So much for debating one point at a time......

Quoted: Which means exactly what I said. It's a tradition of the RCC and not of the Bible. Do you know when the Bible was 1st brought before the church and canonized?

According to the fundamentalists, there was no 'one church' with which to canonize the bible. You can give any date you want because according to you a church that was 'one' never existed.

Quoted: And how many different sects or "knock-off's" of the catholic church are there?

Protestant? 10,000+
Catholic? 0

Quoted: Quoted: And how many different sects or "knock-off's" of the catholic church are there? Protestant? 10,000+ Catholic? 0

10,000?


I always hear that number, but nobody ever bothers to name them.



Sounds to me like an inflated number used to make a point.


Maybe one could list those 10,000 different churches.


Wouldn't it be shocking to see that 9,900 of them were different names for the same beliefs - but unaware of each other's existence?

Protestant denominations

Baptist- 36,433,523 members (95,601 congregations).
Methodist- 14,285,851 (53,235).
Pentecostal- 10,281,559 (41,165).
Lutheran- 8,350,212 (19,153).
Mormons- 4,672,850 (11,071).
Presbyterian- 4,273,721 (14,306).
Churches of Christ- 3,679,736 (22,553).
Episcopal- 2,504,682 (7,388).
Reformed Churches- 2,079,634 (7,965).
Orthodox (Eastern)- 1,885,346 (1,482).
Jehovah's Witnesses- 926,614 (9,985).
Adventist- 794, 859 (4,696).
Church of Christ, Scientist- 700,000 (2,400).
Church of the Nazarene- 591,134 (5,161).
International Council- 500,000 (423).
Salvation Army- 446,403 (1,151).
Christian and Missionary Alliance- 302,414.
Churches of God- 267,676 (3,061).
Mennonite- 249,798 (2,656).
Evangelical Free Church- 226,391 (1,202).
Brethren Churches- 218,905 (1,800).
Christian Congregation- 112,437 (1,437).
Quakers, Friends Churches- 84,407 (1,074).
Other Christian churches- 753,550 (5,228).


Given the fact that many of the denominations have no overriding body which determines or defines the belief system, 10,000 is a vast understatement. With over 95,000 congregations of Baptists alone, and taking into account that no one Baptist, much less one Baptist congregation, has exactly the same belief system (I am referring to the concept of 'priesthood of the believer' as defined in The Baptist Faith and Message, or at least my understanding of it), you can easily get to more than 10,000.

Quoted: Protestant denominations Baptist- 36,433,523 members (95,601 congregations). Methodist- 14,285,851 (53,235). Pentecostal- 10,281,559 (41,165). Lutheran- 8,350,212 (19,153). Mormons- 4,672,850 (11,071). Presbyterian- 4,273,721 (14,306). Churches of Christ- 3,679,736 (22,553). Episcopal- 2,504,682 (7,388). Reformed Churches- 2,079,634 (7,965). Orthodox (Eastern)- 1,885,346 (1,482). Jehovah's Witnesses- 926,614 (9,985). Adventist- 794, 859 (4,696). Church of Christ, Scientist- 700,000 (2,400). Church of the Nazarene- 591,134 (5,161). International Council- 500,000 (423). Salvation Army- 446,403 (1,151). Christian and Missionary Alliance- 302,414. Churches of God- 267,676 (3,061). Mennonite- 249,798 (2,656). Evangelical Free Church- 226,391 (1,202). Brethren Churches- 218,905 (1,800). Christian Congregation- 112,437 (1,437). Quakers, Friends Churches- 84,407 (1,074). Other Christian churches- 753,550 (5,228). Given the fact that many of the denominations have no overriding body which determines or defines the belief system, 10,000 is a vast understatement. With over 95,000 congregations of Baptists alone, and taking into account that no one Baptist, much less one Baptist congregation, has exactly the same belief system (I am referring to the concept of 'priesthood of the believer' as defined in The Baptist Faith and Message, or at least my understanding of it), you can easily get to more than 10,000.

Bless your heart.

You included the Mormons and the JW's in your list.

*sigh*


And now you're going to say that each individual congregation is its own 'body'.

That's utter nonsense.





edit:


And you're saying that each and every single catholic has the exact same beliefs on every issue? HA!

It's true that you will find vastly different answers about key doctrines when speaking to different Catholics. No doubt there. In fact if you want to see real fireworks on chat rooms try visiting a Catholic chat room and duke it out between those who believe the Novus Ordo is valid and licit and those who think only the 1962 Missal is legit.

But the difference between 2 Baptists and 2 Catholics in disagreement is both Catholics could go to a source of teaching authority to see which (or either) is correct and corresponds to what the Church actually teaches. Not so for Protestants.

All will read the same Bible, but come up with different conclusions as to what it means. And there's no court of final appeal, other than their own individual "feelings" or acumen. At the end of the day, that's why there are few schisms in the Catholic Church but many in the Protestant communities. Catholics can (and do) ignore Rome but they can't keep claiming to be "faithful Catholics". Baptists who disagree with their pastor simply found a new church and viola, can claim to be just as right about the Bible as their opponent and there is no way to know if that's true.

