Quoted: Twire and Loony, blah, blah... Dram

Predictable.
Ineffective.
Dramborleg.

Quoted: Short answer:  Catholics are a subset of Christians.

_________________________

I'm just a Jew, though having been raised and educated at a Catholic University, I would say you're being a bit harsh on your fellow bretheren.

"You may not like the Bible and what it says"

Oh really? Well let's have you quote something the "bible" says and show us exactly where the Catholic Church is wrong.

NOT what 'YOU THINK IT SAYS' or paraphrasing it, or taking it out of context...but what it actually says.

You think children can't be baptised and it's gotta be by immersion only. Fine. prove it with scripture. Where does scripture FORBID child baptism and specifically mentions immersion as the only acceptible way to baptize?

The moment you make "the bible alone" to be your guide is the moment you'd better start quoting it solely, and not say anything else because all paraphrasing is heresy. (After all, if the Lord said it could there be a "better way to explain it"? )

Quoted: Quoted: Twire and Loony, Dram Predictable. ( yes, the scriptures are absolutely predictable, unlike the catholic faith which follows whatever is trendy in rome.. cant wait for the latest papal bull or declaration of new dogma by the new guy ) Ineffective.(absolutely ineffective in opening the eyes of one who has NO knowledge of scripture, could not debate scripture, and has no interest in the records of his own faith declaring there was NOTHING other than the bible for the first 400 years, yuppers, in your case that appears to be quite true.. huh.. go figure eh?) Dramborleg.

You rang?

_________________________________________________________________________

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Twire and Loony, Dram Predictable. ( yes, the scriptures are absolutely predictable, unlike the catholic faith which follows whatever is trendy in rome.. cant wait for the latest papal bull or declaration of new dogma by the new guy ) Ineffective.(absolutely ineffective in opening the eyes of one who has NO knowledge of scripture, could not debate scripture, and has no interest in the records of his own faith declaring there was NOTHING other than the bible for the first 400 years, yuppers, in your case that appears to be quite true.. huh.. go figure eh?) Dramborleg. You rang? _________________________________________________________________________ I asked nicely before for you to follow the rules for this forum. If you can't abide by the rules, then stop posting in here. What am I refering too? I'm talking about your open attacks on another religion. If you want to discuss differences between one religion and another, then do so without the bashing. Consider this your last warning.

1) Is Catholicism considered (by staff here) to be a religion separate from Christianity?

Dram has made no attack here.


I suppose it goes without saing that my own vioews are skewed towards alignment with Dram's views, rather than the catholic version of things - but I have friends on both sides of the issue. Dram isn't attacking anyone. He's pointing out what he sees as serious flaws in catholic doctrine.


YMMV, obviously.


edit:


Surely if the mods can allow those of other faiths to more-or-less troll without repercussion, they can tolerate some of the same arguements that Christians have engaged in amongst themselves for hundreds of years.....

One is Christian
One is Catholis



Big difference

Christian woship the triune God and catholics worship dead people like Mary and the other saints who cant help them.

Quoted: Now I'm sure if someone came in the RF and posted something like, (Southern Baptists are nothing but a cult that changes it's views on faith, by the whim of a bunch of guys at a convention hall somewhere). I would have several IM's from you, telling me how some member was trolling christians in the RF.

1) That's actually incorrect. As a member of a southern baptist church, I'd actually agree with that sentiment to an extent, and would certainly be interested in exploring it.
2) As for me sending you an IM, why would I bother? The most I've accomplished is a reply that said 'just wait'. What am I waiting on, again?



Lemme Guess: You're catholic, huh?

Or did you miss this:

I have rarely encountered a post, or poster, so obtuse.

or this:

You've proven yourself to be an egocentric wackjob in every other thread that you've posted in. So when you get back on your medication for a few weeks start up another thread, then you might be able to post something relevant and we can actually debate.

No offense intended towards Twire. Believe it or not, I actually admire the catholic church for some of its stances. Case in point:

I would add that the situations you describe, from my perspective, are precisely why the Catholic Church adheres to and concentrates on the actions/works of the converted sinner as opposed to the once saved-always saved philosophy expressed by some fundamentalist Christians. The real followers of Christ, of whatever denomination, are changed beings when they accept Jesus as their Savior.

I genuinely wish all Christians - regardless of their denomination - would take that to heart, instead of resting on their laurels as we are all - regardless of denomination - prone to do.

But I digress - I didn't intend this post to be a combination of objection to moderation AND an exposition on theology.

It just seems to me that the moderation in this forum is a bit biased. I understand that it's a crappy job. I understand that you're in a difficult position.

But it does get old to see Christians chided for an arguement between themselves when the trolls are allowed free reign of the forum.

(The latter is, of course, my opinion. If you consider me to be biased - well, guilty as charged. As a Christian, I'm pretty well required to have a bias about such things)

All Catholics are Christian, not all Christian are Catholic.

Because to become Catholic you must be baptised....and since many are baptised who do not accept the other doctrines, a distinction has emerged.

Catholics accept that Our Lord gave us a single Church, with a living teaching authority as well as a deposit of faith: the Gospel, which was in part written down and in part handed on in action and custom (as seen in Acts and Paul's writings about what the various communities would do when celebrating the breaking of bread).

