replacement preachers rather than have one foisted upon them by "headquarters".
You know this, and for that reason, your indictment of "all Chrstian Churches" is unfounded. It's between you and your God whether you feel enough conviction to repent of it"
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Strike a nerve?
June 18, 2008 - 01:14 ET by expatriotCool,
Your anti-catholic bashing is bad enough. Your attack on all christianity is unfounded and not necessary. I will pray for you and hope that you will find forgiveness in the Lord.
Good night and God Bless you.
»→ No expat
June 18, 2008 - 01:30 ET by Cool ArrowYou condemned all Christian Churches with the indictment that all of them engage in "hide the wolf"
I made no such claim against "all Christin Chrches"
Get some sleep
June 18, 2008 - 01:38 ET by expatriotGood night cool and God Bless you and your family.
»→ Ted Haggart?
June 18, 2008 - 00:58 ET by Cool Arrow"I hear about it all the time"
What kind of source is that?
Furtherore, I thought they kicked Haggart out on his butt rather promptly. Do you have information to the contrary on that guy? Was he shuffled into another flock as a wolf in sheep's clothing?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool - that's why I said google it
June 18, 2008 - 01:02 ET by Dee BunkI don't care to spend time compiling statistics about it. If you do go ahead. There are tons of stories out there. Most are from local papers and things and don't make it to the National News.
This won't silence him
June 18, 2008 - 01:11 ET by futbolisgreat1This won't silence him either, but if he is going to keep on hating, I wonder why he doesn't hate Protestants....
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_9_121/ai_n6146585
Lutherans settle in Texas sex abuse case
Christian Century, May 4, 2004
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has reached a settlement with 14 people who flied civil charges against a former pastor in Texas who has been convicted of use of child pornography and sexual abuse of children.
Gerald P. Thomas Jr. was pastor of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Marshall from 1997 until 2001 when he was charged with possession of child pornography and sentenced to five years in federal prison in 2002. A jury added 397 years to Thomas's imprisonment in a state trial last year in which he was convicted of multiple counts of sex crimes against children.
The civil suit in the ease was partially settled April 12 when District Judge Bonnie Leggett in Marshall approved terms reached by the plaintiffs and the national office of the ELCA; Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Columbus, Ohio; a clergy candidacy commit-. tee in Michigan; and Thomas's former church.
"This lawsuit has been deeply troubling to all involved, and we acknowledge its seriousness," said John Brooks, an ELCA spokesman, in a statement April 12. "Prior to Thomas's arrest, the ELCA was unaware of the former pastor's reprehensible conduct toward the plaintiffs in the case. Nevertheless, the ELCA is deeply sorry that anyone was victimized by Gerald Thomas."
Brooks could not discuss particulars of the civil suit settlement, but he observed that allegations of inappropriate sexual contact with children by ELCA clergy are "very rare." Church policy requires ELCA bishops to seek an offending pastor's resignation if credible evidence supports such charges, Brooks said.
The terms of the settlement were not released, but the ELCA said at least part of the agreement is funded by insurance. "In reaching the settlement, the ELCA admitted to no wrongdoing by the church," the statement said.
A civil trial involving other defendants--the local Northern Texas--Northern Louisiana Synod, its former bishop and his assistant--was set to begin April 13.
»→ Something missing
June 18, 2008 - 01:27 ET by Cool ArrowWhre's the part where the church tied to cover it up and moved the preacher into another unsuspecting congregation?
Yes, a church can get infected with a pedophile clergyman, but the churh is condemned in the eyes of God when it tries to hide the sin and protect the wolf.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool Arrow, Stop it!
June 18, 2008 - 01:34 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
Stop it! Enough!!! this is getting truly evil.
Satan is laughing at how he has used us both to attack denominations of Christianity.
Have your feelings, your emotions and your hate.
I am done with you.
this is not doing Protestant or Catholics any good.
My Protestant friends, I apologize for cutting and pasting such disgusting articles against the Protestant faiths.
Cool Arrow, please, honestly stop it. You are harming ALL Christian denominations and ALL Christians.
May you find your peace my friend.
Turn to God, He will help you find peace.
Take care and enjoy newsbusters....see you around, but don't expect me to reply to any of your posts anymore.
DELETE!
June 18, 2008 - 01:28 ET by futbolisgreat1DELETE!
Dee, Now that two
June 18, 2008 - 01:14 ET by futbolisgreat1Dee,
Now that two articles have been show, look at Cool Arrow move the goal post.
My bad, let's leave him alone. He knows, as well as you and I, that he is wrong.
but it is easier for him to believe that he is right.
It is obvious that he finds some type of distorted comfort in his irrational hatred for the Church.
The guy demands answers to his questions, yet he can't answer ours.
leave him be.
OK fut
June 18, 2008 - 01:39 ET by Cool ArrowI know it occurs in all churches. Never said it doesn't.
But churches differ greatly in who the perpetrtors are and how the cases are handled. The sin is upon those individual priests (and preachers). The coverup is upon the institutions that engaged in it.
I did not move the goalpost. A church is not complicit in a sin until it is made aware of its commission and acts perversely to God's Law.
Thank God The new Bishop of Rome has put out a no tolerance policy.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
»→ Dee
June 18, 2008 - 01:16 ET by Cool ArrowSo we've devolved to PeeWee's playhouse.
Delete!
June 18, 2008 - 01:35 ET by futbolisgreat1Delete!
Cool Arrow, Darn, I fell
June 18, 2008 - 01:26 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
Darn, I fell for it. Enough!!!
this is turning evil. You are demanding that we search for the lowest denominator on Christianity. Giving weapons to our enemies and to Satan.
Honestly, this is evil. I should have never cut and pasted and linked anyone to these stories.
No one should be displaying in public their dirty laundry.
I apologize to all Protestants.
I know that neither Protestants or Roman Catholic leaders are about accepting, pushing or allowing sexual child abuse.
Cool Arrow, honestly, this is evil. Move on.
May God help you find peace. I am deleting a few posts now.
think what you want to think, but truly this is evil and a perfect weapon for Satan.
Move on Cool.....this has taken a turn to the disgusting!
DELETE!
June 18, 2008 - 01:29 ET by futbolisgreat1DELETE!
Cool Arrow, I am truly
June 18, 2008 - 00:23 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
I am truly sadden by the hate that you display for the Roman Catholic Church. I have never experienced such irrational hate in my life.
why do you hate the Church so much Cool Arrow? why?
You have always refused to answer this question. I wonder if you know it is irrational and you afraid that if you answer it, you will realize how irrational your hate is.
I know you are trying to egg me into some ridiculous "debate" of yours.
No my bretheren in Christ, you will not get it.
I love you my brethern, and I will pray for your soul and for your irrational hate to subside.
I love you my friend.
May you find peace my bretheren in Christ.
Remember, God loves you.
»→ Hey fut
June 18, 2008 - 00:39 ET by Cool ArrowStill wearing that good luck charm?
Still got the ulcers?
Hope the migraines go away
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
The argument was for the sake of the subject; not for your rep.
June 17, 2008 - 23:20 ET by tracheostomyHow self-centered is this?
Fut: thanks for the backing on this one!
Let's get one thing clear Futbol. . .
I don't back heretics that brag about the unrepentant filth of vigilantism dripping from their own two hands.
I don't back heretics that claim they don't have any valid questions to answer for on another thread.
I don't back heretics that preach a gospel of self-centered merit.
And I don't "back" heretics that are admonished by their first pope to give a defense for the hope that is within them, who then turn coward and withold it in the name of pagan mysticism.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, You are a very
June 18, 2008 - 00:01 ET by futbolisgreat1Trach,
You are a very angry individual.....
Regardless of what you said in your incoherent rant...
Thank you for backing me up.
Fut -
June 18, 2008 - 00:28 ET by Dee BunkI think PJ has decided that he can tell what is in peoples hearts. Most of us know that humans can't do that.
Dee, Yes, sadly enough PJ
June 18, 2008 - 00:35 ET by futbolisgreat1Dee,
Yes, sadly enough PJ seems to believe that he is God. The ONLY being that knows what is in our heart.
So be it. He is still my bretheren in Christ.
He has a right to believe what he wants, however wrong he might be.
I admire his passion and zealotry(good conotation of the word). If we had more Roman Catholics like him in the Catholic Church, the world would be a much better place. (yes cool arrow, I await your snarky, immature remark). If more Roman Catholics knew how to defend God, His Church and the Church's Theology like he knows how to defend his theology, Catholics would be able to peacefully conquer the world like they did during Ancient Rome.
He is my bretheren in Christ, a human being and as such I respect him and hope only good things for him.
May God guide him and may he find peace in his life.
Nun in White
June 18, 2008 - 00:43 ET by bigtimerI would like to know if there is a nun/sister whatever the proper name is.,.all dressed in white...and who she is if she is...anybody know?
With rosaries in her hand..and on her?
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
bigtimer, Are you
June 18, 2008 - 00:50 ET by futbolisgreat1bigtimer,
Are you speaking of the Virgin of Fatima?
fut... No...I don't think
June 18, 2008 - 00:52 ET by bigtimerfut...
No...I don't think so anyway.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
bigtimer, are you
June 18, 2008 - 00:56 ET by futbolisgreat1bigtimer,
are you thinking of St. Therese of Little Flower?
fut... I don't know who
June 18, 2008 - 01:08 ET by bigtimerfut...
I don't know who that she was (she was older than me) but I saw her, I talked to her on my way to the other side..long ago, I have never forgotten it...maybe we should PM later...a lot of thnigs have happened to me inside of a Catholic Church ...long ago.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
bigtimer, Yes, send me a
June 18, 2008 - 01:16 ET by futbolisgreat1bigtimer,
Yes, send me a PM, it sounds very interesting what you have to say.
Looking foreward to your PMs about what's happen to you inside a Roman catholic church.
fut... I just pray I
June 18, 2008 - 01:29 ET by bigtimerfut...
I just pray I do.
I have known a long time ago I could learn a lot from you...that is part of the reason I am always glad you show up now and then.
No offense meant to others.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Bigtimer, I believe you
June 18, 2008 - 01:45 ET by futbolisgreat1Bigtimer,
I believe you are talking about Our Lady of Lourdes. She is often shown wearing white, as a nun, and carrying a rosary.
I am almost sure this is who you ment. Look pictures of her up and hopefully She is who you are talking about.
fut... Thank YOU! I will.
June 18, 2008 - 01:50 ET by bigtimerfut...
Thank YOU! I will. I am happy instantly with your answer...can't explain it..but I know what I mean...and thank you once again...more than you know.
Wow...everything does happen for a reason.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
BT,
June 18, 2008 - 02:40 ET by tracheostomyBT: I don't know who that she was (she was older than me) but I saw her, I talked to her on my way to the other side..long ago, I have never forgotten it...maybe we should PM later...a lot of thnigs have happened to me inside of a Catholic Church ...long ago.
1. How do you know this apart from her clothing and appearance?
2. Did she reply?
3. If she did, how do you know you can trust what she said?
4. So you're saying you'll trust a spiritual vision (and foster the memory of it) in deference to a more reliable form of divine revelation because she, he, or it singled you out personally?
5. Have you consulted an actual minister regarding this vision?
C'mon BT, you're smarter than this! >_<
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
You guys are truly
June 19, 2008 - 00:19 ET by cleverpigYou guys are truly fascinating.
Check out "your guys" on the Daily Kos CP
June 19, 2008 - 11:58 ET by Dee BunkYou liberals are the most facinating of all.
You trach...weren't in my
June 19, 2008 - 00:25 ET by bigtimerYou trach...weren't in my place...you don't know what you are talking about...and keep out of this....
I was talking to fut.
Period.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
The fake huffing and puffing is a genuine bore. . .
June 19, 2008 - 01:16 ET by tracheostomyBT: You trach...
You BT. . .
BT: weren't in my place...
. . .have made a claim to personal divine revelation.
BT: you don't know what you are talking about...
TRY. . .ME!
BT: and keep out of this....
You'd love that, wouldn't you?
BT: I was talking to fut. Period.
I can fairly accuse you of blatantly lying now. You brought up the issue right here in the public forum and your attention-whoring here is quite obvious. You did not initially approach Fut in private.
Was it because you had something you had to wave around?
A claim on something special?
Personal revelation sets you above the rest, don't it?
I don't appreciate your melodramatic "lookit me" antics any more than CP does.
Some strange woman in a habit walks up to your door soliciting cash for some charity you've never heard of, and you take her at face value?
Why not go home with the first man you meet in a bar?
Oh, but this was a spirit! You can trust her because she told me so in a vision!
You are the embodiment of 1 Timothy 4:1-3.
Keep your allegedly celestial visions to yourself.
Period.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Wow trach,
June 19, 2008 - 02:04 ET by shawn228I am not trying got in the middle or a personal argument, but attention whoring? Come on now.
See BT. . .
June 19, 2008 - 11:53 ET by tracheostomyNow here's the part where I could jump all over Shawn for interjecting.
But if I did, then that would be STUPID.
Why?
Because it's a public. . .forum.
You air your dirty laundry out here and SURPRISE, it becomes fair game.
Shawn, you're off the hook. Yeah. I'm saying this is the Crucible all over again and guess who's auditioning for Abigail?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach and bt...
June 19, 2008 - 12:04 ET by Clear thinkertrach, it seems like you are going out of your way to be rude to bt. Why not take her at her word that she had an experience that you cannot explain and leave it at that?
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
CT,
June 19, 2008 - 13:55 ET by tracheostomyCT: Why not take her at her word that she had an experience that you cannot explain and leave it at that?
It's more than just an unexplainable experience. Look at her follow ups to Fut.
She's claiming interactive contact with a spirit.
She's appointed Futbol as her personal spiritual guide and prophet.
Plus, she exclaims complete satisfaction and then subsequently claims it was destiny.
Cute, huh? Then when I ask her some very pointed questions that appeal to the intellect God gave her, she shuts me down as if I'd hacked her PMs or something.
But you can plainly see that in the thread CT, I don't have to spoon-feed it to you now. . .do I?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach... You have taken
June 19, 2008 - 14:00 ET by Clear thinkertrach...
You have taken this waaay to far.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Great CT. Now you're
June 19, 2008 - 14:18 ET by tracheostomyGreat CT. Now you're standing alongside Dee's "way over the line" statement.
You are now obligated to answer the same question I gave her.
This also dovetails nicely with Fut's chronic accusations to the person. So maybe you can help them all out and answer for the three of you.
What "line" are you talking about?
My accusations are valid and remain despite everyone's subjective reactions. Calm down and read it back to yourself. Why am I suddenly the bad guy for calling a spade a spade?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach... Just let it
June 19, 2008 - 14:22 ET by Clear thinkertrach...
Just let it go.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
CT,
June 19, 2008 - 14:33 ET by tracheostomyCT: Just let it go.
I will as soon as you define "it" and this alleged "line" that I've gone way too far over.
-PJ
Your laundry is turning out to be the filthiest of all Trach
June 19, 2008 - 12:18 ET by Dee BunkYou are really really mean and you do your religion no service by being that way. That's my interjection and I'm done now. Done with you completely. You've been pretty nasty but this is way over the line. Insult me all you want because it will mean as much to me as the insults from the phony liberals. They mean Nothing to me. You are a hateful person and it's obvious that you are afraid you are wrong. That's why you are so mean and nasty.
Candance, Cool (except with fut), Dan, fut (except with Cool) and many other religious people here can talk about there faith without being so completely nasty. You attack everyone about their religion and it's really disgusting. This is a political site, not your religious conversion ground. You need to pray more.
Dee,
June 19, 2008 - 14:01 ET by tracheostomyJust calling them as stated in the thread.
Dee: You are really really mean and you do your religion no service by being that way.
Define "mean" for me please. "Being [what] way (?)" We have an individual claiming original divine revelation, and another member that supports and encourages it. What does it look like to you?
Dee: That's my interjection and I'm done now.
An interjection based on what?
Dee: Done with you completely. You've been pretty nasty but this is way over the line.
What line are you talking about? My "line" is very clearly defined. Yours isn't. Yet you seem to have a standard that is a little more theologically liberal than mine. Please specify this "line" you choose to react against.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
You don't have any lines of decency Trach
June 19, 2008 - 14:51 ET by Dee Bunkthe only thing you care about is language and technical name calling and that stuff is so mild in comparison to your total lack of disrespect for anyone else's religion. Like I said before, If you want to share what is good about your religion - more power to you. I stick up for people who do that all the time. You don't do that. You tell everyone else what is wrong about them and their religion and you do it in a mean spirited way, calling them "heretics" and "mystics" , "attention whores" among many other derogatory names. It's outrageous. I could understand it if you were defending your religion from attack, but it's the opposite, you are the one attacking and provoking. It's horrible. Completely horrible. Don't give me anymore of your parcing of my words. I don't care. This is all the explanation I'm ever going to give and unless you can apologize and start treating people's deeply held convictions with a little more respect then I want nothing at all to do with you. I'm sure you want nothing to do with me either because you see me as the Devil. I get it. We're all the Devil except you.
DB,
June 19, 2008 - 15:27 ET by tracheostomyAnswered
trach... I pity
June 19, 2008 - 15:12 ET by bigtimertrach...
I pity you...
Dissect that.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Ct, shawn and Dee...thank
June 19, 2008 - 15:18 ET by bigtimerCt, shawn and Dee...thank you.
I just read all of this since last night when I logged off...
I just wanted to express my sincere thanks.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
BT: I just wanted to
June 19, 2008 - 15:36 ET by tracheostomyBT: I just wanted to express my sincere thanks.
Thanks for what? A purely subjective defense based on numbers and rep?
What did I say here that wasn't true?
-PJ
bt... No problem. Trach
June 19, 2008 - 15:39 ET by Clear thinkerbt...
No problem. Trach may not get it, but we do (at least I do) so your thanks is much appreciated.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
CT,
June 19, 2008 - 15:43 ET by tracheostomyAre you capable of actually articulating this "line too far" or whatever in your own words, or am I left to stand here guessing?
-PJ
Okay BT. "Benevolent
June 19, 2008 - 15:29 ET by tracheostomyOkay BT.