Quoted: It's true that you will find vastly different answers about key doctrines when speaking to different Catholics. No doubt there. In fact if you want to see real fireworks on chat rooms try visiting a Catholic chat room and duke it out between those who believe the Novus Ordo is valid and licit and those who think only the 1962 Missal is legit. But the difference between 2 Baptists and 2 Catholics in disagreement is both Catholics could go to a source of teaching authority to see which (or either) is correct and corresponds to what the Church actually teaches. Not so for Protestants. All will read the same Bible, but come up with different conclusions as to what it means. And there's no court of final appeal, other than their own individual "feelings" or acumen. At the end of the day, that's why there are few schisms in the Catholic Church but many in the Protestant communities. Catholics can (and do) ignore Rome but they can't keep claiming to be "faithful Catholics". Baptists who disagree with their pastor simply found a new church and viola, can claim to be just as right about the Bible as their opponent and there is no way to know if that's true.

What if Rome is wrong?


Or has that never happened?

Quoted: What if Rome is wrong? Or has that never happened?

So much for one point at a time!! Had to say it!

And my apologies if the inclusion of JW and CJCLDS was untoward. Pure oversight on my part!

You've opened the 'infallibility' can of worms. No, we believe that in regard to faith and morals that Rome cannont be wrong. Unfortunately, the view of most Protestants is that everything the pope and bishops say (or write) is infallible. Nothing could be further from the truth. Infallibility applies to a fairly narrow segment of Catholic belief. In fact, I was pretty amazed at how many times in the Catechism itself, the Church allows, and actually recommends that decisions made in the process of living the Christian life be ultimately guided by the conscience of the believer. I was overwhelmed by the degree to which we are encouraged to utilize the free will we have been blessed with to guide us through life.

Well it depends on what you and I mean when we say "Rome", but my original statement refers to the official Church doctrine, not a particular curial official's opinion, the moral lifestyle of any particular pope or even his personal opinions on matters political or even theological.

But no Pope has come out preaching a different Gospel or commanding we worship Mary or trees or "graven images", nor has a Council vetoed the Gospel or given men a pass to sin (coughdivorceandremarriagecough).

There ARE lots of crazy bishops and priests, nuns and lay people who say the silliest or down right wrong things about God, his Church and his will for mankind... all while quoting the bible and Church teaching to boot. But then if you wade into the Papal documents and Councils you find lo and behold they aren't crazy and do grow organically (i.e. deductively, drawing out logical conclusions from what is known true) one from the next.

Take Contraception and Abortion. Neither are mentioned in the Bible explicitly. Both are hugely important from a moral perspective. Christians differ and are all over the map on both, all while reading the same Bible. If some living man isn't guaranteed by God to have the last say on things, then we're lost.

But wait! Jesus founded a Kingdom, which he also referred to as a flock. He called himself a shepherd and named other men shepherds as well. He made promises TO THEM, specifically to remain WITH THEM "always". And they taught with authority and set up communities wherein one man ultimately had the interpetive authority to bind and lose. If there was serious doubt all such leaders could convene a meeting and decide for everyone else what God's will was.

Pretty clear from ACTS how this happened and since ACTS set up precendents for lots of what we do today, and history is clear that the Christian peoples continued to have councils and each local church had leaders with teaching authority...it seems pretty clear to me that Jesus' Church continues to exist today and it is hierarchical with one man on top with the guaranteed protection of the Holy Spirit to teach us the truth.

Not saying every opinion he has is infallible. Not at all (after all, Peter himself could give bad example personally or by omission without losing moral authority).

Infallibility is not impeccability or clairvoyance.

Quoted: Protestant denominations Orthodox (Eastern)- 1,885,346 (1,482).

The Orthodox are not Protestants and in general are rather offended by the suggestion. They trace back to Churches founded by the Apostles just like the Roman Church does.

Quoted: Quoted: Protestant denominations Orthodox (Eastern)- 1,885,346 (1,482). The Orthodox are not Protestants and in general are rather offended by the suggestion. They trace back to Churches founded by the Apostles just like the Roman Church does.

I realized that. But then you could say the same of the Coptic Church of St. Andrew. But they are both splinters off the old rugged cross.

Quoted: If anybody here is parsing the verses its you. I appreciate the very biblically christian way that you have called me a liar. Hope you prayed before writing that one. And again, no one has EVER demanded, required, forced, hinted or conspired to have my children baptized in infancy. Its simply NOT a requirement of Catholicism. Sorry to disagree with the hate-filled preaching that has thus far reached your ears.

Are you saying, that someone who was never baptised as an infant(we can get to adults later), can be saved under the Catholic churches belief system? First of all prove it from the catacism. Second, if this is true, then this is nothing more than praying for a child and shouldn't concern anyone.
I'm not covinced, please prove me wrong.

do you mean children who die without baptism or people who are baptized later in life?