We hold to 7 sacraments (along with the Orthodox) whereas most Protestants (excluding the Anglicans) hold only to 1 or 2 (Baptism and marriage).

In our eyes, Protestants are therefore real Christians but suffer a poverty of means to come to know and encounter Jesus Christ. Their preachers also - in our opinion - while having excellent technique lack depth of theology when compared with our saints and the church fathers (not when compared to the local Fr Bob).

So we see you as younger brothers not enjoying a full theological or sacramental deck....but you do tend to use all the cards you DO have, whereas we have the fullness of theology and sacraments but tend not to make use of them all when we ought.

The funny thing is that while we admit that Protestants are truly Christian and thus "brethren" they tend to assume we are not Christian at all.

But then once they start to study and read history and the earliest writings of Christians - as well as check out the Orthodox church they have to start re-thinking the traditions of men that led them to the presumptions at the basis of alot of their anti-Catholic bias.

We believe that in virtue of the grace conferred in their baptism and in Our Lord's mercy, Protestants MAY be saved. Many of them just assume that Catholics as Catholics couldn't possibly be saved.

And no, we don't worship Mary and we don't pray "to" her as though to God. Statues aren't any more idolatry than an American flag is. But as there is no recognized teaching authority among Protestants there doesn't seem to be a standard by which they can judge between snake-oil preachers and Billy Graham. We however can tell if a priest, bishop or cardinal is full of it.

Finally, most Catholics I know and know of, don't despise Protestants or think they're part of the problem as much as think they're great people who could have so much more joy and so many more encounters with the Living Lord if only they knew the treasures their ancestors had.

Quoted: All Catholics are Christian, not all Christian are Catholic. Because to become Catholic you must be baptised....and since many are baptised who do not accept the other doctrines, a distinction has emerged. Catholics accept that Our Lord gave us a single Church, with a living teaching authority as well as a deposit of faith: the Gospel, which was in part written down and in part handed on in action and custom (as seen in Acts and Paul's writings about what the various communities would do when celebrating the breaking of bread). We hold to 7 sacraments (along with the Orthodox) whereas most Protestants (excluding the Anglicans) hold only to 1 or 2 (Baptism and marriage). In our eyes, Protestants are therefore real Christians but suffer a poverty of means to come to know and encounter Jesus Christ. Their preachers also - in our opinion - while having excellent technique lack depth of theology when compared with our saints and the church fathers (not when compared to the local Fr Bob). So we see you as younger brothers not enjoying a full theological or sacramental deck....but you do tend to use all the cards you DO have, whereas we have the fullness of theology and sacraments but tend not to make use of them all when we ought. The funny thing is that while we admit that Protestants are truly Christian and thus "brethren" they tend to assume we are not Christian at all. But then once they start to study and read history and the earliest writings of Christians - as well as check out the Orthodox church they have to start re-thinking the traditions of men that led them to the presumptions at the basis of alot of their anti-Catholic bias. We believe that in virtue of the grace conferred in their baptism and in Our Lord's mercy, Protestants MAY be saved. Many of them just assume that Catholics as Catholics couldn't possibly be saved. And no, we don't worship Mary and we don't pray "to" her as though to God. Statues aren't any more idolatry than an American flag is. But as there is no recognized teaching authority among Protestants there doesn't seem to be a standard by which they can judge between snake-oil preachers and Billy Graham. We however can tell if a priest, bishop or cardinal is full of it. Finally, most Catholics I know and know of, don't despise Protestants or think they're part of the problem as much as think they're great people who could have so much more joy and so many more encounters with the Living Lord if only they knew the treasures their ancestors had.

It's amazing - I just finsihed typing out an Im to one of my catholic brethren - then I come and read this post.

The parts I highlighted in red cause me great concern.

But there's really no use in arguing about it. You're so full of your 'traditions of men' that there's no way *I* could ever open your eyes.

YMMV, of course.

edit:
One point I can't help but mention, though - not all catholics are Christians, any more than all baptists/pentecostals/whatever are Christian.

One of my points is that criticism is a two way street. If you think you are prepared to accuse Catholics of heresy, then be prepared to be shown where many Protestant groups similar to your own stray off the reservation.

Saying "Catholics aren't Christians 'cause I'm going to misinterpret an out-of-context, or non-authoritative text and shoe-horn it against a proof text that doesn't prove what I think it does" ends up saying: all y'all aren't Christian 'cause I say so.

No Catholic saint worshipped Mary. No Pope has either, and the Catechism and encyclicals, the Councils and the synods... none have called on Catholics to render adoration to Mary. We honor her perhaps more than we honor the saints and angels, but certainly far less than we render worship to God alone.  

Protestants typically CAN'T MAKE THE DISTINCTION due to their culture, not their innate intelligence.

Just because the English language and American culture is relatively poor when compared with the Greek and thus "worship" is the only word you have, whereas the Greek and Latin cultures distinguished between dulia, hyper-dulia, and adoratio, wherein only adoratio was "worship" isn't the Catholic Church's fault.