"Benevolent pity" or "contemptuous pity?"
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach... C'mon, don't you
June 19, 2008 - 15:33 ET by Clear thinkertrach...
C'mon, don't you think you are getting carried away with this?
I do.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
No CT. I really don't and
June 19, 2008 - 15:39 ET by tracheostomyNo CT. I really don't and I laid it all out in detail for Dee at the bottom.
You're asking me a question here that I do not recognize.
Geez, you guys! She's claiming a personal divine revelation here! Do you realize what that means?
-PJ
it never ends
June 18, 2008 - 01:07 ET by Conservative VoiceTook a vacation from newsbusters, but pop my head in every now and then, and its amazing how it seems to never change.
Good to see you again Fut, bigtimer...pj, cool arrow < shakes head and chuckles to one self> still claiming religious superiority I see.
Hey CV,
June 18, 2008 - 02:23 ET by tracheostomyHow's life in the "one true church"? <-- Obviously bait. Don't take it.
Accusations of religious superiority get real old; real quick when you'e the one balking and running.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Its late
June 18, 2008 - 02:25 ET by expatriotDo you know where your children are? Good night.
Hi, Ex,
June 18, 2008 - 02:30 ET by tracheostomy1. Double-Income; No Kids.
2. I'm on break at work. Late shift.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Hello
June 18, 2008 - 02:32 ET by expatriotI too am at work but it is 0924 here and the cloud cover is a bit depressing. It should clear up starting tomorrow. Not too warm and good sleeping temperature.
Enjoy the break and don't work too hard.
life is great trach, thanks
June 18, 2008 - 03:11 ET by Conservative Voicelife is great trach, thanks for asking. Not balking or running, just observing that everytime I happen to pop my head in there is some religious debate going on with you in the thick of it, and cool arrow not too far behind. It makes me laugh, and glad I made the decision a long time ago to be more of a casual observer.
CV: It makes me laugh, and
June 19, 2008 - 01:18 ET by tracheostomyCV: It makes me laugh, and glad I made the decision a long time ago to be more of a casual observer.
Doing a poor job of it.
I kept your seat warm just in case.
Put up or shut up.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
pj
June 21, 2008 - 00:42 ET by Conservative Voicelol, I see your bedside manner hasn't changed a bit.
CV,
June 21, 2008 - 00:51 ET by tracheostomyStepping in again I see. Couldn't resist, could you? Wanna go another round?
CV: lol, I see your bedside manner hasn't changed a bit.
Please do me a huge favor and tell BT here that extra-biblical encounters espousing another gospel of Jesus Christ is limited only to "one true church" M'kay?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach... Really, you
June 21, 2008 - 01:01 ET by bigtimertrach...
Really, you inserted yourself when I was talking to fut...not YOU.
It isn't your worry about any of what I was seeking...none at all.
But noooooo...along comes trach...the know all, be all...
Leave some of us alone...who didn't want trouble to begin with that were just seeking knowledge from others ...BESIDES YOU!
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Maybe you should FedEx me the rule-book.
June 21, 2008 - 01:15 ET by tracheostomyBT: Really, you inserted yourself when I was talking to fut...not YOU.
Oh, so you have a special license to insert yourself into conversation and I don't?
BT: It isn't your worry about any of what I was seeking...none at all.
It is when it's public. Like I said. You could have initiated on PM, but you couldn't resist.
BT: But noooooo...along comes trach...the know all, be all...
Who said that? Oh yeah, you, Dee, TM, Fut. Deliberately ignoring what I rely on use to buttress my beliefs. . .as if it's all me. Wow. You give me way too much credit. I have news for you BT.
*whispering* I didn't write the Bible.
BT: Leave some of us alone...who didn't want trouble to begin with that were just seeking knowledge from others ...BESIDES YOU!
Lies-lies-lies! You're so full of it.
*looking*
Oh wait! This was a private conversation I was having with Conservative Voice! You had no right to blah-blah-bloobity-blah huff-puff blargle blah. . .
LOL!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trachie-pooh...ROFLMAO...
June 21, 2008 - 01:20 ET by bigtimertrachie-pooh...ROFLMAO...
You are getting to be more fun than a barrel of monkeys!
...Hang in there...you'll be okay...
...snicker...snicker...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
BT,
June 21, 2008 - 01:28 ET by tracheostomyStill wondering where you got your exclusive license to break netiquette.
Did you leave it somewhere in your other white dress?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Take a deep breath
June 21, 2008 - 01:33 ET by bigtimerTake a deep breath trachie...you'll be okay...
I find it sad that you are so offended by my inquiry to fut the other night...says a lot about you.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Feelings. . .nothing more than feeh-he-hee-lings. . .
June 21, 2008 - 01:48 ET by tracheostomyBT: I find it sad that you are so offended by my inquiry to fut the other night...says a lot about you.
Yeah, it says "PJ responds to extra-biblical spiritual revelation with strong opposition."
What do you call it?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
But here is the problem
June 21, 2008 - 01:23 ET by Conservative VoiceBut here is the problem trach, if I would do that, you would get offended, because in my mind the "one true church" is the one the Lord is in charge of, and according to my knowledge and understanding, that church is the one I attend...or duh I wouldn't attend it.
But in any caseI don't need to tell Bt anything, since we tend to agree on just about everything and even though she doesn't go to my church I respect her religion and beliefs...as well as Fut's and others here. Because ( bringing up a sore spot ) I tend to believe we have more in common, and I can have a lovely discussion with her. With you, not so much, but that's ok, I still respect your religion and view point, I just know that it isn't worth discussing religion with you and agree with her that you do tend to go over the top.
. . .
June 21, 2008 - 01:45 ET by tracheostomyCV: But here is the problem trach, if I would do that, you would get offended. . .
Not offended. There's nothing to be afraid of. Sure I'd argue it to death, but not offended. Because see, it's not about you personally. It's about who's God is telling the truth here. I'm perfectly willing to sign up for your church if your apologist is better than mine. What's the problem with that?
CV: . . .because in my mind the "one true church" is the one the Lord is in charge of, and according to my knowledge and understanding, that church is the one I attend...or duh I wouldn't attend it.
Now, I take it from a different perspective entirely. Not even one according to the tenets or dictates of my own faith. In my mind, the "one true church" is the one the Lord is also in charge of. But it's also the one with the least contradictions.
Because God, any concept of God (yours, mine, doesn't matter), the one absolute that He has is perfection. . .right? If God therefore is perfect, He doesn't need to lie. No flaws to cover up for or to talk about, right? He would therefore be a God of total truth.
Therfore, His perfect word would go forth, and after the canon is closed never need revision or clarification on the original translation.
Thus, the one true church is logically the one that most closely follows the truth of God's divine revelation.
*thinking*
Wow. . .you're right CV. I would be offended.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach
June 22, 2008 - 22:50 ET by Conservative Voice"Because God, any concept of God (yours, mine, doesn't matter), the one
absolute that He has is perfection. . .right? If God therefore is
perfect, He doesn't need to lie. No flaws to cover up for or to talk
about, right? He would therefore be a God of total truth. "
God is truth, he is perfect, he is the way the truth and the light... the problem is you think your interpretation of what truth is and what perfection is...is in fact the truth. Truth will always be the truth, and God is what he is always and forever. That isn't debatable. Perceptions on the other hand...again, different religions all claim to have the correct interpretations...and we all have various scholars to back up our claim. You may be able to out quote me the Bible, it doesn't change my mind that I am in the correct church, because my conversion wasn't based on logic, it was based on confirmations of the spirit...and reconfirmed as I read scriptures and reconfirmed in my daily observations. That's the part you miss, time and time again. Said another way, I have received and felt the spirit, the Holy Ghost, and is supported by my logic and understanding of the scriptures. As Dee said above, for me it boils down to authority...I know if I wasn't a Mormon, I would be Catholic, only because the Jewish faith isn't Christian...otherwise call me a Jew.
Here is another little scripture that you do not get...by the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. You have several posters on this thread and other threads who haven't attacked your religion, but have attacked your method and delivery. You are so busy of being right that you completely miss the point altogether.
In any case, I only responded to you the first time out of my respect for BT. I again regret doing so, because if it doesn't stink...don't step in it, and now I have sneakers to clean....if you respond, and I don't, it doesn't mean you won, rather it means I decided it wasn't worth the time.
Hear hear Conservative voice!
June 22, 2008 - 22:54 ET by Dee BunkExcellent post. I agree with everything you just said.
Understood CV,
June 23, 2008 - 11:47 ET by tracheostomyOkay, you're floating the same exact idea as the one Dee and Futbol commonly endorse.
So, let's honestly accept it here for the time being, for the sake of argument, and look more closely at the details of your thesis.
CV: God is truth, he is perfect, he is the way the truth and the light...
Awesome. We can come together on this truth and then work forward from there. Please watch my statements closely, because I will ask you to please hold me personally accountable for any fallacy on my part. Okay?
CV: . . .the problem is you think your interpretation of what truth is and what perfection is...is in fact the truth.
Yet you are an individual and I am an individual. We're all human beings with the same potential for knowledge and understanding of absolute Truth.
Therefore, how do you know that God is truth? How are you assured of this Truth?
A. Someone told you based on their eisegetical interpretation.
B. Someone told you based on their exegetical interpretation.
C. You are aware of this based on your own eisegetical interpretation.
D. You are aware of this based on your own exegetical interpretation.
CV: Truth will always be the truth, and God is what he is always and forever. That isn't debatable. Perceptions on the other hand...again, different religions all claim to have the correct interpretations...and we all have various scholars to back up our claim.
Does the truth then, hang upon the scholar? Don't forget. The scholars are but human, just as we are. Are you saying that even their interpetations are all relative?
CV: You may be able to out quote me the Bible, it doesn't change my mind that I am in the correct church, because my conversion wasn't based on logic, it was based on confirmations of the spirit...and reconfirmed as I read scriptures and reconfirmed in my daily observations.
Objectively or subjectively? Because you "feel" it is so, or because you know it to be true?
CV: That's the part you miss, time and time again. Said another way, I have received and felt the spirit, the Holy Ghost, and is supported by my logic and understanding of the scriptures.
But CV, truth is not subjective. Truth is not relative to the individual. That's the part you miss.
What can be objectively true in politics, war, or your own personal daily life is not all of a sudden subjectively true in religion. Understand?
CV: As Dee said above, for me it boils down to authority...
With all due respect, that statement is a logical fallacy that defies truth. It is called an argument to authority fallacy.
You are allowing someone else to do your thinking for you based on your subjective feelings. It doesn't matter what "camp" you subscribe to, because your fallacy is clear whether you're a conservative, liberal, Mormon, Catholic, or Southern Baptist. Yes, there are even members of Reformed churches that do the same thing.
CV: Here is another little scripture that you do not get...by the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
- Am I on trial now?
- You're staging this as if I were interpreting the Bible in some completely unique way that is relative to me and only me. That's not true.
- My interpretation of any written document (including the Bible) is not limited to, or judged by only the members here on NB.
- Any writtent document, including the Bible, can only be read or interpreted eisegetically or exegetically.
- There are not 2 billion different interpretations of the Bible. The Bible is not a magical-mystery document that can be handled only by magical-mystery authorities with magical-mystery skills.
CV: You have several posters on this thread and other threads who haven't attacked your religion, but have attacked your method and delivery. You are so busy of being right that you completely miss the point altogether.
Does the method of delivery matter more than the content? Are you actually telling me you want your ears tickled first? Do you respond in a more positive way to empty flattery?
If so, then it's time to enact the fairness doctrine and end talk radio. So you don't like my "Michael-Savage-style" approach to debate. I also do a great Laura Ingraham. You sir, do not understand the following. . .
- Truth is not relative to the individual. <--- Do you agree with this?
- There is a stark difference between exegesis and eisegesis. <--- Are you aware of this?
- An argument to authority is a logical fallacy, and therefore, not truth. <--- Can you accept this?
CV: In any case, I only responded to you the first time out of my respect for BT.
I'm sorry. I didn't know you respected her so much. Maybe you can explain this one to me. Is it because she's a frequent poster? Do you respect her because she is capable of calmly reasoning with others?
CV: I again regret doing so, because if it doesn't stink...don't step in it, and now I have sneakers to clean....if you respond, and I don't, it doesn't mean you won, rather it means I decided it wasn't worth the time.
I am attempting to appeal to you based upon truth. Not individually relative and liberal "truths." Please hang around and work with me on this. Please don't play hit and run with this.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
"Therefore, how do you know
June 23, 2008 - 13:03 ET by Conservative Voice"Therefore, how do you know that God is truth? How are you assured of this Truth?"
Lets start even further back...does God exist? How do you know God exists? If you say, the Bible told me so, I would counter, so what...it was written by people in power to control the masses...the myths of Greek and Norse etc were also written, what makes the Bible so special? Its just a collection of myths.
But something tells me, God exists, its in my heart. It is then supported by my observations in the world...intelligent design, which then again reconfirms my testimony that God exists.
So that takes me to the next step. Who is God, or is it Gods? Is God a loving God, or did he just create us and moved on. Is God still alive? None of these questions can be answered, except through God. All of our knowledge of God ( our mental knowledge ) is based on second hand information. Unless you youreslf have seen God ( and even then, like you said up thread, how does one know its really God, or if the angel is of God? ) What is it that causes one to put any faith in the Bible? It is the witness of the Holy Ghost, and we feel it in our hearts. From reading the Bible, especially the Old Testiment, I read about how God does nothing except he reveals it to his prophets (Amos 3:7 ). In the New Testiment I still read about how God is a God of order, he called the apsotles to have his authority, and they ordained others to do various church duties. So again trach, it boils down to authority...if you believe in the God of Israel, then you believed Israel has this authority. If you are Christian, you believe that because they rejected Christ, their authority was lost and restored back in Christ's day. If you are a Mormon, then you believe that there was an apostasy and that God called a modern day prophet to restore the gospel. Obviously I am moving rather fast, and doing a lot of hand waving, but hopefully you can see where I am coming from.
You said you don't trust personal revelation, which I find interesting and sad. Because for someone as knowledgeable as you are with the scriptures, its sad you put so much faith in learned men instead of trusting that God will answer your prayer ( James 1:5 )
As far as respecting Bt, no it isn't because she has been here a long time. It is because we tend to agree on most things most of the time, and I consider her to be a friend. She also respects my religion, and I respect hers. She also recognizes that the scope of this site isn't trying to convert people to a certain religion...or quit a certain religion, but that we all are in battle for keeping traditional American values strong. She is a team member that works hard at being fair and honest to everyone. The issue that everyone here is trying to get through to you is, you can disagree without being a boar. I am not looking for flattery or fakeness. You can challenge without being over bearing.
In the mouth of two are three witnesses shall every word be established isn't just confined to things of scripture, it is God's law on how truth can be established. You aren't on trial in the traditional sense that we have a judge and jury, but we do stand as witnesses against you to be more civil in your approach. You can disagree without being disagreeable.
another excellent post CV
June 23, 2008 - 13:46 ET by Dee BunkI know you said you aren't looking for flattery or fakeness but I must flatter and when I do it's never fake - it's always from the heart. Your post was beautiful. Thank you.
There is a truth out there more true than even our own senses.
June 23, 2008 - 18:02 ET by tracheostomy"I can see, and that is why I can be happy, in what you call the dark, but which to me is golden. I can see a God-made world, not a manmade world."
- Helen Keller
CV,
June 23, 2008 - 17:47 ET by tracheostomyCV: Lets start even further back...does God exist? How do you know God exists? If you say, the Bible told me so, I would counter, so what...it was written by people in power to control the masses...the myths of Greek and Norse etc were also written, what makes the Bible so special? Its just a collection of myths.
No. This is similar to the debates I have with Syrius and other atheists. I tell them the same thing I am telling you. You cannot argue from the Bible without some acceptance of a God.
Therefore, I argue to the existence of God through Descartes proof of God and this nifty guy, who both have arguments that don't depend on the Bible. They merely argue for God.
Then I go from there to the concept of, "if God, then."
If God, then God is omnipotent.
If God, then God is omniscient.
If God, then God is omnipresent.
If God is lacking in any of these, then God is not God.
^_^
CV: But something tells me, God exists, its in my heart.
That's a subjective feeling.
CV: It is then supported by my observations in the world...intelligent design, which then again reconfirms my testimony that God exists.
Exists yes, but. . .in your heart? That's spackled over with feelings. You're stretching ID beyond its limits and calling it good. Sure you can use ID for an argument of God, but not your God. Not mine either. It all comes down to your concept of what or who this God is. That's where the very definition of "God" and the Bible's view on God come into play.
CV: So that takes me to the next step. Who is God, or is it Gods?
The atheist can really nail you here, because any law of infinite regression is a fallacy (or a logical untruth).
In order for God to exist, God must be absolutely self-sufficient (or else He is not God). <--- This is key.
The old atheist argument to "who created the creator(?)" is a subtle attempt to weaken God through the fallacy of infinite regression. But God is all self-sufficient. That's what the atheist is hoping you'll forget. >;)
Therefore, there is only one true God and even the creatures in the creation whom He declares "gods" fail to have His own attributes. So it is written: I said, “You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High. But you shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Thus there are no other gods before Him. There can be only One. Thus, there is only one single, eternal, and ever-living God who cannot die. For if God could die, He wasn't God in the first place.
CV: Is God a loving God, or did he just create us and moved on. Is God still alive? None of these questions can be answered, except through God.
Au contraire mon frere! See above. If there is any fallacy within my arguments above, you are more than welcome to point them out.
CV: All of our knowledge of God ( our mental knowledge ) is based on second hand information.
See Descartes. If you admit you are not perfect, and no one you know is perfect, then where does your concept of perfection/imperfection come from?
CV: Unless you youreslf have seen God ( and even then, like you said up thread, how does one know its really God, or if the angel is of God?)
Ahhh! That's right! Thus, we cannot trust our own sight or our own subjective experiences. That's why the Bible has tests to ensure such errors do not take place.
And on the back-end of it, this is also what Descartes' goal was, to achieve one absolute idea or truth that we can be absolutely sure of. The law of non-contradiction is not a philosophy of man. The law of non-contradiction is a law. Therefore, if you have the foundation of one law, you can build truth-upon-truth until you are quite literally led to an inescapable and absolute encounter with God that is far more reliable than sight, subjectivity, or feelings.
CV: What is it that causes one to put any faith in the Bible? It is the witness of the Holy Ghost, and we feel it in our hearts.
That assertion is not biblical. The Bible states that the Holy Ghost transforms our minds and our will to agree with the truth that is already there set before us. Originally, without the Holy Ghost, we are hostile to anything that is God's truth. But it is truth whether we agree to it or not. Through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, you then place your faith in the entire Bible (every single word of it), and will even have faith that the Bible is, in fact, so completely true that it will need no extra help from any argument to authority or any additonal canon.
CV: From reading the Bible, especially the Old Testiment, I read about how God does nothing except he reveals it to his prophets (Amos 3:7 ).
Yet all of those prophets were to be tested (Deut 13:1-4). Just because someone claims he or she is a prophet (such as BT for example), it doesn't absolve them from the Biblical test.
CV: In the New Testiment I still read about how God is a God of order, he called the apsotles to have his authority, and they ordained others to do various church duties. So again trach, it boils down to authority...if you believe in the God of Israel, then you believed Israel has this authority.
God authorized only 14 apostles. I have argued in the past with Catholics on this fact that apostolic succession of any kind is not taught in scripture. I can dig up the thread if you'd like. But even the apostles themselves had extensive tests similar to that of a prophet. See Galatians 1:8. Even Paul had to contend with false apostles who accused him of being a false apostle! Crazy. But the Bible has safety-locks and tests for discerning such. It's also a spiritual gift.
CV: If you are Christian, you believe that because they rejected Christ, their authority was lost and restored back in Christ's day.
No. The true son of Abraham is not one of race or birth. The prophets lost no authority in their words. There were no true religious authorities in Jesus' day either, which is why everyone was astonished at how Jesus spoke with authority, and not as the ruling scribes or the Pharisees. Thus, I don't see your assertion here.
CV: If you are a Mormon, then you believe that there was an apostasy and that God called a modern day prophet to restore the gospel.
Where was this apostasy? I believe it was in New York's burned-over_district that spawned such individuals as Charles Finney and Joseph Smith.
CV: Obviously I am moving rather fast, and doing a lot of hand waving, but hopefully you can see where I am coming from.
Yes. I see where you're coming from.
CV: You said you don't trust personal revelation, which I find interesting and sad.
Reagan's axiom "Trust, but verify" is a translation of an old Russian proverb. It not only applies to the cold-war politics of his day, but also works in the realm of religion as well, does it not?
CV: Because for someone as knowledgeable as you are with the scriptures, its sad you put so much faith in learned men instead of trusting that God will answer your prayer ( James 1:5 )
That one verse there? It depends entirely on your source stated within that very verse. James here was only referring to one God. See James 2:19 for backup. James here in 2:19 is literally mocking those who at the very least acknowledge one God. You must begin with one God first, and then pray for the wisdom after.
And we're both appealing to the same Bible CV. My faith in the Bible alone comes after a belief in an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God. There is only one self-sufficient document that endorses a fully self-sufficient God.
You haven't come to that agreement with me yet. People like Syrius can eat you for lunch on that kind of subjectivism. Do you see where I get off the train of human reason? I take one step off the human concept of a perfectly self-sufficent being. . .straight to the Bible. The Bible takes care of all the rest.
All of it. I even expanded James there to help you out. I don't translate according to my pet presuppositions. I merely expand the text. That's it. All the training I had was to teach me this. I don't come from any indoctrination programs based on presuppositions or eisegetical interpretations. All exegetical interpretation is about is nothing more than expanding the authoritative text outward for a more complete and thorough interpretation.
CV: As far as respecting Bt, no it isn't because she has been here a long time. It is because we tend to agree on most things most of the time, and I consider her to be a friend.
You know her personally?
CV: She also respects my religion, and I respect hers.
According to what standard? Here on NB, I am rather absurdly being accused of some form of religious_persecution on an equal access free speech internet forum. Koo-koo.
So I really don't understand what this "extra-special respect" is here that you, BT, Dee, Fut, and TM are all trying to get me to comprehend. If you all can understand it, then you can articulate back it to anyone (including me) in plain English. If not, then I suspect you're trying to fool me with some form of mystical "common knowledge" argument. Which is no more than a consensus argument that would make Al Gore proud.
CV: She also recognizes that the scope of this site isn't trying to convert people to a certain religion...or quit a certain religion, but that we all are in battle for keeping traditional American values strong.
According to my religion, people don't convert. Remember? Therefore, you cannot accuse me of having that motive.
You're projecting and presuming something on my religion that doesn't exist, and I have corrected it. Please tell Dee this as well, since she does the same and willfully ignores my honest responses to the contrary.
However, here at NB we are allowed to argue for absolute truth and what constitutes the basis of traditional American values. Are these traditional values mere empty tradition, or are they based on some absolute truth that exists outside of individual relativism? I'm taking it to the center or the base. Everyone else can argue to the symptoms and the liberal reactions out on the edges, but I want to investigate the root of the matter. That's why I'm here.
CV: She is a team member that works hard at being fair and honest to everyone. The issue that everyone here is trying to get through to you is, you can disagree without being a boar. I am not looking for flattery or fakeness. You can challenge without being over bearing.
How am I overbearing? You have as much right to reply to anything I write.
CV: In the mouth of two are three witnesses shall every word be established isn't just confined to things of scripture, it is God's law on how truth can be established.
Not apart from a truth that has already been agreed upon by 12 beforehand, who are under the authority of the one way, the truth, and the life. I am not standing before a court in an ancient Jewish civil trial. BT and Futbol have told me to shut up. Are you trying to do the same? Are you trying to censure me?
What, you really think this is about mere rhetoric?
CV: You aren't on trial in the traditional sense that we have a judge and jury, but we do stand as witnesses against you to be more civil in your approach. You can disagree without being disagreeable.
You subjectively find me disagreeable with no regard to the content I present. You are arguing to a consensus mob mentality. I will not be mobbed.
Take it to the admins, the woodshed, or shut up. I gave you a fair option. I deserve the same and thus far, you have limited it to only one choice. You are not my authority no matter how many of you there are.
You can flood me, have me banned, or come up with some real arguments on your own, but that's pretty much it. Make up your minds and do as you will.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
CV... I have just read
June 23, 2008 - 18:18 ET by bigtimerCV...
I have just read your posts...especially the last two here....I am misty-eyed...and thank you...(by the way, for what I learn from you and always have, not just your support.)
What a work of wonder your post is...God given..
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Hi CV... I just saw your
June 21, 2008 - 00:52 ET by bigtimerHi CV...
I just saw your post here..yeah fun fun fun with trach...as usual.
This is the first time I have ever been so angry since Little Debbie, when it comes to religion or all of our individual values...
I truly try to ignore him...no can do anymore.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
bt
June 21, 2008 - 01:13 ET by Conservative VoiceWell like I said above, I poke my head here every now and then, spend most of my time over at Hot Air...but sometimes I come here and see what the current hot topic is...and it seems everytime I do check the recent comments...trach is using his version of the gospel to "prove" all us stoopid Christians wrong...oops I stepped in it again, according to him I am not suppose to claim I am a Christian.
Double-oops. . .
June 21, 2008 - 01:22 ET by tracheostomyCV: trach is using his version of the gospel to "prove" all us stoopid Christians wrong...oops I stepped in it again, according to him I am not suppose to claim I am a Christian.
Hold up now. I never said that. You can claim you're a Christian all you want. Just don't try to truck in a bunch of extra-special-added revelation, or else I'll start asking you a few questions.
You know. . .
*nudge*
. . .the questions that make people feel all sweaty and uncomfortable about absolute truth. And other "ahem" stuff that makes you run.
All I'm asking for is consistency.
God is truth. God's word never fails. Ergo, God is consistent. Thus, God is not the author of confusion.
Easy-breezy beautiful! ^_^
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
CV, please. Just tell BT
June 21, 2008 - 01:25 ET by tracheostomyCV, please. Just tell BT that someone else has a monopoly on first vision. Okay?
As a matter of fact, it's been done to death a thousand different ways. Why do we have to validate another one?
Oh yeah.
It's BT.
I forgot.
That explains everything.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trachie-pooh... I never
June 21, 2008 - 01:30 ET by bigtimertrachie-pooh...
I never stated such a thing.
That is your version/conclusion.
Please...I beg you..get a grip...before it's too late!
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
FINALLY!
June 21, 2008 - 01:51 ET by tracheostomyI knew if I stuck around long enough you'd say something substantial.
BT: I never stated such a thing.
Great. Then correct where I quoted you. Correct my quotes.
BT: That is your version/conclusion.
My conclusions are based on your quotes. You cannot assert otherwise without clarifying the statements of yours that I quoted. So let's get to work, BT!
Hop to it! Ain't got all night now!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trachie-pooh... Read post
June 21, 2008 - 01:58 ET by bigtimertrachie-pooh...
Read post above and be advised....
Simple as that.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Above? Where?
June 21, 2008 - 02:03 ET by tracheostomyThat's my post.
Try again.
Be more specific.
Date, time, quote.
C'mon. You're better than this. You're just playin' dumb.
Stop playing the evasive liberal now and get with the program.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Let's go liars, let's go!
June 21, 2008 - 02:11 ET by tracheostomyI threw some turkey in the oven (literally, don't read into that m'kay?) and I'm fixing a pot of coffee. I'll be checking in every 5 minutes or less.
Settin' the timer for the Bigtimer. . .
Don't let me down, now!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach...like I said...read
June 21, 2008 - 02:16 ET by bigtimertrach...like I said...read post above in the last post I sent you..digest that.
Btw....If you are going to set a timer for the turkey...you are the stuffing and you have to adjust the timer for that.
You know how to do that don't ya' big boy...be all, end all..if not I'll teach ya'.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
You think I'm stupid or something?
June 21, 2008 - 02:21 ET by tracheostomyBT: trach...like I said...read post above in the last post I sent you..digest that.
I did. And all you got are EMPTY AND UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS.
BT: Btw....If you are going to set a timer for the turkey...you are the stuffing and you have to adjust the timer for that.
Non-sequitur. I guess if you find the joke funny that's all that counts. Kind of like your facts.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Ahem. . .
June 21, 2008 - 02:48 ET by tracheostomyPut_up_or_shut_up.
My conclusions are based on your quotes. You cannot assert otherwise without clarifying the statements of yours that I quoted.
I just had a divine vision of Queen Latifah and she told me you better bring it!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Alert: The true definition
June 21, 2008 - 02:55 ET by bigtimerAlert: The true definition of insanity is trach's post above.
...'Nuff said.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
. . .
June 21, 2008 - 03:04 ET by tracheostomyBT: Alert: The true definition of insanity is trach's post above.
If it were insane, you would then be able to find and correct the errors in my statements. Yet you haven't.
Still, you fail and continue to assert yourself as some kind recipient of divine contact.
You have flat-out lied about your so-called "private conversation" and what you claimed to say when it's right there for everyone to read.
My quotes and my conclusions stand until corrected in a logical and objective manner. Otherwise, you fail.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
BEEP!
June 21, 2008 - 03:39 ET by tracheostomy"Paging Joanna Southcott, please respond to the white courtesy phone. Joanna Southcott, white courtesy phone."
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach
June 21, 2008 - 04:36 ET by Conservative VoiceOh I get it, you are bent because someone saw a vision, do you not believe in visions trach? Is that too scary of a concept that other people may see things outside of what is written? The problem is trach, everyone reads the Bible will interpret different things...but all feel like they are right. You can't prove your version by just applying logic and reason. Obviously everyone can't be right, but I contend you can't prove it using the scientific method. To be converted by the mind is a shallow conversion indeed, because all it takes is some one who is a better speaker to convince you your religion is wrong. Here is the thing, a concept that you can't seem to grasp...no one really cares what you believe here, and no one appreciates their religion to be dogged or things that are personal dogged. No one here will deny the fact you are well versed...but that doesn't make you right, so the hostility towards you -- that you seem to always miss...which is why I laugh at you -- is you have the pretense of you are right and everyone else is stoopid, you parse every word that people say so that you can debate them, instead of listening to what they are trying to say, and you lack basic courtesy and respect on things that people consider very sacred. On a more friendly note, I know your heart is in the right place, I know you mean well, I certainly respect your diligence and effort.
CV,
June 21, 2008 - 15:31 ET by tracheostomyCV: Oh I get it, you are bent because someone saw a vision. . .
Correctomundo!
CV: . . .do you not believe in visions trach?
I'm very clear on this. I believe she had a vision. However, I do not believe any vision should be taken. . .lightly. Or accepted out-of-hand.
Right out of the gate, I asked her some honest questions and she flinched hard. She didn't even have to tell me anything personal to answer most of them.
When you boiled it down, all I ask is, "How do you know a spirit who says they're Mary or an angel or someone else is telling the truth?"
Because they said so?
Because the shock of seeing an angel of light is supposed to make you check your brains at the door?
CV: Is that too scary of a concept that other people may see things outside of what is written?
"Scary" implies that my reaction is purely subjective. <-- That's Dee's accusation as well.
It's not subjective. It is purely objective. The Bible clearly states how to handle situations where other people see things; even if you see "something" yourself. Follow?
CV: The problem is trach, everyone reads the Bible will interpret different things...but all feel like they are right.
Now how on earth did you jump from the Bible (an objective document) to one individual's vision (subjective experience)?
The Bible isn't some magic book of shadowy riddles where everyone reads it coming away with some different conclusion. You and others here openly advocate an eisegetical interpetation of scripture. You also accept it when someone looks up from an objective writing and states, "What I feel this is saying to me is. . ."
But that's what liberals do all the time with everything they read. This is not the exegetical Bible method. There's only two ways to interpret the Bible or anything else that is written.
1. Read your own interpretation into the text.
2. Read the text as written and interpret on the basis of the text itself.
I chose to side with the exegetes. You don't. Until you understand both sides, you won't understand the Bible, period.
CV: To be converted by the mind is a shallow conversion indeed, because all it takes is some one who is a better speaker to convince you your religion is wrong.
That's advocating a liberal gospel of feelings-centered conversion based on individual experience. The Bible is clear when it talks about the "renewing of your mind" or else it wouldn't say "mind" it would say "feelings."
Furthermore, you're arguing to the charismatic powers of the speaker(s) themselves. . .a personality cult we are not. The objective document is there and exegesis is the key. Exegesis is the truth of, as Jesus stated, worshipping in spirit and in truth. Not a subjective truth of feelings-centered experiences, but the truly objective truth of God's Word as stated.
CV: Here is the thing, a concept that you can't seem to grasp...no one really cares what you believe here, and no one appreciates their religion to be dogged or things that are personal dogged.
I know who cares and who doesn't. I don't think you understand how I use that for the advantage of those that do care.
And I know you see my methods as "dogging," but this isn't a conservative social club. If you don't have anything to be afraid of, then stop running. If you don't know the truth, then stop fronting as if you knew the truth to begin with. If you do claim to know the truth, then bring it to the test. You think everyone has a right to their own doctrinal opinion, and they do. But freedom from an analytical reply is something you don't have. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. And my standard of objective faith is high.
As a matter of fact, easily half the posters here, including yourself, don't even believe in an objective faith. So don't assume that I don't know who's side you're on.
CV: No one here will deny the fact you are well versed...
Then my citations are correct. Not my personal opinions. Get it? It's not about me, but rather. . .about what I am pointing to. You're staring at my finger. Don't look at the finger!
Examine my source and see if I have contradicted myself. Confirm if I am in error or not. My opinion is dependent upon the objective truth that pre-existed my own birth.
CV: . . .instead of listening to what they are trying to say, and you lack basic courtesy and respect on things that people consider very sacred.
The accusations of "lack of courtesy and respect," and other's accusations that I'm "full of hate" are mere reactions to my objective assessment of what they consider "very sacred." You're trying to sell me a used car, I kick the tires, and the driver's side door falls off.
Stop trying to sell me your junk faith. I don't care how "valuable" you shine it up to be. My apostles told me to test it and you all freak out when I do just that.
I didn't break your faith. Your faith broke because it's crap! If yours were a genuine faith. . .IT WOULD STAND THE TEST!!!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Dee,
June 18, 2008 - 02:20 ET by tracheostomyEverything I wrote was based on Fut's own admissions to the same.
Or weren't you paying attention?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
No Dee. . .
June 19, 2008 - 01:22 ET by tracheostomyDB: Most of us know that humans can't do that.
. . .not PJ.
Hebrews 4:12.
". . .and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
What could that be, and do you truly believe it?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Historically, it can be
June 19, 2008 - 00:12 ET by cleverpigHistorically, it can be proven that the mass acceptance and practice of homosexuality marks the decline of all great societies.
If it can be proven, prove it. As far as I know the societies you mention accepted homosexuality (to a certain extent) during their rise, peak, and decline.
If you want to prove that homosexuality caused a decline, you have to show how, or at least find a good chronological correlation.
Uh???
June 17, 2008 - 19:31 ET by zoro7957........"happy human faces"..rather than animals? Reptiles?
DB,
June 19, 2008 - 15:31 ET by tracheostomyDee: You don't have any lines of decency Trach. . .
Yet you continue to claim that I've crossed one.
Dee: the only thing you care about is language and technical name calling and that stuff is so mild in comparison to your total lack of disrespect for anyone else's religion.
Hold on, I got a quote just perfect for this occasion. . .
Dee: We condemn the acts, they condemn the people. It's so completely ludicrous. You speak out against bad behavior to discourage the behavior and you make laws to provide consequences against bad behavior. It doesn't mean you don't forgive. This makes me sooooo mad!
But when it comes to me I'm just plain "mean" right? Depends on how you're lowering your standard of behavior I guess.
Language is everything here. If liberals are redefining the terms all the time in politics, why can't we take it into the other taboo-topic of religion.
Hello Dee? Did a light bulb just come on somewhere. . .I hope?
Dee: Like I said before, If you want to share what is good about your religion - more power to you. I stick up for people who do that all the time.