Just because most American Protestants don't understand the history that "worship" classically meant sacrifice - and hence only if you offered a sacrifice to God (or gods) was it considered "worship" - and hence, one only worshipped Yahweh AT THE TEMPLE and later, during the Mass, but prayed to him elsewhere....doesn't make us wrong. It makes you myopic.

Not bad, not evil, not damned. Just culturally blinkered and ignorant - not stupid, not foolish - just not in the know.

For some reason, being told we don't damn you to hell for not knowing something because your culture precludes it from being understood is taken as an insult rather than an obvious point, exonerating your lack of understanding.

Then you accuse US of traditions of men while completely ignoring your OWN TRADITIONS OF MEN, STARTING WITH LUTHER!

See? Two can play this game. But protestants typically are never, ever called on this old canard.
Well, I'm calling you on it.

Traditions of men? Which ones? Like "call no man father" was literal? That's an old Protestant canard that doesn't even hold water when you keep reading Matthew! If it was LITERAL, as many Protestants believe because superficially it seems like a knock at the Catholic PRACTICE of calling priests "father".... then the Matthew himself and Jesus himself CONTRADICTED THEMSELVES and broke the supposed proscription against calling "another man 'father'" because both Matthew and Jesus call men "father"!!!!

So obviously, Jesus wasn't being literal.

Or the tradition of men that John 6 wasn't literal? To accuse Catholics of being unbiblical with the doctrine of the Eucharist, Protestants try to claim Jesus was being metaphorical. Except that textual analysis can't sustain a metaphorical conclusion in John 6 and somehow square with Corinthians, or Luke, or Revelation.

Only if your A PRIORI was "Whatever the Catholic Church says is wrong" could you come up with a "my flesh is real food, my blood real drink" means "my flesh is real metaphorically and blood  really metaphorically food and drink, wink, wink, nod nod."

But where oh where would that A PRIORI  come from if NOT a Protestant TRADITION OF MEN that demands you to ASSUME the Catholic reading has got to be wrong?

Every single time one Protestant group splits and goes off to form their own, new Church distinct in teaching from another Protestant group, there is a TRADITION OF MEN - PROTESTANT MEN - involved.

So don't give me this "only you have traditions but we are faithful to the clear rubrics and catechesis spelled out in the Bible" line.

YOU HAVE TRADITIONS WITHOUT CALLING THEM 'traditions' AND YOU HAVE THEOLOGY WITHOUT CALLING IT 'theology'- and much of it is based, not on the scripture itself but on your philosophical presumptions.

For example: Mary can't possibly be conceived without original sin. Really? Why not? It's impossible! That's a PHILOSOPHICAL statement, not a theological one.

"Jesus couldn't POSSIBLY be present under the appearance of bread and wine" Again - not a theological affirmation but a philosophical one.

Of course I'm willing to bet a beer that NONE of you ever considered in Luke 2 what exactly Mary meant by calling God her "savior" when - her son hadn't yet been born and wouldn't die on the cross and thus "save" us for another 33 years. How could she call God "savior" before the Savior had "saved" us....unless the Catholic doctrine is correct that God saved her from the stain of original sin at the moment of her conception?

Or ponder how it is POSSIBLE for the Person of the Word to be united to the humanity of Jesus. He was true man: human soul, human mind, human body...but he wasn't a human person, he was a divine person. How is that POSSIBLE? You can't answer that question with "scripture alone" - although you can find reasons to believe it in fact is so. To answer a "possible" question you need philosophy.

And on that note, many Protestant "theologians" go off the deep end, not for lack of scriptural acumen but for lack of philosophical grounding and thus make philosophical errors, before drawing theologically unsound conclusions.

Like I said guys, I highly doubt you've had to deal with Catholics like me. There's not many of us.

We don't think you aren't Christians. Turn about however doesn't seem to be in season. Pity.

Regarding the PS.

Yes, if we define our terms to mean Christian is "someone who currently is a friend of Jesus", (i.e. in a condition or state of grace, having been "saved" for Protestants or "justice" for Catholics but in any event walking with the Lord such that if struck dead instantly he'd go straight to heaven"

then sure, yeah, I agree, not all Catholics are that definition of Christian nor are all those who call themselves "Christian".

"Not those who cry Lord, Lord will be saved, but those who do the will of His Father."

Not those who did miracles in Jesus' name will be saved either... if that's all they did because he specifically warned us that "evil-doers" will be damned. So even believing (and who could do a miracle in his name without believing?) isn't enough. You have to PERSEVER in that belief and in justice.

Not a question of works alone or faith alone but loving, faith-motivated work made possible by God's grace bearing fruit in us.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved

I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by Me.

Behold I stand at the door and knock .....

For by Grace are you saved .....

Thou shall not worship idols

Only God can forgive sins.

Etc. Nothing about popes, praying to dead saints or a Mary who sinned (for ALL have sinned...).
Catholics put something between God and man which is idolotry and anti-Biblical. Christians go directly to God and nothing else is needed. Therefore one is Christian and one is not. Interestingly, nearly every Catholic I have ever met, and I grew up in southern, heavly catholic s. Louisiana, came to the same realization if they ever took the time to read and study the Bible.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved

Shall be is future tense. Not present tense. And the context of the letter doesn't make that statement an absolute, stand-alone affirmation, but aut/aut this, and, not either/or.