Okay, what's good about my religion is there are safety switches and failsafes that protect against anything else masquerading as "Christianity." You ever notice how I don't go after other religions even a fraction of the amount that I go after so-called "Christians."
Dee: You tell everyone else what is wrong about them and their religion and you do it in a mean spirited way, calling them "heretics" and "mystics" , "attention whores" among many other derogatory names.
I'm speaking out against the bad behavior Dee, and it is very-very bad to call any heretical teachings, mysticism, and attention-whoring visions of a co-redemptrix "Christianity."
It doesn't mean they're not beyond forgiveness.
Mean spirited? According to what standard? If someone comes in here preaching a Pleiadian Jesus, am I therefore obligated to "respect" it? C'mon! It's just another form of Christianity, right? Am I "mean" if some frequent poster denies the Trinity or some other "stuff" that's so "mild in comparison"?
Dee: It's outrageous.
And the basis for your outrage is. . .?
Dee: I could understand it if you were defending your religion from attack, but it's the opposite, you are the one attacking and provoking.
My religion is under attack when any claims are made that are contrary to scripture. My so-called "attacks" and alleged provocations are in response to a doctrinal stance masquerading itself as Christianity! You yourself cover for it by calling it "religion." It's not. It's claiming Christianity and you're too scared to call it like it is!
Dee: Don't give me anymore of your parcing of my words. I don't care.
That is the problem. Isn't it? You really don't care. Everything's hunky-dory as long as it's all superficially painted with the broad brush of a Jesus, any Jesus, it doesn't matter to you.
Dee: This is all the explanation I'm ever going to give and unless you can apologize and start treating people's deeply held convictions with a little more respect then I want nothing at all to do with you.
What about your deeply held convictions, Dee? Do you have any convictions AT ALL DEE? Do you own a single copy of the Bible?
Dee: I'm sure you want nothing to do with me either because you see me as the Devil. I get it. We're all the Devil except you.
It's the behavior Dee. But nice try on your part, I'll give you that. I've been called the devil quite a few times, but I don't believe I've done that to anyone else. Just because you're blindly teaching a doctrine of Satan doesn't make you any more than his unwitting pawn.
Look, it's like I've said before. This isn't some imaginary lounge where everyone is relaxing face-to-face in a private setting. This isn't a conservative social club.
This is a public internet forum where intense discussion is the order of the day. If all you can do is make an emotional reaction, then you're no better than a liberal.
Answer my questions or shut up Dee. On a site with literally thousands of readers, everyone posting their religious convictions will in turn automatically become a roadside prophet. Get it?
You, BT, Fut, TM, and others get to preach your doctrine and call it Christianity, and I get to respond.
You can play the PR propaganda game like a liberal, or check your Bible and get with the winning team. That's how it is. I have an objective line. You don't. So stop fronting as if you had one to begin with.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
just as I suspected - It's clear that Trach
June 19, 2008 - 15:38 ET by Dee Bunkis terrified that someone else could be right. His problem is his own lack of faith. He needs to Pray more
LOL, but all psychoanalyzing aside here Dee. . .
June 19, 2008 - 15:49 ET by tracheostomyDee: It's clear that Trach is terrified that someone else could be right.
Again, the false posturing as if my views were not based on continual appeals to an infallible objective standard that exists outside of my own individual opinion.
And I have yet to see "someone else" appealing to the same.
-PJ
It's all spiritual baby - If you were saved
June 19, 2008 - 16:01 ET by Dee Bunkyou wouldn't be so afraid and hateful.
Spiritual is as spiritual does. . .
June 19, 2008 - 16:05 ET by tracheostomyDee: If you were saved, you wouldn't be so afraid and hateful.
And if you were saved, you'd be following orders.
-PJ
I don't claim to be saved
June 19, 2008 - 16:11 ET by Dee BunkI searching and I know one place not to look
Then you cannot speak for
June 19, 2008 - 16:13 ET by tracheostomyThen you cannot speak for Christianity. You only assume "it's all spiritual baby," and that it's all relative. We can't all be right, yet you want everyone to see this as if it were possible. -PJ
I've met lots of people who are
June 19, 2008 - 16:19 ET by Dee Bunkand they don't ooze the hate and disrespect that you do. You may be close but you're not there until you drop the hate and disrespect. Keep praying
Dee: I've met lots of
June 19, 2008 - 16:32 ET by tracheostomyDee: I've met lots of people who are. . .
Who are what? You've met them personally or online? You've never met me. You only know me through a debate format. In my spare time I play with toys and puppies and read fairy tales.
Dee: and they don't ooze the hate and disrespect that you do.
What standard of hate and disrespect are you asserting? This is the same subjective drum that Futbol and TM beat. And you agree with them. . .why?
Dee: You may be close but you're not there until you drop the hate and disrespect. Keep praying
Hate and disrespect for others who have the gall to prop themselves up as the receiver of special divine revelation?
So if the co-redemptrix herself appeared to me and told me to tell you to vote for Obama, you'd have to respect that. . .right?
It's as you stated. It's the behavior against the standard; not the person. You're making yourself appear the hypocrite in a single day by backpedaling and saying that my arguments are to the person.
Look! There is a monitor and miles of cable in-between us. You "know me" only as a single specialized aspect.
Also, you have successfully drawn the argument away from the topic of BT's divine claim and to me personally.
Good job. No better than a liberal.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Sorry Trach - no one cares about your "unique" standards
June 20, 2008 - 09:04 ET by Dee BunkThis forum is made up of people of all different faiths and includes Jews, Christians (Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Pentecostals, Born Agains, Southern Baptists, and many many more), Atheists, Agnostics and probably even some Buddhists and New Agers.
Everyone else here respects others and doesn't go around antagonizing people about their religious beliefs (other than occasional obnoxious liberals) No one else is trying to convert anyone to their faith. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE.
You are so fearful that yours is wrong that you feel the need to attack everyone about what they believe. You jump on threads about media bias of Catholicism just to spread more lies about it than even the media does.
No where have I ever seen a thread that the blogger or a poster said "Southern Baptists believe that (blah blah blah) and they are a bunch of heretics and mystics (blah blah blah).
You should become a liberal because your views are much more in line with theirs. You want to condemn everyone and only allow your specific interpretation of religion to be talked about. You think that your false interpretation of another's persons religion is what should be presented to the public.
You do a disservice to all Christians (including your own faith) by interjecting your false interpretations all the time.
NO ONE else is trying to convert people. They are only standing up for false accusations against their religion.
Your obnoxiousness about Catholics only fuels the liberals and justifies the way they treat all Christians. They think they have a right to explain and attack YOUR religion too. They don't, and you don't have a right to explain and attack anyone else's. Explain your own and stop giving false interpretations of others.
It's one thing if you want to start your own religious debating threads, that's different, but for you to pounce on all these threads about Catholics, that are not at all about debating theology, is inappropriate, rude and shows your complete and all consuming fear about the accuracy of your own religion.
No one is going to be converted here on a blog about how the media misrepresents Catholics or Baptists, or Pentecostals or anything else. If you are confident in your religion then you don't need to worry about mis characterizing everyone else's. You are not confident in your own. You almost never talk about it except in the context of criticizing others.
You fear that because Fut sticks up for attacks on his religion that somehow everyone here will convert to Catholicism. You fear that because BT has a near death experience that she shares with Fut that the world could crumble down around you and people could become Catholics over it.
BT never claimed any divine revelation. You put that interpretation on it because you are scared to death and are afraid that you could be missing something.
You are the only one who claims some sort of Omnipresence and Omnipotence to be able to tell what is in people's hearts and minds. Only God can do that, you can't, no matter how bad you want to.
Like I said, you need to pray more because you are not getting something. You think you are the judge. You think you are God. You are not. People who are born again have an individual relationship with Jesus and know and respect that others do also. They pray and answer to him, not you.
I've known many people to become born again and they all start out very fearful and critical like you. After much more prayer and time they come to a more reasonable place that recognizes and respects the free will aspect that is crucial for truly coming to know God. They change from attacking people to praying for them and from antagonizing them to answering their questions. They don't focus on what is wrong with every other religion, they focus on what is right about theirs.
And what a joke that you say I diverted attention away from your point (which was bogus and false). That's all you ever do on these threads about religion. The point is how the media misrepresents them and you never ever focus on that.
Dee, read carefully. . .
June 20, 2008 - 16:36 ET by tracheostomyI wouldn't want you to skim over anything.
Dee: Sorry Trach - no one cares about your unique standards.
Heh. Orly? Absolutely no one? There are quite a few here who actually rely upon my standard even before I became a member here.
My standard (singular) is indeed tangible and a valid objective reference. Your standards (plural) are subjective and based on your consensus reaction to my singular source.
Dee: This forum is made up of people of all different faiths and includes Jews, Christians (Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Pentecostals, Born Agains, Southern Baptists, and many many more), Atheists, Agnostics and probably even some Buddhists and New Agers.
Have you ever noticed that I only single out the ones who claim to understand Christianity? This means that I pretty much ignore Jews, Agnostics, and probably even some Buddhists and New Agers. There's even been a Wiccan or two that's posted here.
You open your mouth here about Christianity, then you're quite literally preaching to thousands about your unique take on it. Your denomination means nothing to me. I guarantee that whatever you say as a self-appointed representative of whatever form of Christianity you claim to embrace, that I will compare it to my own standard as stated above.
And many here have in fact subtly, joyfully, and oh-so-quietly made the cut. Those that clearly didn't are the only ones with a bone to pick here. It's not my fault you bought a cheap sheep suit.
The is a pass/fail form of judgement that Jesus and the apostles do indeed endorse, and I will make full use of it! This is not the final form of judgement (condemnation) limited to God alone.
So, just because you don't understand the difference between the two doesn't give you license to lash out against it. Your problem is clearly not with me.
Dee: Everyone else here respects others and doesn't go around antagonizing people about their religious beliefs (other than occasional obnoxious liberals) No one else is trying to convert anyone to their faith. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE.
YAY! Then I'm obedient. But seriously Dee, you have to give credit where credit is due. You know I'm not the only one.
You still define "respect" in the same manner that Futbol does; failing to specify it any further. Respect does not mean to endorse or embrace. Furthermore, on a public debate forum I can examine and analyse the doctrines brought to the table here all I want. This isn't your own private dinner party Dee. As long as religious debate is allowed here, I'm going to take full advantage of it.
I walk a fine line between characterizing individuals as part of a whole denomination. Notice how I didn't shut out Thermistocles for the sake of Futbol. That would be bias. Doubly so, since I am aware that not all Catholics are the same. Everyone has a chance to present their case here as individuals, and I will debate them according to the theological flaws they themselves may or may not present at the given time.
Dee: You are so fearful that yours is wrong that you feel the need to attack everyone about what they believe.
Argument to motive. This is a fallacious statement. I have made my motives very clear here for quite a long time. If you want to substitue those for your subjectively intuitive interpretation, then you're essentially putting words in my mouth.
And I only have one fear. Just one. Luke 18:8. If you blow it off without at least 10 seconds of serious thought to what He's saying, then you have a shallow concept of faith.
Dee: You jump on threads about media bias of Catholicism just to spread more lies about it than even the media does.
Please demonstrate. By and large I pretty much ignore the blogs on the main page that deal with Catholicism. Are you accusing me of trolling each one? Funny how the last one I posted on, the OP really understood me in the end. Pity you don't.
Dee: No where have I ever seen a thread that the blogger or a poster said "Southern Baptists believe that (blah blah blah) and they are a bunch of heretics and mystics (blah blah blah).
1. Did I actually say that in regards to Catholics? Careful. Mine are individually crafted arguments that I can point to direct quotes. I take the term "heretic" and "mystic" very-very seriously.
2. I believe TM claims to be Southern Baptist. Isn't that odd? I thought so too. I can dig up the quote if you'd like.
3. I debated a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary right here a week or so ago, and he's on the tip-top of my list. The RCC apologists here are small potatoes compared to this one. I went 10 rounds with him and implied that he was a heretic as well. He didn't bite. I can dig up the quote on that one too if you'd like.
4. This goes for politics on the main board as well. I've even argued against the Ann Coulter/Mitt Romney video on YouTube. Nope, sorry Ann. We're not "all Christians here." Some of us would only like to be seen as Christians. What applies to Sen. Obama's church should apply equally to everyone else. *GASP* "His pastor isn't a Christian!" What? I would ask, according to what standard? The hypocrisy on those threads is incredible.
Dee: You should become a liberal because your views are much more in line with theirs. You want to condemn everyone and only allow your specific interpretation of religion to be talked about.
No, a liberal depends on subjective feelings and logic by inductive reasoning. Even Futbol has admitted here that he's liberal when it comes to matters of his own faith. You too are liberal if you endorse a subjective; nonspecific standard of Christianity.
Also, see what I wrote on your misunderstanding of "condemnation" above. I condemn no one. It is in fact the liberal who would qualify my doctrinal arguments as hate speech. So who's side are you really on, Dee?
You're a social conservative on matters of "right and wrong" but you get all shifty about your final standard of "right and wrong" when questioned about it. <-- A statement to condemn you? No. Rather an open door for deeper thought. You always have the chance to adopt a new standard. Yet you approach my open door, balk, and then run off claiming that I'm condemning you. Still, I keep the door open for everyone.
Dee, is your moral standard relative to the individual (and thus quite liberal) or is it based on an absolute that exists outside of your individual opinion? Have you ever stopped to think about what the nature of what that absolute is?
Thus, all things being equal, if it applies to politics, then it applies to religion as well. ^_^
Dee: You think that your false interpretation of another's persons religion is what should be presented to the public.
Yet you have not proven that it is a false interpretation. You can only assume so far on one accusation, you know. I kept the door open for Thermistocles, and I kept the door open for Fut because he specified Opus Dei (which I admitted I did not know) when he and I first debated. The same goes for any member of the Tridentine order who's a member here. You follow me, Dee?
Dee: You do a disservice to all Christians (including your own faith) by interjecting your false interpretations all the time.
How do you know they're false? You "just do" right?
Dee: NO ONE else is trying to convert people. They are only standing up for false accusations against their religion.
So a presidential candidate that runs a public statement in response to a political attacker is not campaigning for his party vote at that very moment? Hm?
". . .teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Observe, Dee! This one here is not commanded by Christ! Observe, Dee! This other individual sees another Jesus contrary to what He told us! Look over here, Dee! This individual continually ignores the apostles of Christ! Look! Observe! Stop staring at the finger!
Dee: Your obnoxiousness about Catholics only fuels the liberals and justifies the way they treat all Christians.
No. Rather the MSM's error is in assuming that RCC dogma speaks for all Christianity. I argue to the teaching only. If Dan Brown attempts to make the RCC his pet strawman argument for all of Christianity, then I've been there to defend it. I don't even condemn the individual priests involved in the child abuse scandal. I believe it's a fundamental flaw in doctrine that lead up to it.
Dee: They think they have a right to explain and attack YOUR religion too. They don't. . .
They do! They have every right to, and I welcome it. I don't fall on the floor rolling around crying "hate speech." Man, what I wouldn't give to be in John MacArthur's place on Larry King Live. Of course, many accuse him as a hater as well. Why? Because he brings the Bible into it. *GASP*
Dee: . . .and you don't have a right to explain and attack anyone else's. Explain your own and stop giving false interpretations of others.
I will when the ban on religious discussion policy is enacted. Otherwise, you have no right to give me orders.
Dee: It's one thing if you want to start your own religious debating threads, that's different, but for you to pounce on all these threads about Catholics, that are not at all about debating theology, is inappropriate, rude and shows your complete and all consuming fear about the accuracy of your own religion.
That's not entirely true. You're making this statement on a purely superficial level where it's safe for you to do so. If it has to do with an attack on any Christians for any reason, there's theology in there somewhere.
- Gay pastors is a matter of theology.
- Women pastors is a matter of theology.
- Restriction on filming a movie on church property. . .theology.
- Pedophile priests in any denomination. . .theology.
- Bill Maher and Penn Jillette's views on the church = theology.
Need I go on Dee? I can go into each one in more depth if you prefer.
Dee: No one is going to be converted here on a blog about how the media misrepresents Catholics or Baptists, or Pentecostals or anything else.
This is where your fundamental flaw sits. I don't do the converting. Therefore, I have nothing to be afraid of. I am "teaching them to observe all things wherefore" I have been commanded to do so. . .get it?
Dee: If you are confident in your religion then you don't need to worry about mis characterizing everyone else's. You are not confident in your own. You almost never talk about it except in the context of criticizing others.
See above. Therefore, your logic fails. You only assume that "everyone else" is "characterized" just fine according to your own shifty ecumenical standard.
Also, every single time I'm asked about my own faith, I slap up the link at their request. Not once have I had a single criticism of it. Sure, the theologians themselves have been criticised according to their non-monergist failures (Hehe, I LOVE what they do with John Calvin in particular), but that has nothing to do with my theology as stated.
Dee: You fear that because Fut sticks up for attacks on his religion that somehow everyone here will convert to Catholicism.
No. I know that because Fut sticks up for attacks on his religion that somehow everyone here will think he's teaching Christianity. Because you Dee exemplify this. You're my proof here Dee. Nothing to fear because it's demonstrable fact. You've been snowed.
Dee: You fear that because BT has a near death experience that she shares with Fut that the world could crumble down around you and people could become Catholics over it.
No. I know that because BT has a near death experience that she shares with Fut that the world will validate her claims. . .and you exemplify this as well, Dee.
Dee: BT never claimed any divine revelation.
Huge lie. Do you know whom she claimed contacted her personally? Did you even bother to keep up with the conversation in question? She even stated as such when she confirmed Futbol's guess.
Quote: "I am happy instantly with your answer...can't explain it..but I know what I mean...and thank you once again...more than you know. Wow...everything does happen for a reason." <-- i.e. it was God's will for her to have that vision.
Dee: You put that interpretation on it because you are scared to death and are afraid that you could be missing something.
Then, given the fair chance that I am wrong, you are obligated to give me the correct interpretation. You claim I have it so wrong, then you must know better. So please. Give the rest of us the correct interpretation of BT's vision based on what she wrote here.