"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by Me."

Yes, and I believe this too, as does the Catholic Church.

Behold I stand at the door and knock .....

"For by Grace are you saved ....." Only up above you interpret line one to mean your belief is what saves you... apparent contradiction with 'grace' saves you. So you need to define your terms and explain this line too, not take it too out of context.

"Thou shall not worship idols" We don't.

"Only God can forgive sins." Where is this particular line found in the New Testament? Not spoken by Jesus or the Apostles but by the Pharisees when Jesus forgave the cripple. Jesus himself gave the power to forgive sins to the apostles after the Resurrection. THAT'S absolutely biblical.

OUR LORD'S OWN WORDS! "receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, whose sins you hold bound are held bound".

As for putting things between believers and God WE BELIEVE JESUS IS TRULY PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST - WE COMMUN WITH HIM. What have you got? Some quotes of his on a piece of paper. Some "spiritual" presence (which your theologians explain away as metaphor in John 6) where two or more gather in his name.

We aren't the one's putting obstacles between Jesus and believers my friend. We just believe in the fabulously good news that you think is too good to be true.

"for ALL have sinned"

You INTERPRET this line to include Mary. But not Christ Jesus? Why not? He was a man!

Ah but then you'd have to see that contextually Paul wasn't being categorical and absolute. The Scripture also speaks of Joseph as a "Just man". In apparent contradiction to your INTERPRETATION of this line of Paul.

In short, your various so-called proof-texts don't prove a whole lot but they do prove you follow traditions of men called "interpretations".

The sad part is that you so fundamentally misunderstand my beiiefs that I had to sit there and think 'who is this nut talking to, anyway?'


I'll freely agree that the protestant church is full of mistakes, heresies, and other flaws.

Having said that, I wish you could see just how 'out in left field' you really are.

No offense, but I honestly think it would be impossible for you and I to ever reach common ground.

Having said that, I'll give it a try.


Please, try to follow along with me here. be willing to open your mind just a tad here, and maybe we'll see clear to fellowship. Bear with me.

Quoted: One of my points is that criticism is a two way street. If you think you are prepared to accuse Catholics of heresy, then be prepared to be shown where many Protestant groups similar to your own stray off the reservation.

Amen, Brother! Some of us preach a saved-by-works doctrine. Some of us preach that we're saved by what amounts to a dead faith. None of us agree on exactly how the Holy Spirit works in the lives of individual believers. Many of us allow paganism, gnosticism, hedonism, mysticism, and no-telling-what-else into our churches. It's sad.

Saying "Catholics aren't Christians 'cause I'm going to misinterpret an out-of-context, or non-authoritative text and shoe-horn it against a proof text that doesn't prove what I think it does" ends up saying: all y'all aren't Christian 'cause I say so.

Now hold on! You'll never hear me say 'catholics aren't Christians - though i do see that I messed up some highlighting in a previous post. Anyway, yes, i *DO* believe that many, if not most Catholics are Christians. But to say that your eternal destiny is safe because your family was catholic, or even because you went through confirmation - I simply cannot agree with that. It may put you in good standing with the church, but if you don't know Jesus, you don't know Jesus. The confirmation ceromony means nothing, if one doesn't take to heart the core message of salvation through Christ and Christ alone.

No Catholic saint worshipped Mary. No Pope has either, and the Catechism and encyclicals, the Councils and the synods... none have called on Catholics to render adoration to Mary. We honor her perhaps more than we honor the saints and angels, but certainly far less than we render worship to God alone.   Protestants typically CAN'T MAKE THE DISTINCTION due to their culture, not their innate intelligence.

Mary was certainly a great woman. But I find it utterly superflous to 'pray to' a dead person. Jesus lives. I'll pray to Him, through Him, whatever you want to call it. many *do* believe that you worship Mary. Unfortunately, if we dare to use textbook definitions of words like 'worship', they are correct. However, don't feel bad - you're certainly not the first person to be offended when someone attaches a meaning to a word then applies logic to reach a conclusion.

Just because the English language and American culture is relatively poor when compared with the Greek and thus "worship" is the only word you have, whereas the Greek and Latin cultures distinguished between dulia, hyper-dulia, and adoratio, wherein only adoratio was "worship" isn't the Catholic Church's fault.

I understand the complexity of the Greek language. No, it's certainly not your fault. But regardless of the nuances of the language, I have found no scriptural imperative to pray to/through/for/under/whatever Mary or anyone else. if you want to, that's fine - I can't stop you. Asa long as you understand who you're praying to, knock yourself out.

Just because most American Protestants don't understand the history that "worship" classically meant sacrifice - and hence only if you offered a sacrifice to God (or gods) was it considered "worship" - and hence, one only worshipped Yahweh AT THE TEMPLE and later, during the Mass, but prayed to him elsewhere....doesn't make us wrong. It makes you myopic.

Who told you we didn't understand the premise you outlined there? heck, it makes perfect sense to me.

Not bad, not evil, not damned. Just culturally blinkered and ignorant - not stupid, not foolish - just not in the know.