Dee: You are the only one who claims some sort of Omnipresence and Omnipotence to be able to tell what is in people's hearts and minds.
Where did I do that?
Dee: Only God can do that. . .
Where do you find that?
Dee: . . .you can't, no matter how bad you want to.
This proves that you ignore my own citations out of hand. You're acting quite the revisionist here, Dee.
Dee: Like I said, you need to pray more because you are not getting something.
Pray for what, Dee? What if I told you that I have already prayed and that I have the verbatum answer from on high itself? I'm calling your bluff.
Dee: You think you are the judge. You think you are God. You are not.
This is Futbol's fallacious argument. I don't see a Bible in your characterization of me. Therefore, your argument to the person is pretty ridiculous.
Dee: People who are born again have an individual relationship with Jesus and know and respect that others do also. They pray and answer to him, not you.
Where is this written? Does "respect" mean "to endorse," like how the radical gay left demands respect? Am I under obligation to respect another gospel contrary to the one the apostles taught?
Dee: They don't focus on what is wrong with every other religion, they focus on what is right about theirs.
Again. Something that is right about my religion is the fact that I can tell who the fakes are no matter how hard they subjectively whine, scream, and cry about it.
Dee: And what a joke that you say I diverted attention away from your point (which was bogus and false). That's all you ever do on these threads about religion. The point is how the media misrepresents them and you never ever focus on that.
See above. It's amuzing to note that you yourself don't characterize the members here on NB as "the media" as well. What, you think our comments exist in some sort of vacuum? The new media is just as capable of misrepresentation as the old. I'm holding you all accountable.
Everyone has an agenda, and mine is quite clear. You will not misrepresent my clearly stated intent with one of your own choosing.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Your interpretation of Christianity sucks
June 20, 2008 - 17:03 ET by Dee Bunkand I'll start pointing that out everytime I see you do it to someone else.
Everyone in the world knows that there are different beliefs and religions within the realm of Christianity. Your lame excuse that someone could misrepresent your religion as the same as a Catholics is ridiculous. I guess your clearly stated goal explains why you are so obnoxious to only Catholics. You fear them the most.
I have not learned anything new from Fut about Catholicism. I've learned from books and Priests. You have learned from no one.
I'm going to be just as obnoxious as you are because you don't know Christianity and don't speak for all Christians. I didn't say you jumped on every single Catholic thread, but you jump on a lot of them. Fine. Jump all you want and I'll jump back. You are so rude and inconsiderate. I've never known anyone in my whole life to be as obnoxious to people about their religion as you are.
I've stuck up for people who Evangelize so much to many different anti-religious liberal friends and now I see what they are so mad about. It's people like you making all Christians look bad and will eventually get it banned all together. GB is already trying to ban peaceful evangelizing to Muslims. We will be next because of obnoxious people like you.
And you are right, I only skim you obnoxious parsing and often don't read it at all. I find your whole technique to be obnoxious and usually don't bother reading it.
This is my last response to you other than when I'll call you out as a mean-spirited jerk when you attack someone else about their religion.
I know we have called Obama
June 20, 2008 - 17:06 ET by bigtimerI know we have called Obama the new messiah for the leftists...Hark!...we now have trach...
You ought to run for office trach...at least it would come from your narcissistic heart...heart...heart...
Talk about always being an attention whore...you take the cake.
<edit> Dee when I posted this...I had no idea you were even here, I just wanted you to know.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Hi BT - He's unbelievable
June 20, 2008 - 17:34 ET by Dee BunkHe'd rather team up with liberals who will do away with religion all together and alientate all Christians who don't see things the exact same way he does.
...It's just about a crying
June 20, 2008 - 17:39 ET by bigtimer...It's just about a crying shame Dee.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Another argument to
June 20, 2008 - 18:06 ET by tracheostomyAnother argument to motive. I don't endorse an ecumenical throwing the baby Jesus out with the bathwater.
Liberals are ill-informed about Christianity, but I won't "team up" with those that are even moreso. I don't endorse, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
1. The MSM knows very little about Christianity.
2. There are many Christians who claim to know more than the MSM.
3. Therefore, who speaks on their behalf and why?
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright?
The President of the LDS?
The Pope?
Your right to worship is not being suppressed and this is an equal debate platform.
Just because you fail to debate objectively, that's not my fault.
You cannot pin the blame on someone else for your failure.
-PJ
LOL!
June 20, 2008 - 17:41 ET by tracheostomyDee: Your interpretation of Christianity sucks. . .
"Sucks." Wow. That's quite the objective retort thyar, isn't it?
Dee: . . .and I'll start pointing that out everytime I see you do it to someone else.
And that helps your side how?
Dee: Everyone in the world knows that there are different beliefs and religions within the realm of Christianity.
Oh! Now you're using the "everybody knows" argument! I love that one. It's a consensus argument without having to enlist a consensus! XD
Dee: Your lame excuse that someone could misrepresent your religion as the same as a Catholics is ridiculous.
And yet here you are doing it. Even you yourself stated, "Everyone in the world knows that there are different beliefs and religions within the realm of Christianity."
And this is true because of. . .what?
Dee: I guess your clearly stated goal explains why you are so obnoxious to only Catholics. You fear them the most.
No. I oppose all non-monergists and those who oppose the five solas. There's a wider difference there.
Dee: I have not learned anything new from Fut about Catholicism. I've learned from books and Priests.
I'm sorry. I cannot take your word on that. I cannot argue with those claiming to be Catholics by doing what you do. If they send me to New Advent then I can cut loose. You cannot judge all Catholics according to Futbol.
Dee: You have learned from no one.
Learned what. . .exactly? BTW, I wonder what BT claims she learned from Futbol.
Dee: I'm going to be just as obnoxious as you are because you don't know Christianity and don't speak for all Christians.
Awesome. You wanna parrot me? Then please refer to your fundamental souce of Christian truth. And don't forget to do this the same way I do. K'thx.
Dee: I didn't say you jumped on every single Catholic thread, but you jump on a lot of them. Fine. Jump all you want and I'll jump back. You are so rude and inconsiderate. I've never known anyone in my whole life to be as obnoxious to people about their religion as you are.
That's Fut's argument. You're still obligated to demonstrate exactly how or where my "obnoxiousness" originates. You can't claim it comes from me, or else I wouldn't have a valid argument to begin with.
Dee: I've stuck up for people who Evangelize so much to many different anti-religious liberal friends and now I see what they are so mad about.
Because your religious liberal friends are religious liberals. So are you. Now you feel what they do.
Dee: It's people like you making all Christians look bad and will eventually get it banned all together. GB is already trying to ban peaceful evangelizing to Muslims. We will be next because of obnoxious people like you.
You're making this premise as if you think "all Christians" are valid to begin with.
Dee: And you are right, I only skim you obnoxious parsing and often don't read it at all. I find your whole technique to be obnoxious and usually don't bother reading it.
Just because you hide your eyes doesn't mean that I failed to point out your fallacies. You're sure not arguing like a conservative. Why'd you throw your objectivity out the window here like Fut does?
Dee: This is my last response to you other than when I'll call you out as a mean-spirited jerk when you attack someone else about their religion.
Do what you like, but this still doesn't mean you ever actually answered my questions about your definition of "mean spirited."
BT: I know we have called Obama the new messiah for the leftists...Hark!...we now have trach...
That statement does not follow. Furthermore, my arguments that Obama's church deserves equal criticism according to the same standard does not follow with your statement. You totally missed the bus because you, like Dee, are simply afraid to read my actual posts. The both of you are either lazy or cowards. Possibly both.
BT: You ought to run for office trach...at least it would come from your narcissistic heart...heart...heart...
Which has still not been proven. This is a consensus science you're endorsing.
BT: Talk about always being an attention whore...you take the cake.
I never claimed before thousands of users that the co-redemptrix herself gave me an exclusive divine revelation.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
You trach are sick. I
June 20, 2008 - 17:54 ET by bigtimerYou trach are sick.
I hope you heal someday...
No sense in replying to your hate anymore..
As far as I am concerned you come as close to the devil as anybody I have seen on NBs.
Not one single person has to prove anything to you...stick it where the sun doesn't shine..which as far as I am concerned you are very familiar with.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
BT: You trach are sick.
June 20, 2008 - 18:04 ET by tracheostomyBT: You trach are sick.
Well then diagnose me, Dr. Big.
BT: I hope you heal someday...
Heal what? Do you claim you're one of the "well"?
BT: No sense in replying to your hate anymore..
The "hate speech" argument. Not limited to liberals anymore.
BT: As far as I am concerned you come as close to the devil as anybody I have seen on NBs.
Wow, you're like the fourth one here that has made the claim that I am the master of lies and deception. Well, then I'm doing a poor job of it then, aren't I?
BT: Not one single person has to prove anything to you...
Why not? Based on what authority?
BT: . . .stick it where the sun doesn't shine..which as far as I am concerned you are very familiar with.
Stick what BT? What exactly do you want me to stick where? What exactly is "it" here, BT?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
C'mon BT. . .
June 20, 2008 - 18:14 ET by tracheostomyJust say you hate the Bible and have done with it.
It's not like it's a huge secret that you and Dee regard it as little more than toilet paper anyway.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach... Why are you
June 20, 2008 - 18:21 ET by Clear thinkertrach...
Why are you doing this?
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Why am I doing what?
June 20, 2008 - 18:27 ET by tracheostomyCT: Why are you doing this?
Disputing false teachers?
Is this a private dinner party?
I made it clear already above and I don't feel the need to repeat myself.
-PJ
trach... May God forgive
June 20, 2008 - 18:23 ET by bigtimertrach...
May God forgive you for those despicable words....I never will.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Trach sounds like the terrorists who claimed U.S. soliders
June 20, 2008 - 18:31 ET by Dee Bunkflushed the Koran down the toilet. He's desperate. So desperate and afraid that he could be wrong that he can't respect anyones religion and has to make false claims about them.
It's really sad. He really should be a liberal. He's in bed with them against free religious expression.
Dee: Trach sounds like
June 20, 2008 - 18:47 ET by tracheostomyDee: Trach sounds like the terrorists who claimed U.S. soldiers flushed the Koran down the toilet.
How is that statement not a non-sequitur?
Dee: He's desperate. So desperate and afraid that he could be wrong that he can't respect anyones religion and has to make false claims about them.
You're propagating an argument to motive that you yourself admit to deliberately overlooking. You refused to listen to my own defense. Who's the one being narrow-minded here?
Dee: It's really sad. He really should be a liberal. He's in bed with them against free religious expression.
"Freedom of religious expression" does not equal freedom from debate. I'm not in your church and this is a public forum!
It swings both ways. This is the same as certain liberal freedom of speech arguments. I have every right to dispute your teaching whether it be in the taboo of the political or the greater taboo of the religious.
Gotcha.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I don't teach religion, I advocate for respect of differing ones
June 20, 2008 - 19:13 ET by Dee BunkNo one wants to debate you on religion. It's all you. You are the one creating countless threads about it. No one else does. You are the one jumping in on "media bias" issues and trying to turn them into theological debates. No one else is. You are trying to force your religion down everyone else's throat. Go ahead. Keep trying. You haven't won one person over yet with your obnoxious tactics and I'm pretty sure you never will.
No one says you are not allowed to do it, you are making that up. I'm saying you are rude, inconsiderate and hateful person for doing it the way you do. I'm also saying that it's clear you are very insecure about your religion because those who are secure can share in a much more respectful way.
You can talk about yours without attacking others. You choose to only attack others while almost never just explaining yours. You probably don't have a clue how to explain your religion without attacking someone else. It's the same thing liberals do. They don't have any good ideas or good things to talk about so they attack all of our things and distort them and put evil intentions on them.
I've never claimed to be a teacher of any religion. You claim to know religions that you've never studied. I get my information about religion from Pastors, Priests, books authorized by various religions and the Bible. You get yours from nothing but your own false interpretation of them.
Dee,
June 21, 2008 - 18:24 ET by tracheostomyDee: I don't teach religion, I advocate for respect of differing ones
Yet your posts do teach others. You don't need an actual teaching certificate to float an assertion that you believe is true. You are teaching that "respect for differing religions" is both possible and true. <-- Though I don't think you're actually capable of breaking that down any further than saying it's true. I think you got it from some liberal talking point.
What goes for political doctrine should also go for religious doctrine as well. What kind of respect are you talking about? My definition of respect is an honest allowance of the assertion and then looking honestly at it, closely examining it, then locating a possible fallacy, if one should exist. I don't simply assume there is one at the outset like CV and Fut love to do, I do the actual work of examining the particulars that make the whole. People like CV and Fut are too lazy to do this.
Please tell me how you respect the following statements:
Statement #1. "I am a Christian (a follower of Christ), but I also claim a second redeemer and many heavenly intercessors between myself and God."
Statement #2. "I am a Christian (a follower of Christ), but I also claim that God the Father is limited to a body of flesh and bone."
Statement #3. "I am not a Christian (not a follower of Christ), but I claim to know enough to tell you what you believe to be true about Christianity."
Dee: No one wants to debate you on religion. It's all you.
Don't you mean to say that I'm the only one who finds fault with other people's religious assertions? Either I'm right or wrong about it. Here's your chance to make me look the total fool. My head is on the block; take a swing.
Dee: You are the one creating countless threads about it. No one else does. You are the one jumping in on "media bias" issues and trying to turn them into theological debates. No one else is.
That is a lie. Back-track all the threads. You will not find one single case of me hijacking a thread where someone else didn't bring up religion first at an earlier time. I DOUBLE DARE YOU.
Dee: You are trying to force your religion down everyone else's throat. Go ahead. Keep trying. You haven't won one person over yet with your obnoxious tactics and I'm pretty sure you never will.
You still think my goal is to "win over" my opponent? That would be arguing to the person (and therefore, fallacious thinking). All I care about is the content of the statements made by a near-totally anonymous online population.
Take off your mask and I'll put my kid gloves on. Hire me to paint your house, and I swear I'll shut up and paint your house.
Dee: No one says you are not allowed to do it, you are making that up. I'm saying you are rude, inconsiderate and hateful person for doing it the way you do.
Please demonstrate. Hate is not love. Love is not rude (1 Cor 13). But love rejoices in the truth. Love does not rejoice in iniquity (as you appear to want me to do).
Yet at the same time, who are these people I am accused of hating? All I see are pseudonyms, masks, and false fronts. This is a different environment altogether. I don't know BT from anyone else I run into on the street. BT is nothing more than a disembodied voice without an identity. BT is allowed to protect herself from behind a handle or a mask. . .and therefore I get to take full advantage of it!!! Hide your identity; you hide yourself. Therefore, I cannot be accused of hating anyone because I don't have a clear target to begin with. All I have are words.
You have nothing on me. ZERO!
Dee: You probably don't have a clue how to explain your religion without attacking someone else. It's the same thing liberals do.
How can I make a liberal argument to the person fallacy when I'm one of the few here that realizes there are no genuinely real people on this forum to begin with?
Dee: They don't have any good ideas or good things to talk about so they attack all of our things and distort them and put evil intentions on them.
I can only "attack" what you write because I don't know you. Only your words. Therefore, it is an argument to content only. This runs both ways. Everytime you argue to Tracheostomy or PJ, you're being foolish because you don't know anything about PJ other than what he writes.
But I know what BT wrote. Therefore it's fair game.
Dee: I've never claimed to be a teacher of any religion.
Yet you assert truth. Thus, you're attempting to teach.
Dee: You claim to know religions that you've never studied.
Can I not make Biblical comparisons to any particular doctrine that I encounter?
Dee: I get my information about religion from Pastors, Priests, books authorized by various religions and the Bible. You get yours from nothing but your own false interpretation of them.
This is the same argument Futbol has made in the past. Your assertion that they're "false interpretations" is only going as far as you own "say so." <-- A fallacy. Therefore, you haven't gone any further than a mere accusation. Just because you accuse me of something doesn't necessarily make it true, Dee.
So nyah! >;)
LOL!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Ahem
June 20, 2008 - 18:31 ET by tracheostomyBT: May God forgive you for those despicable words. . .
You're being vague again. Which words do you find despicable?
BT: ....I never will.
So you're saying you lack forgiveness? How do you justify that?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
"Never murder your opponent
June 20, 2008 - 18:34 ET by bigtimer"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
BT!
June 20, 2008 - 19:04 ET by tracheostomyI repeat. No one is suppressing you here, and you always get to reply on the same level I do.
If you fail to step up, then you cannot roll over and play the victim.
So get off the floor and bring it.
-PJ
My middle finger is right
June 20, 2008 - 19:07 ET by bigtimerMy middle finger is right between your pathetic unseeing eyes.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Oh yah, the finger!
June 20, 2008 - 19:12 ET by tracheostomyI just had a vision of Queen Latifah, and she told me that. . .it was a sign.
XD
Joseph Smith? Bigtimer.
Bigtimer? Joseph Smith.
I'll leave you two to mingle.
-PJ
You are insane. "Never
June 20, 2008 - 19:14 ET by bigtimerYou are insane.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
If I were insane as you
June 20, 2008 - 19:25 ET by tracheostomyIf I were insane as you assert, then my logic would not follow and I can have my fallacious statements pointed out to me.
But you're not doing that.
Why?
Are you lazy?
A coward?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I'd believe your vision of Queen Latifah before I'd believe
June 20, 2008 - 19:15 ET by Dee Bunkyour warped interpretation of other people's religion. You are near death after all.
Dee,
June 20, 2008 - 19:27 ET by tracheostomyHow is my interpretation of other people's religion warped?
Because it "just is" right?
-PJ
Dee... Amen to
June 19, 2008 - 15:57 ET by bigtimerDee...
Amen to that.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
The definition of "amen"
June 19, 2008 - 16:04 ET by tracheostomyThe definition of "amen" means "it is so" or "so be it."
Yet all you have is nothing more than a consensus agreement.
-PJ
Amen to that trach. "Never
June 19, 2008 - 16:10 ET by bigtimerAmen to that trach.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Amen that you have a
June 19, 2008 - 16:19 ET by tracheostomyAmen that you have a consensus argument?
*knock-knock*
Who am I talking, to Al Gore?
-PJ
That's what you're looking for Trach
June 19, 2008 - 16:10 ET by Dee Bunkagreement because you are frightened to death that you could be wrong. Just pray buddy - just keep praying.
Dee: That's what you're
June 19, 2008 - 16:18 ET by tracheostomyDee: That's what you're looking for Trach agreement
You'd be surprised if you'd actually asked, instead of assumed, what I was looking for.
Dee: because you are frightened to death that you could be wrong. Just pray buddy - just keep praying.
Argument to motive fallacy.
This is your second assumption that I have no faith in the objective standard which exists outside of me.
Why pray if you're not assured of any answers?
Which I, of course, have.
-PJ
Trach
June 20, 2008 - 23:30 ET by shawn228I am also a person that does not spend lots of time on religious threads. Actually this thread is not a religious one, it just somehow got hijacked.
Trach, if someone attacked my religion, or even accussed me of something, I would stick up to that person and demand an explanation, because that involves me personally.
If someone asked a question to another person, even though it is a public forum, it is awfully rude to demand an explanation from that person. You have turned a meaningful and special memory for someone, into an inquesition.
Your comments like attention whoring or accussing people of treating the pages of the bible like toilet paper, are over the line imo. Just my 2 cents.
DING DING DING!!!
June 20, 2008 - 23:52 ET by tracheostomyShawn: I am also a person that does not spend lots of time on religious threads. Actually this thread is not a religious one, it just somehow got hijacked.
Thank you!!! Now then, who would you blame for the hijacking? I merely responded to it. I was arguing gay-whatever just fine without religion until Fut came along and had to shoot his mouth off.
Shawn: Trach, if someone attacked my religion, or even accussed me of something, I would stick up to that person and demand an explanation, because that involves me personally.
Agreed.
Shawn: If someone asked a question to another person, even though it is a public forum, it is awfully rude to demand an explanation from that person. You have turned a meaningful and special memory for someone, into an inquesition.
Nope. You're disqualifying the public forum part at the outset. Also, my questions were totally fair. It's that simply everyone assumes I'm tipping a sacred cow here. All I'm asking is, "Well, how do you know it's a sacred cow to begin with?" She never even answered my questions.
Shawn: Your comments like attention whoring or accussing people of treating the pages of the bible like toilet paper, are over the line imo. Just my 2 cents.
Over what "line"? BT's accusation is only as valid IF I busted in on a private conversation. Where is this unwritten rule? Just about every rule of netiquette has been broken here and all of a sudden someone gets to point fingers at me for calling BT on pretense?
One of the most habitual and long-lasting accusations toward me is that I am my own religious authority. I've been called all kinds of nasty names as if I propped myself up as my own authority.
Yet I cite every singe one of my religious assertions.
Therefore, they truly have zero regard for the Bible.
Pointing the finger at me = wiping your ass with the Holy Scriptures.
Either argue to the citation or claim my interpretation of the citation is faulty. Just don't sit there and lie through your teeth as if I have no citations and claim to be the singular wellspring of original divine revelation.
That's BT's job. And she's saving it for her fellow mystics to validate by consensus. Al Gore would be proud.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Wow
June 20, 2008 - 23:53 ET by shawn228and I get accussed of picking apart words. I'm not taking sides or anything trach, I just feel some of your comments are over the line and leave it at that..
No problem Shawn. . .
June 21, 2008 - 00:23 ET by tracheostomyI can leave it at that. But where are we leaving it at?
*looking*
Some vaguely. . .subjective feeling of "over the line."
Everyone's acting like I burped during communion or something.
Let's boil this down. It's a values judgement. Day in and day out I come in and quote scripture until I'm blue in the face. <-- Boring, right?
But one of the popular members suddenly waves around an (allegedly) private and sacred "religious experience." <--- alla sudden. . .whooo. . .it's such a big deal innit? I'm serial here Oprah. Very-very serial!
My own mother had a near-death experience after an operation and saw my own dead grandmother floating over her. The description of it made my blood run cold. We talked for a long time afterward and she assures me it was an imbalance of her meds. She's bipolar.* She's seen all kinds of things. But she's also a devout Christian and she knows that if whatever or whomever she sees tells her anything contrary to scripture, that it's not a clean spirit. Period.
It's a values judgement. Time to take a side or step out of the ring. I side with sola scriptura. Anyone who wants to run to BT's defense is fine with me. You can all stand over there and call me "devil-devil-devil" all day long, but I haven't abandoned 1 Timothy 4:1-5 or Hebrews 4:12 either!
And if a line is drawn in the sand between us. . .so be it! I have only one loyalty. And it's not to some subjective morally ambiguous "ism."
*tears GOP membership card to shreds*
Remember the 80s thread Shawn?
One shall stand. . .one shall fall.
-PJ
*Yeah, and we've hung with Patty Duke too. Go ahead and make fun of that. I dare you! Screw you BT and your assumptions. Don't sit there on your GOD-DAMNED high horse and tell me what I don't know!
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Screw you BT and your
June 21, 2008 - 00:29 ET by bigtimerScrew you BT and your assumptions. Don't sit there on your GOD-DAMNED high horse and tell me what I don't know! .
Poor trach...and that's what bothers the exalted one.
By me saying nothing about my experience...the more I am extracting from you in all your wit and wisdom..
I'm sure your mom reassured you...just to shut you up. She knew what she experienced...why the hell didn't you let her be and put your arms around her...oh...wait a minute, never-mind..you are the be all, know all about everything... it was just easier for your mom to let you think you knew all...as you still do.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide " ~ W. Wilson
BT: Poor trach...and
June 21, 2008 - 00:44 ET by tracheostomyBT: Poor trach...and that's what bothers the exalted one.
Please explain where you get your empty insults. You going to play the hypocrite again and claim to pray for me while giving me the middle finger?
BT: By me saying nothing about my experience...the more I am extracting from you in all your wit and wisdom..
". . .extracting from you in all your wit and wisdom" <-- LOL!?!!
I don't really want to hear anymore about your "experience." Nor do I need to. It's clear enough as stated.
BT: I'm sure your mom reassured you...just to shut you up.
Oh wow. . .you completely ignore the context in order to validate your own subjective mysticism. Far out.
BT: She knew what she experienced...why the hell didn't you let her be and put your arms around her...oh...wait a minute, never-mind..you are the be all, know all about everything... it was just easier for your mom to let you think you knew all...as you still do.
*wiping hands*
LOL! My work here. . .is done. You can flounder and flop all you want now. Who the hell you think raised me to think the way I do?
Cart? Meet horse.
BT? Meet reason.
Reason? BT?
You want to figure out your error on your own, or do you want me to spoon-feed it to you?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
You are already choking on
June 21, 2008 - 00:47 ET by bigtimerYou are already choking on your own self-imposed pablum trach.
I have to get out of there for the night...carry on...as you will oh exalted one.
What would we all do without you?
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Go to bed BT. Dream about Mary. Have a good time.
June 21, 2008 - 00:57 ET by tracheostomyBT: You are already choking on your own self-imposed pablum trach.
Choking on what?
Wait. Does your say-so count for anything around here? I didn't think so.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Answering your own
June 21, 2008 - 01:05 ET by bigtimerAnswering your own questions I see trach...
You're slipping....be careful we may see you for what you really are.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
It only exists if you say it does, right?
June 21, 2008 - 01:30 ET by tracheostomyBT: Answering your own questions I see trach...
What did I answer? Help me out. How are you not ignoring my questions?
Didn't you have someplace you had to be, or is pride keeping you at the keyboard?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Actually trach...it's
June 21, 2008 - 01:36 ET by bigtimerActually trach...it's because the longer I watch you, the more Comedy Central I see you are...and always have been.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
I could ask what that
June 21, 2008 - 01:41 ET by tracheostomyI could ask what that means, but I doubt you'd actually give me a straight answer.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
"Never murder your opponent
June 21, 2008 - 01:45 ET by bigtimer"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Turtle under your sig all day, but the fact remains. . .
June 21, 2008 - 01:55 ET by tracheostomyYou need more than your own say-so and in-jokes to constitute a substantial argument BT. You know better than that.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
BT: What would we all do
June 21, 2008 - 01:04 ET by tracheostomyBT: What would we all do without you?
*thinking*
Um, y'all would be taking everyone's bone-headed claims to divine revelation at face value.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach is useful to show how reasonable most Christians are
June 21, 2008 - 11:31 ET by Dee BunkHe represents a very small number of hateful misguided ones. Through is mean spiritedness all can see the incorrect way to spread the word of God. We can take honest people like BT at face value because she doesn't try to
distort the words of others and claim to know more about their religion than
they do.
We know that Trach's bone-headed attacks are based on his own false interpretations
like "divine revelation" that BT never claimed.
Trach is possibly a false prophet. Neither BT or I claim to be anything
close to any type of religious teacher. We don't tell anyone what to do regarding their practice of their own faith. Only he does. If he thinks it is his
calling to teach then he needs to focus on 2 Pt 1:5-11 "Making One's
Calling and Election Sure" In that it explains how kindness and love
towards people will make you a more effective teacher and lack of those things
will make your message unproductive. If he is not a false prophet and really
wants to effectively spread the word, then he will take Peter's advice as it
was inspired by God.
Also in 2 Peter 2:10-12 in his warning of false prophets he says "Bold
and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings, yet even
angels, although they are stronger and more powerful do not bring slanderous
accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord"";
Trach is slanderous of Mary, and the St. BT speaks of claiming that they
have no power and are dead and not with us.
Dee,
June 21, 2008 - 15:18 ET by tracheostomyDee: He represents a very small number of hateful misguided ones.
But how do you know this? See my response to CV.
Dee: Through is mean spiritedness all can see the incorrect way to spread the word of God.
How do you know it's incorrect?
Dee: We can take honest people like BT at face value because she doesn't try to distort the words of others and claim to know more about their religion than they do.
What part of BT's words did I not take at face value? What parts did I distort? Let's go together. Maybe you can correct me where she has thus far been unable to.
Dee: We know that Trach's bone-headed attacks are based on his own false interpretations like "divine revelation" that BT never claimed.
Excuse me? Do you know who our Lady of Lourdes is? BT claimed to see Mary "Queen of Heaven," the co-redemptrix herself. If you know better who BT saw, then tell me who it is, please.
Dee: Trach is possibly a false prophet. Neither BT or I claim to be anything
close to any type of religious teacher.
Yet here you are presenting your opinions as facts. You're teaching thousands on this board.
Dee: We don't tell anyone what to do regarding their practice of their own faith.
You're telling me I'm not allowed to go certain places. You've forbidden me to respond based on my own convictions. On what authority do you do this?
Dee: Only he does. If he thinks it is his calling to teach then he needs to focus on 2 Pt 1:5-11 "Making One's Calling and Election Sure"
First of all, most of my opponents don't even believe election is even found in the Bible.
Dee: In that it explains how kindness and love towards people will make you a more effective teacher and lack of those things will make your message unproductive.
Great. I'm completely open to you telling me how to do this. I'd also like you to tell me how to "convince, rebuke, [and] exhort" others as Paul tells Timothy.
You are being admonished in the most gentle manner that man could possibly invent.
1. You're safe behind a pseudonym. You are little more than an anonymous poster.
2. You're not being confronted face-to-face. No matter how much you try to spin it. . .this is simply the case.
3. You're publicly teaching others your opinions as facts, but without the side-effects of being personally held accountable for your actions because of 1. and 2.
So stop playing victim Dee. I am absolutely no personal threat to anyone here. The ideas floating around however, are another matter entirely.
Dee: Also in 2 Peter 2:10-12 in his warning of false prophets he says "Bold
and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings, yet even
angels, although they are stronger and more powerful do not bring slanderous
accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord"";
Trach is slanderous of Mary, and the St. BT speaks of claiming that they
have no power and are dead and not with us.
OH-HO! A bold move! LOL! The problem here is that you were drawn hook, line, and sinker into the assumption that it really was Mary she encountered.
". . .like "divine revelation" that BT never claimed."
Then it wasn't Mary. Oh wait! But you say it was Mary because you need BT's vision to BE Mary in order to accuse me of slander.
Flip. . .flop. We're trying to honestly determine if it was Mary or not, Dee. So don't jump the gun on the "slander" accusations until BT makes her case. I am completely within my Biblical rights to test any spirit.
You however, are allowing yourself to be rolled. Wake up. Stop the flip-flop. Find out if it's really Mary to begin with, before you accuse me of slander.
Dee: Trach is. . .claiming that they have no power and are dead and not with us.
Dee, where is it written that the dead are with us and do have power? If you're going to teach, please do it completely.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach's justification for nastiness
June 22, 2008 - 14:14 ET by Dee Bunkis that it's not face to face. How hysterical. Please point out where Peter said that he was only talking about face to face communication. It's obvious you will justify any thing you do. You need to justify because you know what you do is wrong.
You are either a false prophet or a really really bad one. I wouldn't think God would make such a bad one so I imagine that you are just extremely misguided tortured soul who thinks he has all the answers but knows deep down inside that he can't have them and so you are fearful and angry about it. Your are so scared and frightened that you miss the biggest clearest messages of the bible. Let go of your fear, let God take over and try to have some respect for people's spiritual journey.
No one else would ever think that someone used the Bible as toilet paper and Kleenex. It's clear you must have done so in your own warped mind to come up with such an idiotic statement.
You are not to be trusted. You ignore any bible passages you don't like. Including the one's from 2 Peter that I gave. Which already answered at least three of your dishonest questions.
You are the flip flopper here. You are the one who believes that traditions handed down by the apostles mean nothing and only their written word matters, but then you ignore their written words when they don't suit your purpose.
As far as your last idiotic insincere two part question, the second part is referenced in one of the 2 Peter quotes I gave you and you ignored. So I'm sure you will also ignore these 40+ bible quotes that do the same, but what the heck, I'll give them to you anyway.
Communion of Saints
I'm no victim - get serious. I became nasty with you based on what you said to others. If you will notice on the other Catholic thread that was going on around the same time as this one (the one where you told me I needed to make a choice between fut's message and yours) you said lots of nasty stuff to me, I still treated you will respect. There is nothing you could say to me that could truly offend me when I know you act out of such pure fearful ignorance. I feel sorry for you. I hope some day you see the light and the error of your ways.
In the meantime, you have only pushed me closer to Catholicism, to the point where I might even start attending Mass again. I haven't been to Mass in (other than for funerals and weddings) in close to 20 years. I have attended many many different Protestant services and even bible studies in that time. So thanks for that. Maybe I'll find my true home now. Nothing Fut said did that, only your vicious attacks that I knew to be complete false representations. It gave me a light bulb moment because the Catholic Church does teach in accordance with how Peter advocates while you don't.
Most of the Protestant Churches I went to did (teach with love and compassion) also but there was always something missing for me.
The biggest thing missing was authority. I always wondered what gave all these different places their authority and their only explanation was that they believed they had the best interpretation of the Bible. They all don't like something about how other Christian faiths worship and believe, but as I said before, they all seemed to get the same big picture that Jesus is your personal savior and letting him into your heart will lead you on the right path.
That's the big picture that you miss completely. You have no religion of your own. Your whole religion is attacking other religions. You have no positive messages only negative ones. Most of these Protestant churches that I went to all have their points of exclusion, but they focus on teaching what's good about their faith not on attacking others.
I don't think these other Protestant faiths are wrong and I'm pretty sure (based on other SBC members that I've come in contact with) that even the SBC could be okay. You are not though. Your actions here are not good for any Christian faith. Your actions are why most liberals hate Christians and misinterpret all of them.
People like you encourage it by cheering them on every time they speak out against a faith that isn't your exact faith. It doesn't bother you that they do the same thing to yours. You'll side with the Devil so to speak when you think it can benefit you personally.
I don't teach and I won't listen to false teachers. Your are a false teacher a false prophet. You need to pray for guidance
Care to go another round, Dee?
June 22, 2008 - 21:26 ET by tracheostomyDee: Trach's justification for nastiness is that it's not face to face.
You still haven't proven that I'm justifying nastiness to begin with. Just because you choose to find it offensive doesn't mean I don't have a point. Just because you selectively choose to freak out when I question someone's purely subjective personal experience, it doesn't necessarily make it so. Your accusations are no more valid than Syrius chanting "delusional" over and over. You're lacking anything with any real weight to accuse me of.
Dee: How hysterical. Please point out where Peter said that he was only talking about face to face communication. It's obvious you will justify any thing you do. You need to justify because you know what you do is wrong.
No, by all means, let's run with that.
1. Is Peter here at no risk of face-to-face communication?
2. Is Peter writing from a pseudonym?
3. Does Peter have a right to test?
4. Did Peter endorse Paul, who taught the same?
5. According to 2 Peter 1:16, would he have embraced the cunningly devised fables taught here by Fut, BT, and yourself?
Dee: You are either a false prophet or a really really bad one.
Q: What method do you use to come to this conclusion?
A: The gross presumption that everyone who says they are a Christian, in fact, is.
Dee: I wouldn't think God would make such a bad one so I imagine that you are just extremely misguided tortured soul who thinks he has all the answers but knows deep down inside that he can't have them and so you are fearful and angry about it.
Yet that statement is based on "I imagine."
Dee: Your are so scared and frightened that you miss the biggest clearest messages of the bible.
Bring it.
Dee: Let go of your fear, let God take over and try to have some respect for people's spiritual journey.
See above. You've still failed to come up with your definition of "respect" as well as why I absolutely cannot contend with other gospels.
Dee: No one else would ever think that someone used the Bible as toilet paper and Kleenex. It's clear you must have done so in your own warped mind to come up with such an idiotic statement.
The Bible is your mere figurehead for the other authors you really follow. For you, the Bible is meant to conform to your own presuppositions. Your eisegesis is the bonafide raping of God's Word.
Dee: You are not to be trusted. You ignore any bible passages you don't like. Including the one's from 2 Peter that I gave. Which already answered at least three of your dishonest questions.
I answered it completely. You're hung up on verse 7. "Love" and "knowledge." Love glorifies in the truth. Peter doesn't want you to check your brains at the door for the sake of peace. Your perspective about this forum is completely warped. You assume that everyone with a cross around their neck is to be taken at face value. You assert that every Christian-appearing experience from someone is "forbidden" to question.