And maybe not even that......

For some reason, being told we don't damn you to hell for not knowing something because your culture precludes it from being understood is taken as an insult rather than an obvious point, exonerating your lack of understanding.

You guys sure do like to talk about culture. I sure wish you could see that the Word is the Word, culture means nothing. Shoot, I wish my *own* church would get rid of some culture. That monthly business meeting gets downright boring.....

Then you accuse US of traditions of men while completely ignoring your OWN TRADITIONS OF MEN, STARTING WITH LUTHER!

Luther started the traditionof growing a pair, standing up to errant leadership, and saying 'I'll stand on what the Word says - period!. Pity that more of us won't take that stance against society at large.

See? Two can play this game. But protestants typically are never, ever called on this old canard. Well, I'm calling you on it.

Forgive me if I'm not impressed.

Traditions of men? Which ones? Like "call no man father" was literal? That's an old Protestant canard that doesn't even hold water when you keep reading Matthew! If it was LITERAL, as many Protestants believe because superficially it seems like a knock at the Catholic PRACTICE of calling priests "father".... then the Matthew himself and Jesus himself CONTRADICTED THEMSELVES and broke the supposed proscription against calling "another man 'father'" because both Matthew and Jesus call men "father"!!!! So obviously, Jesus wasn't being literal.

Remember when you called me myopic? Pot calling kettle....come in, kettle.....earth to kettle...

I call my earthly father Father. If you want to call your priest 'father', that's fine by me. But surely we can agree to be exceedingly careful when we say 'he didn't mean that literally', no?

Or the tradition of men that John 6 wasn't literal? To accuse Catholics of being unbiblical with the doctrine of the Eucharist, Protestants try to claim Jesus was being metaphorical. Except that textual analysis can't sustain a metaphorical conclusion in John 6 and somehow square with Corinthians, or Luke, or Revelation.

Not all protestants try to claim that. But let's remember what I said earlier about being careful about when we say 'don't take that literal' or 'do take that literal'.

Only if your A PRIORI was "Whatever the Catholic Church says is wrong" could you come up with a "my flesh is real food, my blood real drink" means "my flesh is real metaphorically and blood  really metaphorically food and drink, wink, wink, nod nod."

Sadly, you seemto think that protestants feel that the catholic church is wrong about everything. Nothing could be further from the truth. I admire your defense of your church, but I sure wish you would temper it with a bit of understanding first.

But where oh where would that A PRIORI  come from if NOT a Protestant TRADITION OF MEN that demands you to ASSUME the Catholic reading has got to be wrong?

This protestant doesn't hold to that tradition. Nice wide brush you have there, though.

Every single time one Protestant group splits and goes off to form their own, new Church distinct in teaching from another Protestant group, there is a TRADITION OF MEN - PROTESTANT MEN - involved.

That's torturing the definition of tradition. Torturing, I say. if I decided to leave the SBC because I couldn't abide by their doctrine, it would be a matter of conscience, not tradition. To properly defien 'tradition' would take one of two things:

1) a textbook full of case examples and endlessly detailed definitions, or
2) a heart for Jesus. I can't help with the first. But I try to have the latter. With it comes discernment. if you and i put Jesus first, I imagine we could agree on what were, and were not, traditions. But first we would both have to swallow some pride. Scary thought, ain't it?

So don't give me this "only you have traditions but we are faithful to the clear rubrics and catechesis spelled out in the Bible" line.

i didn't give you that line. I wouldn't dare do so.

YOU HAVE TRADITIONS WITHOUT CALLING THEM 'traditions' AND YOU HAVE THEOLOGY WITHOUT CALLING IT 'theology'- and much of it is based, not on the scripture itself but on your philosophical presumptions.

I call theology theology. I call traditions traditions. I don't deny 'em, either one. Everyone has theology. Kinda hard not to have it, huh?

As for traditions, if you're willing to help us protestants figure out how to tend to the business of the church without having a monthly business meeting, brother, I'd appreciate it greatly. While you're at it, maybe we could knock out 'homecoming', baby showers, church weddings for heathens who don't darken the door more than once a year, and a whole big handful of other nonsense.

For example: Mary can't possibly be conceived without original sin. Really? Why not? It's impossible! That's a PHILOSOPHICAL statement, not a theological one.

Hold on, my friend. You have to understand something here: I know you catholics get all hot-and-bothered about original sin, but it's not an issue I worry about. mary was human. But she was chosen to be Jesus's mother. She must have been a wonderful lady. If she was without sin, I suppose there is OT prophesy to back it up. Is there? I honestly don't know. Shocking, huh? Let me tell you a secret: i don't go up to strangers and tell them they need to be theologians to know Jesus. Studying minutaea of theology ranks really, really low on my list of priorities right now - but only because things like being more obedient, telling more people about Jesus, and studying MAJOR issues of theology are higher on my list right now. Was AMry a virgin? Absolutely! the Bible says so - plainly! Was she without sin? I highly doubt it. But does it matter? Quit majoring in the minors. Your post on the subject reads like you're appraching a myocardial infarction over the issue. Calm down, man.