What if BT stood up and did this in the middle of church? You are still weaseling out of your responsibility to instruct me on how to deal with it. You have still given me no alternatives other than the flowery words you cherry-picked from 2 Peter ("kindness" and your embrace-idea-w/o-question concept of love).
Dee: You are the flip flopper here.
If it were so, then two wrongs wouldn't make a right, would it?
Dee: You are the one who believes that traditions handed down by the apostles mean nothing and only their written word matters, but then you ignore their written words when they don't suit your purpose.
Nope. You're beating me over the head with "brotherly kindness" and "love," which I even conceded to a point.
Quote: Great. I'm completely open to you telling me how to do this. I'd also like you to tell me how to "convince, rebuke, [and] exhort" others as Paul tells Timothy. <--- PJ said that!
You didn't even think I'd go that far! You just closed your eyes to what I wrote when I responed to you, and then you typed on regardless. Back it up, Dee. I got down on one knee in deference to your post and I asked you a practical question as a result. No, you think you can preach with your fingers in your ears regardless of the times when I actually consider your statements.
Dee: As far as your last idiotic insincere two part question, the second part is referenced in one of the 2 Peter quotes I gave you and you ignored. So I'm sure you will also ignore these 40+ bible quotes that do the same, but what the heck, I'll give them to you anyway.
I was afraid when I first saw this. Then I turned to my sword and my doubt faded.
Q: Where does the Bible say saints are dead?
A: In 1 Thess 4:15-17. Crash and burn baby.
"For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first."
- The "we" of course refers to the church.
- "Alive" as opposed to what? "Asleep" of course. Not the extrabiblical concept of "soul sleep" either, but rather an "asleep" here that connects with "dead in Christ" in the following verse.
Now in case you think I'm twisting something, I refer to Matt 22:32 (b): "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”
Therefore either Jesus Christ and the apostles flip-flop on the concept of "dead saints" or someone is propping up "dead saints" as strawmen arguments.
"Where does the Bible say saints are dead?" is a fallacious argument that is set up to subtly deny all references to death itself, such as when Paul talks about the "sting" of death in 1 Cor 15. In order for this argument to be valid, they must first concede that saints do indeed die. Very dishonest.
But let's go on, shall we?
DISCLAIMER: The statements in the catechism are not equal to God's Word. They are argued against as if the one who delivered it (Dee) feels they are of equivalent merit (because Dee frames the argument as such). She argues to the Bible, and then slaps up a link with A-LOT of pre-biblical padding from the RCC beforehand. Thus, this has to be answered because of the assumption of validity on Dee's part; not mine.
Note #954. Is that present tense or future tense? Silly to ask, but very germaine to the discussion at hand. Thus, the teaching here that Dee is clinging to is flip-flopping on present events and future prophecy. Very dishonest. Love does not rejoice in dishonesty.
Note #955. ". . .an exchange of spiritual goods.(?)" <-- How is that Biblical in any way?
Note #956. Answer these questions without flinching.
Are dead saints imbued with the power of omniscience?
How can a dead saint intercede where the Holy Spirit always gets there first?
How can a dead saint intercede when none of this is taught anywhere in scripture?
How can a dead saint intercede when the Bible says ONE INTERCESSOR and ONE MEDIATOR:
- In Romans 8:26, 27 and verse 34!
- Hebrews 7:25!
- Galatians 3:19!
- 1 Timothy 2:5(!!!) <-- Dee adds more mediators arbitrarily!
- Hebrews 8:6 and 9:15!
Of course you could cite 1 Tim 2:1 and assert that men intercede for others as well, but who do they intercede to directly? God. You are urged to intercede for others, but does that therefore make you a middleman? God's personal UPS driver?
No! ABSOLUTELY NOT! This is one very delicate and very important point!
Scenario #1. Let's say you approach a fellow Christian with a heavy burden and that brother or sister says they will pray for you. This means they are joining you in the burden in love and support. They are not fielding a pass in football. They are joining you in your painful moment and making your problem theirs. <-- Have you ever-ever experienced that kind of love and support, Dee?
Scenario #2. On the other hand, let's say you approach a fellow Christian with a heavy burden and then ask that brother or sister to pray for you or on your behalf. Oh. . .it gets tricky now. What exactly are you asking for here?
"Please pray along with me. Let us petition the Father together."
OR
"Please pray on behalf of me, for you have better clout or merit to pull God in the direction I need right now."
Is the motive to plead earnestly to God in faith. . .or to bargain with God on the merits of another? As if another saint (living or dead) were some kind of divine poker chip or God's carrot-on-a-stick. God is not a mule.
What are YOU implying here, Dee? Are we talking to God, or trying to gain a meritorious edge on Him? Does God "owe us" on the merits of another?
Thus, my accusation of liberal entitlement stands.
Note #957. The connection of the communion of saints is through the mutual worship only, and not anything else made up to reenforce it (such as stated in 955).
And there is a stark difference here that this catechism conveniently and brutally disregards. The worship done in heaven is not done in faith, but rather face-to-face, as opposed to what is happening with the saints on earth. Thus, a subtle shell game is being played with the reader. "Keep your eye on the little bead as I move 'em around on the table here. . .where's the dead saint, is he in the grave or in heaven, the hand is quicker than the eye, place your bets. . .suckers."
Note #958. "Mystical body of Jesus Christ." <--- What does that mean? Don't bother to ask, because that's what mysticism is for.
Quote: '. . .because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins' she offers her suffrages for them."
What did Paul say about being absent from the body? Did he say it was to be present with an intermediate state? Where does the Bible teach that there is a second chance after death of an opportunity of "loosening" from the bondage of sin through prayers? No. This is one truly un-holy and un-wholesome thought. It's a lie straight from the pit and completely unsupported in scripture.
Note #960. Does not the doctrine of Eucharist teach a power capable of literally bringing Christ down from heaven?
This cannot be.
Note #962. The "dead who are being purified" is not taught in scripture. The best lies always contain an element of the truth in order to pass the whole off as truth.
Re: Romans 8:35-39
Catholic Convert: death cannot separate us from Christ.
Who are the "us" spoken of here? Not a nit-pick either, because when you include the purification of the dead prior to being joined with Christ, you're playing a shell game with the reader. God is not the author of confusion.
- If "us" refers to all within the Roman Catholic Church only, then there is then assurance that no member of the Roman Catholic Church will have to ever endure an intermediate state of separation in Purgatory. Yet the RCC makes no promises such as this. BUT ROMANS 8 DOES! I love Romans 8! My mother practically raised me on Romans 8 and it's final assurance of the believer's salvation!!!
Hello Dee? That's ^^^ the greatest, most positive gift I can give you right here; right now. But I'm only pointing to it. It's not mine to really give or force upon you. You have to accept it or reject it. Not based on the merit of your choice but upon the spirit that either lives in side of your or doesn't. Romans 8 is such a thing of beauty and joy and love and glorious assurance and safety, that it doesn't need any sugar-coating or extra help! Just read it from beginning to end! ^_^
- If "us" refers to all humanity, both saved and unsaved, then this pdf embraces the heresy of universalism.
Catholic Convert: So Catholics are praying to and asking for help from saints that are ALIVE.
Then there is no such thing as death at all? What a sweeping generalization!
Catholic Convert: So Catholics are praying to and asking for help from saints that are ALIVE.
To act as intercessors of superior faith on the behalf of the one who has inferior faith. <-- That which is not done in faith is sin.
If you pray in faith while boldy approaching the throne (Hebrews 4), and ask me to do likewise for your burden, then I will gladly rush forward and join hands with you!!!
You ask me to pray due to some imposed merit, clout, or special influence on my part, and you not only err greatly, but you are tempting me to sin as well. Do it with a dead saint and you compound that sin, because you're not appealing to their faith, but rather their face-to-face relationship. That's not faith on your part. You're looking for an edge to manipulate God into catering to your whim.
We do not even know how to pray as we ought. Therefore, the Holy Spirit does most of the work anyway (Romans 8:26); making "intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."
Catholic Convert: We pray to Jesus AND the saints. The communion of saints is not an EITHER OR issue, it is a family affair!
Wow. Just wow. And thus, Catholic Convert hangs himself upon his own words. Will God accept a prayer to Him as well as to another? This quote endorses the prayer to the saint. But I thought it wasn't to, but rather "through." Thanks Dee. This quote is a true gem in my pocket.
Re: Romans 12:5;10, 1 Cor 12:12-27, and Galatians 6:2 are all taken out of context to force the presupposition that supports Catholic Convert's arguments instead of the Bible.
- Rom 12:5 is true, but the function of that body is arbitrarily concluded by Catholic Convert. The false conclusions stemming from the body here are actions not taught in scripture. The body of Christ is true, the actions are an added lie.
- Rom 12:10 does not need to be urged in heaven. In heaven, it is a given.
- 1 Cor 12:12-27 and Gal 6:2 doesn't say what the saints in heaven actually do about it. The Catholic Convert seems to think it needs a little help where none is necessary.
Can a dead saint commune with us here on earth before the "coming of the saints" spoken of in Jude? No! Strike One!
These are the "cloud of witnesses" spoken of in Hebrews. Witnesses only! The audience does not act out the story! Strike Two!
I can share in the pain of your divorce, cancer, or family loss, but does that mean an intervention can take place on the part of the saint? Scripture doesn't say. And if scripture doesn't say it, you therefore make a conclusion that is out of bounds. Strike THREE! YOU'RE OUT!!!
- Gal 6:10 is a confusion of location. The living cannot do good for the saints. Unless, as the doctrine above states, they are praying for the purification of the dead. But if that were true, they would be separate from Christ!
- Eph 1:22-23. See what I wrote on Romans 12.
- Eph 4:4. No, you liars! And a lame lie at that, because you teach one body, many spirits, and many intercessors! ONE SPIRIT! ONE!!! Test the spirits (plural) to see whether they are from GOD! <-- 1 John 4:1!!! The number of verses cited in response to you and the exegetical weight of scripture is on my side! Who's the false prophet now???
- Eph 5 is padding. That's a given and doesn't support the argument at hand. Christ is not a saint. Same goes for Colossians 1-3 and as covered already above. What I said above applies here as well. This PDF document is forcing an outside idea upon scripture and attempting to make scripture support it. This PDF fails.
- Tobit is apocryphal. Why do you think they call it apocrypha to begin with? Furthermore, it completely contradicts how prayer works in the rest of the NT. Prayer is literally talking to God! It's not a magic football!!!
- Eph 4:3, 6:18-19, and 2 Thess 1-3 are covered above. We pray for, but not on behalf of. We join together for the shared burden, but we do not pool our merit in an attempt to push God around.
- The Catholic Convert support of Rev 5:8 completely misses the OT utilization of incense in the tabernacle and later on in Jewish temple worship. Note that incense is overlooked in favor of prayer. Is the incense spoken of in Revelations (which the PDF omits) actually the literal prayers of the saints? Not according to Vatican II. Thus, a symbol. Nice try.
- Wisdom 3. The "just" who are spoken of here are justified through faith in Christ alone and not of works (merit is a work), lest any man should boast. Thus, there is no process of justification after death. <--- I used the New Advent English translation here. My own copy of the Apocrypha is upstairs.
- Mark 12. That base is already covered above.
- Is Mark 9:4 a justification that we also can create our own mount of transfiguration? That's overstepping the lines a bit, isn't it? Jesus here is being seen in His full heavenly glory here. The church is not the Lord of dead saints.
- Luke 16:19-30 And Lazarus is REBUKED FOR IT AS WELL!!! Dirty pool old man! You're clearly cheating now!!!
Catholic Convert's totally busted on this one. It would be funny if the lie wasn't so blatantly taken out of context within the space of the same parable. Disgusting.
- Luke 23:43 has nothing to do with prayer to dead saints and is padding the argument to intimidate anyone from doing the work of resarch. It also stands against the statements made about purification of the dead, since the thief was being justly punished for his crime. But he acknowledges Christ personally as his "Lord" and King! What's the argument here?
- Hebrews 12:1 covered above. Witnesses. . .witness. They are bystanders.
- Rev 6:9-11 and 20:4 merely implies a connection here that is begging for more support. They simply don't know the day or the hour like the rest of us. What's the point? More padding makes it look more intimidating for those too lazy to look and see that the God is not mocked.
- Matt 25:23. Nonetheless, the commentator must add to the scripture as if it were lacking something and needed a little extra help. This extrabiblical comment is also quite confusing as well, because the servant here is facing Christ directly and alone. Where are the mediators on his behalf? What the servant has done are the works that come about as a result of a regenerate heart to seek after righteousness.
- Mark 10:18. I agree with this! Therefore. . .? What's this have to do with the Holy Spirit, who is also God Himself? Do you believe the Spirit is an "it" Dee, or do you believe the Spirit is a "Who"? Have you been taking Bible lessons from George Lucas again?
- John 21:15-16. Are "feed" and "tend" words loaded with a whole lot of other additional stuff apart from feeding (or instructing. "Man does not live on bread alone, but. . ." what? What? No, you say it!) the sheep and protecting them from a false shepherd or a wolf that comes to steal. Feed and protect Dee! Nothing else!
- Eph 4:11. And not mediators. No intercessors here either. Hello?
- Hebrews 3:1, 7:24, 9:12. The commentary here is one crystal-clear flip-flop. Note the eternal high priest and assertion to one sacrifice (of Himself on the cross), then "Catholic priests enter into that one sacrifice of Jesus every time they celebrate Holy Mass. There is NOT another sacrifice." Then both the Mass and the Eucharist are not literal, but rather symbolic. Oops.
Furthermore, we don't participate in the mediation by bringing the Gospel. We warn the unregenerate and the Holy Spirit changes their hearts. The preaching of the saints does not come back void. If it is ineffective, it is not the fault of the message or the one who delivers it in all honesty. If it is effective, we do not get credit for the conversion. The conversion is not a merit on our part! "I planted, Apollos watered, but. . ." What? What? No, YOU SAY IT! God gives the increase! God is the only savior and the only mediator.
- 1 Tim 2:1-7 Covered above under Romans 8 (for those of you lazily skimming along here without much regard to the actual Holy Bible).
- 1 Peter 2:5 and Rev 1:6, 5;10. *scratching head* Do these verses apply to the entire church or the eunichs only? If to the entire church, then all Christians are a holy priesthood. Thus, the Reformed doctrine of the priesthood of the believer is a true teaching.
- Joshua 5:14. Who was the angel Joshua fell toward? “What does my Lord say to His servant?” So Joshua can worship mere angels, but John in Revelation cannot? This is not a contradiction.
- Daniel 8:17. Clarified further if only the commentator didn't take it out of context. Daniel was not worshipping, he passed out. Don't believe me? "Now, as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep with my face to the ground; but he touched me, and stood me upright. 19 And he said, “Look, I am making known to you what shall happen in the latter time of the indignation; for at the appointed time the end shall be." <-- Why then did the angel stand him upright? See Rev 1:17! John's reaction is quite the same.
- Tobit 12:16. There is no angel named Raphael within the non-apocryphal canon.
- Matt 18:10 takes an assumptive stance that the angels are standing in the way of, or blocking God from the approach of the Believer. Hebrews 4:16 states otherwise.
Catholic Convert: Veneration nor honor IS NOT WORSHIP. Catholics worship GOD/Jesus alone!
A TOTAL LIE!
VENERATION IS WORSHIP!!!
Prayer to them as quoted above IS SIN.
Petitioning them based on their merit or pull with the Father is ANOTHER SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT BASED ON WORKS!!!
No one else in the Bible takes a voluntary position of worship to anyone else other than God. Either they are rebuked as John was in Revelation, OR they were passed out on the floor. PERIOD!!! GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION AND ACCURSED IS HE WHO PREACHES ANOTHER GOSPEL!
Heb 13:7. Remember to their example and to their words. This is not an argument to the person. It is not an argument to authority. True leaders lead by example. Christians are to emulate and follow that example, not reverence the leader as their holy substitute.
1 Thess 1:5-8. See Heb 13:7. Everywhere saints are mentioned in the Bible, they are mentioned most here as living flesh-and-blood human beings who have not died yet. This commentator here makes an arbitrary separation here between saints and Catholics. <--- Big mistake here.
All Catholics who worship Christ alone as their only savior, depending upon Christ alone for that salvation, with no help or merit from themselves or any other, is therefore a bonafide card-carrying SAINT in the eyes of every apostle that ever wrote an epistle addressed "to the saints," who are declared righteous by God at salvation, not according to the will of man, but of God.
My gift to you Dee. Only you choose not to accept it. =(
- 1 John 3:2. Begging for a connection. The use of this verse in the argument is a non-sequitur and more padding because it does not speak to veneration of the saints.
Catholic Convert: Who should carry the most weight—Protestant pastors protesting Catholic theology today or pastors from the early Church who have the words of the Apostles still ringing in their ears?
Just because an error is older than most makes it valid? The Reformers are retro-theologians attempting to get the words of the Apostles back in authority! Luther was an Augustinian monk! Where do you think he got his material?
Quotes From the Early Saints
Disclaimer: I am not conceding to the document's argument to authority. See above.
Sebastian: Taken within this context only here, why would St. Sebastian ask Peter and Paul to pray on his behalf if he were going where faith were no longer necessary? Pray for what?!?? Did St. Sebastian literally ask Peter and Paul to pray for his. . .salvation? Then tragically, his salvation was not assured in life! This is an implied argument. Nothing more.
Cyril: He speaks in error. See above. What exactly are we praying for here, when he asks us to pray for the sleeping prophets (sleep here, meaning physical death) and apostles?
Hermas: He speaks in error based on the Biblical citations above.
Clement: I agree with this statment as taken in this context alone. Clement has it right.
Origen: Confusing. Our high priest prayed for us in Gethsemane (past tense). That is why Gethsemane is called the high priestly prayer. Does Jesus continue to pray for us (present tense)? If so, then where is that written? When the angels and souls of the saints pray for, where are the saints located? What exactly are they praying for again? Our salvation?
Cyprian: See Origen above. How can a saint in heaven relieve my burden and affliction here on earth? A saint is not omniscient and the Holy Spirit catches my prayer first. The saints and angels can do what they want. Do I have the right to ask the saints to exercise clout, merit, or influence on God on my behalf? NO! As if the omnipotent God can be bribed, persuaded, or bargained with. As if God didn't know beforehand who were His and who weren't!
Anonymous: Speaks in error based on the Biblical citations above. Were there no apostates or heretics during the time of St. John and St. Paul? You assume too much. "Rescue us. . ." from Hell?
Methodius: Speaks in error based on the Biblical citations above.
*jaw drops* "Beginning. . .middle and end [Alpha and Omega]; the pearl of great price. . .the living altar of the Bread of Life. . .you fount of the Son's love for man. . .gift bestowing Mother. . ." <--- The sheer concentration of blasphemy, profanity, and idolization of humanity, all stuffed chock-full within this single quote, is truly shocking.
Jerome: You're begging the question, Jerome.
Augustine: "share" and "aided" in what way? I agree with the encouragement of imitation though.
AA: "Prayer, however, is offered for the dead who are remembered. For it is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended"
Why is the prayer offered? I myself have prayed for the dead. But I also admit I walked a fine line in admission of my limited knowledge of their salvation as opposed to God's confirmation of it. I am not God.
Are these dead the same dead who have no assurance of faith? Is the prayer for someone who died in unbelief? We can pray for the dead that at the last minute they called out for salvation at the moment of their death, but afterward, what second chance is there? Purgatory?
AA: "At the Lord’s table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps"
EMULATION! "Pray for me brother that I walk in unswerving faith as you walked." NOT, "Pray for me brother because your prayer is more effective in your position."
"Neither are the souls of the pious dead separated from the Church which even now is the kingdom of Christ. Otherwise there would be no remembrance of them at the altar of God in the communication of the Body of Christ"
Agreed. "Rememberance" is not worship. Memorials are not altars of reverance.
Dee: I'm no victim - get serious. I became nasty with you based on what you said to others.
Based on your veiled definition of nastiness. You only assume those who teach here are teaching pure doctrine.
Dee: If you will notice on the other Catholic thread that was going on around the same time as this one (the one where you told me I needed to make a choice between fut's message and yours) you said lots of nasty stuff to me, I still treated you will respect.
Quote me please. Bring the sin in question to my attention, and I'll apologize to you for the nature of delivery. . .but not the substance of the content.
I really do hate to argue to the person, because I cannot judge the person over an internet forum; I can only judge the substance of the content they present.
The information is not the person.
You cannot argue to the finger.
If you're so sensitive to hold a grudge against me like this, then you really shouldn't be hanging out on internet forums to begin with, should you?
Dee: There is nothing you could say to me that could truly offend me when I know you act out of such pure fearful ignorance.
Ignorance to what? Fear of what? You assumed I'd ignore your 40+ Bible quotes. . .but here they are. Enjoy your meal. . .you just got served.
Dee: I feel sorry for you. I hope some day you see the light and the error of your ways.
What error? It is now YOUR TURN to face me and find my errors above. Get to work, Dee. *snap-snap* Let's see how you fare. You presume to teach me through your apologist and I buried him.
You can only rely for so long on someone else's thinking before you have to start doing a little on your own. Today's the day, Dee. Don't fail where others here have. Do the right thing for a change.
Dee: In the meantime, you have only pushed me closer to Catholicism, to the point where I might even start attending Mass again.
Ah, so you were a Catholic to begin with. I rest my case. You were not riding the fence for the sake of Christianity, but for the sake of your pet understanding of it.
Dee: I haven't been to Mass in (other than for funerals and weddings) in close to 20 years.
Worship is worship Dee. Funerals and weddings count as well..
Dee: I have attended many many different Protestant services and even bible studies in that time. So thanks for that. Maybe I'll find my true home now. Nothing Fut said did that, only your vicious attacks that I knew to be complete false representations.
Subjective reactions don't count. Same with politics. Why is PJ so "angry" like McCain? Why is Rush Limbaugh so "mean" to Michael J. Fox?
What you call hurtful I call tenacious and passionate. What? You think I'll abandon my God for the sake of peer pressure? My goal here is not to appease and please men, Dee (Colossians 3:22). I'm asking you to repent of your shallow ecumenism that favors a disregard of doctrine. If you do, I promise not to lord it over you because that wouldn't be forgiveness on my part. You have got to get right with God and none other. This has nothing to do with me, but your disregard of the entirety of God's Word.
I met you piece for piece. Surrender to Christ your King.
Dee: It gave me a light bulb moment because the Catholic Church does teach in accordance with how Peter advocates while you don't.
Where? Your say-so doesn't magically make it so.
Peter claims election in the passage you cited. Not, "the believer elects himself and then God witnesses it." but simply God elects through the Holy Spirit.
Peter argues for other believers to give a defense for the hope that is within them, not covering it all up in pagan mysticism.
Peter endorses the writings of Paul. Etcetera. Need I go on? What do you got on Peter that I deny?
Dee: Most of the Protestant Churches I went to did (teach with love and compassion) also but there was always something missing for me.
How is what I am doing not love and compassion? You're standing in the middle of a freeway in the middle of rush-hour traffic with your head in the clouds. If I rush up and shove you onto the shoulder, do you have any right to accuse me of not being compassionate? This is salvation we're talking about. What other motive do I have? You yourself didn't even assert that you were saved or not.
Dee: The biggest thing missing was authority.
Who's authority? God's word, or some institutional entity that subverts that authority for themselves?
Dee: I always wondered what gave all these different places their authority and their only explanation was that they believed they had the best interpretation of the Bible. They all don't like something about how other Christian faiths worship and believe, but as I said before, they all seemed to get the same big picture that Jesus is your personal savior and letting him into your heart will lead you on the right path.
No. Not all of them. There are only three camps. Two involve "letting Him into your heart" based on works or human merit of choice. Thus, there is one salvation left alone. And the rest are a mass of apostate teachers beckoning you to take the broad path that leads to destruction.
Dee: That's the big picture that you miss completely. You have no religion of your own. Your whole religion is attacking other religions. You have no positive messages only negative ones.
Surrender your all to Him today. <-- How is that negative?
Dee: Most of these Protestant churches that I went to all have their points of exclusion, but they focus on teaching what's good about their faith not on attacking others.
What's good about salvation based on your own merit again?
Dee: I don't think these other Protestant faiths are wrong and I'm pretty sure (based on other SBC members that I've come in contact with) that even the SBC could be okay.
They're split as well on the same issue.
Dee: You are not though. Your actions here are not good for any Christian faith. Your actions are why most liberals hate Christians and misinterpret all of them.
What actions? Stop hedging and specify! Am I here to repackage the gospel and candy coat "the stone of stumbling and rock of offense" for the sake of pleasing liberals??? No! He is the Chief cornerstone and worthy of all the glory! You only want me to say something to butter up your damned ego! I'm not here to court you, or brown-nose you into the kingdom like some little princess, I'm here to preach the gospel!
Dee: People like you encourage it by cheering them on every time they speak out against a faith that isn't your exact faith.
Oh, so all faiths are relative to the individual? Thanks for sharing that liberal ideology. Truth is not relative Dee.
Dee: It doesn't bother you that they do the same thing to yours.
If this is true, then please demonstrate.
Dee: You'll side with the Devil so to speak when you think it can benefit you personally.
How does this benefit me? My wrists are killing me! My eyes hurt! I could be out back painting or playing with my dogs! I passed on a free movie for this! You think I somehow enjoy answering your careless little cut & paste hatchet-job?
Dee: I don't teach and I won't listen to false teachers.
Another huge (tiresome) lie. You lead with your link above. You teach through your link above. Either stand by your link above or abandon it. But don't sit there and lie over and over.
Dee. There is no rage that I know of, no hate, nor no fear, that does not endure with the methodic patience and endurance to walk the extra mile with my enemy. Do I do it in order to keep her my enemy? No.
To appeal in genuine Love, Spirit, and in Truth.
I did this one for you Dee, and for His glory.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
ROFFLMFAO! "Never murder
June 22, 2008 - 21:31 ET by bigtimerROFFLMFAO!
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
What's so funny?
June 22, 2008 - 21:36 ET by tracheostomyBT: ROFFLMFAO!
What are you laughing at? That wasn't no 5 minute post. You ignored in based on your presuppositions, not to content.
You got your fingers in your ears.
Oh, and I was talking to Dee; not you.
-PJ
BTW, Bigtimer. . .
June 22, 2008 - 22:15 ET by tracheostomyI learned something new just now.
Your words were never truer than when you spoke them to me earlier.
Repent.
-PJ
Spin all you want...I see
June 22, 2008 - 22:21 ET by bigtimerSpin all you want...I see you for exactly what you are.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
. . .
June 23, 2008 - 12:15 ET by tracheostomyBT: Spin all you want...I see you for exactly what you are.
So valid literary references such as The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy are now counted as. . . "spin"?
Or is it that your mis-use of the popular proverb has just been "spun" in the direction of the original usage?
See, what we're doing here with quotes and phrases is what you've been doing with Christianity. You seem to think you can read pretty much anything and then make it magically mean what you want it to mean, such as the popular proverb above.
-PJ
trach,
June 22, 2008 - 22:31 ET by BlondeWhat is it with you lately?
All I see from you is provacative posts to the regulars here....like you want to be banned for bad behaviour, or somesuch.
You replied to me, yesterday, I think when I was smacking around a troll....but I didn't even deign to answer, because I knew it would be nothing but an argument with you.
So....what is your problem? You've managed to insult Dee, and BT, and a host of others here....and for what? Why? Does it make you feel better? And I have to ask...you've been "fisking" everyone's posts....when I see that, I just skip over it and move on.
I used to enjoy your posts, but lately, I think you've gone off the deep end.
So please, kindly think about my observations....take them for what they're worth (absolutely nothing, advice is free).
Kindest regards,
Blonde.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde,
June 22, 2008 - 22:51 ET by tracheostomyB: All I see from you is provacative posts to the regulars here....like you want to be banned for bad behaviour, or somesuch.
No. Have you read the exact nature of the argument in question? Shawn and Clear Thinker asked me pretty much the same thing.
B: You replied to me, yesterday, I think when I was smacking around a troll....but I didn't even deign to answer, because I knew it would be nothing but an argument with you.
What was the quote? Got a link? I honestly don't remember singling you out for an argument about anything really. You haven't claimed any personal divine intervention or extraordinary divine revelation, have you?
B: So....what is your problem? You've managed to insult Dee, and BT, and a host of others here....and for what?
Because I think that personal revelation is not valid and any claims that "God and/or Mary personally told me thus and so" is the seed that Branch Davidian cults grow from.
Trust me. If you back-track the posts, you'd see why I'm so freaked out here.
B: Why? Does it make you feel better? And I have to ask...you've been "fisking" everyone's posts....when I see that, I just skip over it and move on.
Please-please don't. I simply ask that you go back to where the initial hijacking took place and especially take an objective look the raw claim of personal divine intervention, and you will understand. Really. I promise.
B: So please, kindly think about my observations....take them for what they're worth (absolutely nothing, advice is free).
Duly noted. I must calmly ask one favor though. Please. You're missing the part that initially set it all off to begin with.
When you read it, everything will click. You're smart and I know you'll see it.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Thanks Blonde - I wish they would dicipline him
June 23, 2008 - 11:53 ET by Dee BunkHis behavior is unacceptable. I've only been skimming his posts for a while now and I'm going to ignore them for the most part and only read the replies that people send to him and I'll be able to tell if he's attacking with his same old bull. That way I can just voice my support for who ever he is attacking.
I think it's really admirable of you to voice your opinion about this because I know you and BT have had your differences. Thanks.
Dee!
June 23, 2008 - 12:05 ET by tracheostomyDee: Thanks Blonde - I wish they would dicipline him.
For what crime?
Dee: His behavior is unacceptable.
By what standard?
Dee: I've only been skimming his posts for a while now and I'm going to ignore them for the most part and only read the replies that people send to him and I'll be able to tell if he's attacking with his same old bull. That way I can just voice my support for who ever he is attacking.
When the admins PM you to ask what PJ did to violate NB policy, you're going to have to give them something. You can't simply say, "He makes me feel bad and he corners me in debates."
Dee: I think it's really admirable of you to voice your opinion about this because I know you and BT have had your differences. Thanks.
And I have referred her to the post that initially touched this off. What have you got other than being deliberately ignorant of my posts and selectively following other people's responses?
-PJ
Unbelievable BT - I spoke too soon I guess
June 22, 2008 - 21:47 ET by Dee BunkI'm not even reading anymore of his Bull until he stops attacking people and stops his parsing. If I notice him attacking someone I might skim what he says in order to refute it, but as far as him responding to me, I'm ignoring it - or trying to at least. He'll never see the big picture. He's too caught up in selective details and he doesn't care to understand. He's got it all figured out. He thinks he's Jesus.
I went the extra mile and you're gonna chicken out now? Really?
June 22, 2008 - 22:03 ET by tracheostomyDee: I'm not even reading anymore of his Bull until he stops attacking people and stops his parsing.
Not parsing. It's point-by-point analysis. If parsing, then you can correct what you really meant to say. You're always-always welcome to do that Dee.
Dee: If I notice him attacking someone I might skim what he says in order to refute it. . .
That's only excusing your own willful ignorance Dee. That's not what a truly objective-thinking conservative does, Dee.
Dee: . . .but as far as him responding to me, I'm ignoring it - or trying to at least.
Why don't you look at all the Bible verses you assumed that I was incapable of facing? Hm? Why don't you answer to EACH AND EVERY ONE you copypasted? You got the guts or not?
Dee: He'll never see the big picture.
If you can comprehend the "big picture" then surely you can articulate it. Or. . .slap up another lazy copypaste.
Dee: He's too caught up in selective details and he doesn't care to understand.
Someone here told me the devil was in the details. Is that an argument to ignorance? I believe the details make up the "big picture" myself.
Dee: He's got it all figured out.
No, you're assuming that just because you haven't figured it out yet that no one else here can. That's arrogance on your part. Therefore, I have you on that as well as willfull ignorance.
Repent please.
Dee: He thinks he's Jesus.
Did I sign off on that accusation somewhere? Stop lying about my motives Dee. If you think you can read my motives based on nothing that I have written, then you're the one claiming magical mind-reading skills.
Repent.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Dee,
June 22, 2008 - 22:10 ET by tracheostomyDee: As far as your last idiotic insincere two part question, the second part is referenced in one of the 2 Peter quotes I gave you and you ignored.
Stop lying Dee.
Dee: So I'm sure you will also ignore these 40+ bible quotes that do the same, but what the heck, I'll give them to you anyway.
Yep. Now that's been taken care of. . .it's your move DEE! Let's go! Time to correct my exegesis. Did I succeed, or fail? And if so, then where?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I don't have to read it to know you've grossly misinterpreted
June 22, 2008 - 22:24 ET by Dee BunkI'm not wasting my time responding to your rude lies. Go ask a Priest if you really care (I know you don't) because you just lie lie and lie some more without trying to understand. You are a pathological liar. Repent. Repent and pray for guidance. You don't speak for Jesus. Stop trying to make people worship you.
Earth to Dee, come in Dee. . .
June 22, 2008 - 22:40 ET by tracheostomyDee: I don't have to read it to know you've grossly misinterpreted.
Misinterpreted what? That's what liberals do, Dee.
Dee: I'm not wasting my time responding to your rude lies.
You cannot prove they are and you disrespect the Bible by calling them lies outright.
Dee: Go ask a Priest if you really care (I know you don't). . .
They avoid me when they see me. No. Really. I can't get one to hang around for 5 minutes. Oh, BTW, that was an argument to authority on your part that I already covered, but you got your fingers in your ears.
Dee: . . .because you just lie lie and lie some more without trying to understand.
Understand what? Your empty argument to mysticism?
Dee: You are a pathological liar.
PROVE IT!
Dee: Repent. Repent and pray for guidance. You don't speak for Jesus.[a.] Stop trying to make people worship you.[b.]
Which one? If "a." then not "b." and vice-versa. I cannot be prophet and messiah at the same time.
Oh, but you'll only listen to me if I was wearing a priest costume, right? Kinda like BT believes every spirit who shows up in a white habit.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Oh shut up trach. It's
June 22, 2008 - 22:12 ET by bigtimerOh shut up trach.
It's Sunday after-all...give it a rest.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
What BT? "Shut
June 22, 2008 - 22:18 ET by tracheostomyWhat BT?
"Shut up"???
It's Sunday night and you got your fingers in your ears telling people shut up?
What's wrong with a little Sunday night Bible study?
You find such a thing distasteful?
-PJ
out of curiosity trach
June 21, 2008 - 00:54 ET by shawn228This will be the last question I ask "tonight anway" why does she owe you any explanation at all when she was not even talking to you in the first place?
I have had disagreements with bt many many times in the past, It gets me in trouble sometimes, but I will always point out what is right and wrong according to my beliefs and you are wrong for demanding an answer for an eye opening experience that she was discussing with someone else.
Be happy to Shawn. . .
June 21, 2008 - 01:02 ET by tracheostomyShawn: This will be the last question I ask "tonight anway" why does she owe you any explanation at all when she was not even talking to you in the first place?
1. She really doesn't need to explain further. She said enough.
2. Public forum. Didn't I say something about that already? Yeah. I think I did.
Shawn: I have had disagreements with bt many many times in the past, It gets me in trouble sometimes. . .
Why, because she's in the majority? Is she an admin or something? All that matters is your reasoning and whether the evidence is on your side. Names, dates, places, quotes, etc. That's all I ask of anyone. You come in with a faux-Christian vision, then I'm going to counter it. . .hard.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Pretense? That's rich
June 21, 2008 - 00:03 ET by bigtimerPretense?
That's rich coming from you...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Need to point out you're making vague floundering quips like TM.
June 21, 2008 - 00:18 ET by tracheostomyBT: Pretense?
Yeah. Got anything to back it up to the contrary?
BT: That's rich coming from you...
Oh, you think I'm faking something? Then please state your case!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07