"Jesus couldn't POSSIBLY be present under the appearance of bread and wine" Again - not a theological affirmation but a philosophical one.

One ting is for sure - when he siad it, he meant it. No doubt in my mind - the once-a year event that was recorded as ONE INSTANCE in history - not a weekly or even yearly phenomena (the last supper was, by definition, the LAST time...) did involve, what do you call it? Transubstantiation? Yeah....sure I believe that. Absolutely. But did the wine turn into blood next week? This week? I dunno. To me, I suppose that such a fixation on communion puts one in mind of the Jews, who knew all of the law, strived to follow it....but missed the whole point. No offense, but i honestly feel that many catholics fall into that 'jewish trap'. But, yes, so do many of us protestants. I'm certainly guilty of it.

Of course I'm willing to bet a beer that NONE of you ever considered in Luke 2 what exactly Mary meant by calling God her "savior" when - her son hadn't yet been born and wouldn't die on the cross and thus "save" us for another 33 years. How could she call God "savior" before the Savior had "saved" us....unless the Catholic doctrine is correct that God saved her from the stain of original sin at the moment of her conception?

I don't drink and I certainly don't gamble, so you'll have to bet the beer with someone else. As for God being Mary's savior...what of the other people who lived before Jesus? Were they sinless, as you suppose that Mary was? let's be reasonable here - the jews knew God would deliver them. So did Mary, of course. Don't try to torture a meaning out of scripture that isn't there.

Or ponder how it is POSSIBLE for the Person of the Word to be united to the humanity of Jesus. He was true man: human soul, human mind, human body...but he wasn't a human person, he was a divine person. How is that POSSIBLE? You can't answer that question with "scripture alone" - although you can find reasons to believe it in fact is so. To answer a "possible" question you need philosophy.

  Now, now - wait a minute.

I absolutely do NOT need philosophy.

We don't even need to answer the question. I've certainly pondered the question. But if i needed an answer, God would have provided one. It really is that simple - no philosophy needed. Remember the principle outlined in Colossians 2:8.

And on that note, many Protestant "theologians" go off the deep end, not for lack of scriptural acumen but for lack of philosophical grounding and thus make philosophical errors, before drawing theologically unsound conclusions.

You seem to be confusing theology and philosophy. Let's just stick with the Word and leave the philosophy to the gnostics, pagans, and so on, mmkay?

Like I said guys, I highly doubt you've had to deal with Catholics like me. There's not many of us.

I beg to differ. there are literally millions of well-meaning, good-hearted, but brainwashed catholics. Just like protestants. It's a dirt-common phenomena. I'm sure you mean well. And I don't disagree with you on everything. And I'm not even sure I'm right and you're wrong about everything. But I *am* sure that none of us are right about everything. You certainly do a good job of defending catholicism. I sure wish you'd put some of that effort into telling people about Jesus. We all forget sometimes that if you and i are christians, we can sit here and argue/discuss theology and philosophy all day long for the rest of our lives - and NOBODY new will come to know Jesus. So let's not get too wrapped up in it, mmkay? I know it's your strong point, and it is certainly something you can put to good use - here and in church - but let's not lose sight of the big picture, my friend.

We don't think you aren't Christians. Turn about however doesn't seem to be in season. Pity.

I really don't know who is and isn't a Christian. I do tend to fret a bit over the idea of changing the nature of God so much that we inadvertently worship 'another Jesus' as our savior. But I don't think most catholics do that. Sure, some do - just like some baptists, some methodists,.....you get the idea. Probably more than either of us would like to think about. But it's certainly not the fault of the church they attend. It's a heart condition. . I honestly believe that if you live your life not for the church - regardless of the name it goes by - but for Jesus, you're good to go. God wants obedience, not theological excellence or dogmatic discussion.

As we work on the former, the latter comes naturally.

Have a great day, brother.

"if they ever took the time to read and study the Bible."

um, yeah....... 11 years formal study, going on 30 years near daily reading.

I don't doubt you met alot of uneducated and ill prepared Catholics in LA. But I'm not one of them.

I also don't doubt that most of your pastors and elders haven't met someone like me. We're relatively few in number. But numbers don't count. The proof is in the pudding. What are your arguments?

It's easy to say "a .22 lr is more powerful a round than a .308" or "Catholics obviously worship Mary because they put flowers in front of images of her and in my dictionary "worship" means "putting flowers in front of some object" which means people worship grave stones too."

Saying isn't proving.

We both know what the Bible SAYS. But you think you know what the Bible means - and I want to pin you down as to WHY you believe what you do, based SOLELY on that same Bible, because I happen to know that alot of what many Protestants do end up believing can't be sustained by a purely scripture-alone approach, including "the Bible only" theory of Christian guidance.

Hi Arowner.

FWIW none of my posts were in response or reaction to you or yours. But Dramborleg.

Mea Culpa for not specifying that.

I also agree that my brush is broad. I'm talking "general protestantism". There's no creed or catechism to go to that pins down for all time what each particular group believes because they seem to change by zip code and by decade. But by and large "most" or it seems IMHO that many hold basic doctrines in conflict with Catholic ones.

I agree 100% with your first point about Confirmation alone not saving you. Like I said, you have to persever in love to be saved by love. It doesn't make any sense to bank on past good works as though they will save independent of current status of soul vis a vis love for God or self.

As for Mary, well did Christians always consider those "asleep in the Lord" to be cut off from us? What did Jesus say when confronted by the Sadduccees? God is called the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, because he's not the God of the dead but of the living for all live to him." Mary is alive with the Lord, not dead. Jesus too is alive - albeit in Heaven. Revelation shows martyrs knowing full well what's going on in time and offering their prayers to the Father on our behalf. Praying "to" Mary or saints isn't worship, it's "asking them to pray for us to Jesus" but spoken poorly in English just as the British poorly express honor by calling men "Lords" and Judges "Your Worship" without idoltary.

As for Luther... he saw evil prelates but instead of REFORMING MORALS, HE CALLED FOR JETTISONING DOCTRINE - something never done before. So let's see. Did he usher in peace and joy and unity among Christendom or war and disunity?

By their fruits....

And was his scriptural analysis right? Most Protestants don't agree with the Lutherans, else they'd be Lutherans.

There is no sola scritura doctrine in the New Testament. Saying there is doesn't make it so. And that's the ultimate problem

In the middle of prepping dinner after work, sorry I did not get on this sooner.

I would like to personally thank arowneragain for standing up for me while I have been at work against the one sided attacks on me by the catholic patrol (VA-gunnut, et al) that refuse a debate because THEY are offended by scripture or that I recognize something as a cult.

Now, obviously the Avila's that own this site are catholic, seeing as they are of Cuban ancestry, which is fine. Now, secondly, if catholics are the sacred cow of this website then that is quite fine too. Please someone just say catholics are off limits for us Christians to debate with scripture, and we will leave it at that. I have 0 problem with this, this site belongs to the Avila's and I have no wish to step on their toes in any way.

But if VA-gunnut would like to run this section of the forum as a little dictator that decides what is and is not kosher according to his whiles, then I will have to write to site staff and get them involved. I detest doing the "teacher teacher" routine, but if that is what he is pushing, then that is what he will get.

I get slammed and edited while the catholics get an airy non-specific play nice, while they directly and personally insult me which is ABSOLUTELY AGAINST THE COC. And VA-gunnut does not even edit the post insulting me.

VA-gunnut really is a two faced moderator, which, if the site staff approves of it.., is fine by me. I just have to run a bit of this ham-handed behavior by a few people and see what happens.

If VA-gunnut thinks replying to a post is trolling, then someone please explain what a thread is for. I POSTED IN THESE THREADS BEFORE THE POPE SQUAD SHOWED UP. THEY ARE TROLLING MY POSTS NOT VICE VERSA.

Well enough for now, I have to eat dinner, and then go and tug on teachers coat because the other kids refuse to play fair

This is so ridiculous.

Dram   ...

Quoted: In the middle of prepping dinner after work, sorry I did not get on this sooner. I would like to personally thank arowneragain for standing up for me while I have been at work against the one sided attacks on me by the catholic patrol (VA-gunnut, et al) that refuse a debate because THEY are offended by scripture or that I recognize something as a cult. Now, obviously the Avila's that own this site are catholic, seeing as they are of Cuban ancestry, which is fine. Now, secondly, if catholics are the sacred cow of this website then that is quite fine too. Please someone just say catholics are off limits for us Christians to debate with scripture, and we will leave it at that. I have 0 problem with this, this site belongs to the Avila's and I have no wish to step on their toes in any way. But if VA-gunnut would like to run this section of the forum as a little dictator that decides what is and is not kosher according to his whiles, then I will have to write to site staff and get them involved. I detest doing the "teacher teacher" routine, but if that is what he is pushing, then that is what he will get. I get slammed and edited while the catholics get an airy non-specific play nice, while they directly and personally insult me which is ABSOLUTELY AGAINST THE COC. And VA-gunnut does not even edit the post insulting me. VA-gunnut really is a two faced moderator, which, if the site staff approves of it.., is fine by me. I just have to run a bit of this ham-handed behavior by a few people and see what happens. If VA-gunnut thinks replying to a post is trolling, then someone please explain what a thread is for. I POSTED IN THESE THREADS BEFORE THE POPE SQUAD SHOWED UP. THEY ARE TROLLING MY POSTS NOT VICE VERSA. Well enough for now, I have to eat dinner, and then go and tug on teachers coat because the other kids refuse to play fair This is so ridiculous. Dram   ...

I'm a Unitarian Universalist and most definitely NOT a Christian, so I have no dog in this hunt.   You are far from innocent in the manner in which you debate people.   Instead of attacking his religion as a cult,  look at the way JusAdBellum is conducting his argument.   He's more than willing to get into a scriptural discussion with you.   Ignore Twire and in the future refrain from attacking people.  You make a habit of it in almost every thread.

If you have problems with Roman Catholic doctrine, then post.   From what I have seen  so far, you appear unable to participate in an intellectual debate, but instead engage far too much time in building strawmen that you then take great joy in tearing down.

Twire stepped over the line, but so did you.   Both of you were warned to cool it.  Twire has, your still claiming there is some sort of pro-Catholic bias on the part of the moderator and beating your breast to protest the treatment you are receving

p.s..   I thought VA Gunnut was a protestant....

/shrug

yall keep tearing each other apart and this heathen will simply ask

WWJD

I did not need to speak to ALL the staff Va-G, just one and Aimless was the first one that I remembered where I last saw so I could IM him.

He responded.

He said he told you that your were crazy to mod this forum, and he did not feel like second guessing you.

Fair enough.

You are apparently free to do as you please here, good bad or indifferent as the other staff want nothing to do with this pariah of a forum.

Thats too bad, as you are apparently unable to tell a troll from a personal attack from a garden vole.

And apparently the Avilas are NOT catholic, which is fine too, so I was not stepping on any of their toes. Which I am quite happy about.

Other than that, we shall see what we shall see.

Dram out

That suits me Beekeeper,

I have much more faith in your judgement than Va-G, I have been here at Arfcom just as long as him, perhaps more as I lurked for quite some time. So, no noob here folks.

If you are directing the blowhard remark at me in a backhanded kinda way, feel free, it is the internet after all.

I actually forgot that you were site staff as you were just a mod for so long and only recently did all the changes to staff occur, or I would have discussed this with you via IM.

I understand quite intimately the high standard here in the Religion forum, but rigorously detest having the standard applied in a haphazard fashion. Most of the time, it seems only I and a few others post TECHNICAL details and HISTORICAL facts, whereas others rely on posts without any scripture. So, if you want technical, I got your technical right here. If I am attacked, why they get scripture right back at them, and I go to great lengths to repeat that they are not arguing with me, they argue with the scripture I posted.

But whatever, you are not inclined to this type of stuff by your own admission so I will not bore you any longer.

You read the posts.

Call it like you see it.

Dram out

Quoted: One of my points is ...<snip>long post

WOW! Nice post. I am continually fascinated at the recurrent theme that when a Catholic quotes scripture, the interpretation of the verses by the Church is immediately dismissed as invalid or incorrect. But when anyone else posts scripture and their interpretation, it is suddenly inargueable. Prior to the existance of the Religion Forum, I (and BayEagle and others) have made many of these same arguments that you have (although not as succinctly) as the various misconceptions (and flagrant lies) about Catholicism have arisen in other threads. I just didn't have the wherewithal to engage in this thread. Thanks for standing up. I feel sure that I will feel compelled to post in future threads.

Beekeeper,

Its been 2 years?!

Man, I spend waaaay too much time here on Arfcom.

But, as we all find out, it is insanely addictive.

Anywho...

At times my posts are quite strident, and that irritates me to no end, as up to 1/3 of all posts I have made on Arfcom have been on religion. In those, I did manage to keep it cool for quite some time, up until this forum was set aside. I actually know right when the tone changed and that was with Tx-Sig flat out stating that no matter what I said, it had no value as I was not "apostolic". In all the time that I had discussed religion on here or anywhere else, nobody had ever dropped that one on me. I figured that I would drive this home for him and in subsequent posts mentioned this at every opportunity... after that the attitude just stayed. Too bad, I had a great run for several years going attitude free.

As far as Va-G goes, I will respect your right to your opinion on him as you have had more contact than I ever will .... but through his IN-action, my opinion has  been altered towards another direction completely. Oh well, like I say this is only the internet, so whoop de doo, eh.

There is alot of word play here on Arfcom, with a great deal things said that cannot be gauged accurately without knowing that person on a face to face level, I apologize if I thought you were insulting me in a backhand manner, mea culpa Beekeeper.

Dram out

In simpe words?

Catholics are right, the rest are wrong. We came first, we are faithful and true to Rome, they are not. Simple as that.

Also: We are normal, they are friggin' weirdos... I don't like the title Christian anymore because of all those weirdo cults and sects. Friggin' deranged psychopaths like Unitarians and all that...

Quoted: In simpe words? Catholics are right, the rest are wrong. We came first, we are faithful and true to Rome, they are not. Simple as that. Also: We are normal, they are friggin' weirdos... I don't like the title Christian anymore because of all those weirdo cults and sects. Friggin' deranged psychopaths like Unitarians and all that...

Methinks you need to take 1 Peter 3:15-16 to heart:  
15But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.
16  But with modesty and fear, having a good conscience: that whereas they speak evil of you, they may be ashamed who falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

You certainly don't help to dispell the myth that we Catholics love Christ and follow Him.  While I would agree with you that the Church possesses the fullness of God's Truth, I know many a God-fearing Protestant who loves Christ with his whole heart, even if he doesn't understand all that Jesus handed down to the Apostles.  What Truth they do accept, they accept with their whole being and try to follow Christ as best they can.  They sadly miss out on much in the way of sanctifying grace, but remember that God judges each person based on the light they have been given.

Please try not to make the rest of us Catholics look bad (guilt by association, and all...)

Quoted: In simpe words? Catholics are right, the rest are wrong. We came first, we are faithful and true to Rome, they are not. Simple as that. Also: We are normal, they are friggin' weirdos... I don't like the title Christian anymore because of all those weirdo cults and sects. Friggin' deranged psychopaths like Unitarians and all that...