If you mean the latter, I was baptized a Catholic at 12 when I converted...no problem there. It would be the same as those who converted from pagan groups back in the old days.

TWIRE,

I'm sure it was an honest mistake, but each congregation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ("Mormons") isn't it's own sect.

There are a few LDS break-offs, however.  There is the FLDS Church ("Fundamental" LDS) and RLDS ("Reorganized" LDS) that recently changed its name to "Community of Christ" or something similar.  There are other smaller groups but I don't know all their names.

Edited to add:

As I'm sure Arowneragain would agree, the LDS Church isn't a Protestant denomination.

Quoted: Are you saying, that someone who was never baptised as an infant(we can get to adults later), can be saved under the Catholic churches belief system? First of all prove it from the catacism. Second, if this is true, then this is nothing more than praying for a child and shouldn't concern anyone. I'm not covinced, please prove me wrong.

Conversion can happen at any point in a person's life.  The Catholic Church recognizes the baptisms of most Christian ecclesial communities that are not Catholic as long as they use water and are done "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," and have the proper understanding of the Trinity.  People enter the Catholic Church every year as adults who were not baptized as infants (and many who were never baptized at all, but will be during the Easter Vigil).

You want Catechism, you got it:

Catechism of the Catholic Church on Baptism
read the whole section, but don't stop before you get to paragraphs 1257 - 1261:
1257
   The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258
   The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259
   For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260
   "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261
   As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is the initiatory sign and seal into the covenant of grace. As circumcision referred to the cutting away of sin and to a change of heart

Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. Deut. 10:16

And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. Deut. 30:6  

Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings. Jer. 4:4

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised; Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart. Jer. 9:25,26

In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.
And ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things: but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves. Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel. Ez. 44:7,9

Baptism refers to the washing away of sin

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
1 Pet. 3:21

(*Note*Before you jump on this and say "Ah ha!, there it is", read it in context with v. 20. Read the greek meaning as well if you have those capabilities. This is where most people take it out of context or away from what Peter was actually saying and what he was "comparing" baptism to)

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost Tit. 3:5

And to spiritual renewal

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Rom. 6:4

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Col. 2:11-12

If someone says that baptism is necessary for salvation, they would be adding a work to the finished work of Christ, right?

And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Luke 23:42-43 (was he baptized?)

And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. Luke 7:50 (Was she baptized?)

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 1Cor. 15:1-2 (Saved by what?)

Continue the verses:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 1Cor. 15:4-5 (Saved by this..The Gospel of Jesus Christ)

Now, look what Paul had to say:

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1Cor. 1:14-17

Paul said that he came to preach the gospel, not to baptize. If baptism is necessary for salvation then why did Paul downplay it and even exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation? It is because baptism isn't necessary for salvation.

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days Acts 10:44-48

In here, they were obviously "saved" since they received the Holy Spirit and they spoke in tongues and began to magnify God. Unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved. (Acts 2:14) They had not yet been baptized to receive salvation. Therefore, the ones in Acts 10 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved and they are saved before they are baptized. This simply isn't an exception. It is a reality.

Another way of making this clear is to use an illustration. Let's suppose that a person, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), believed in Jesus as his savior (Rom. 10:9-10; Titus 2:13), and has received Christ (John 1:12) as Savior. Is that person saved? Of course he is. Let's further suppose that this person confesses his sinfulness, cries out in repentance to the Lord, and receives Jesus as Savior and then walks across the street to get baptized at a local church. In the middle of the road he gets hit by a car and is killed. Does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to heaven then baptism isn't necessary for salvation. If He goes to hell, then trusting in Jesus, by faith, isn't enough for salvation. Doesn't that go against the Scriptures that say that salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:23) received by faith (Eph. 2:8-9)?

Saying that baptism is necessary for salvation is dangerous because it is saying that there is something we must do to complete salvation.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them Eph. 2:8-10

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Gal. 2:21

In addition, to also state that an infant can be saved through baptism alone, that would certainly negate the need for repentance. And, to argue that baptism of infants replaced circumcision (as some of you have here) of the Old Testament would certainly indicate that all females of the Old Testament are hell bound.

When are you catholic boys going to admit that if isn't in the Bible, it's NOT Biblical? Whether it's tradition, customs, papal visions or divine inspiration, or teachings that your church believes were passed down from Apostles. If it's not in the Bible, it's NOT Biblical. How difficult is that to understand?

So, to argue with a believer that can only comprehend the idea of "sola scriptura", is kind of wasting everyones time because we keep butting heads over church belief vs. Scripture. It'll never be resolved. It hasn't been in 2000 years and it certainly isn't going to be over the internet here on a gun board.

We still love you though (Biblically speaking of course)

Quoted: would anyone here be willing to do a debate thread - on ONE point at a time? if so, let's use THIS thread to work out the details of how we might order the debate. I'd love to see us come together, not as rivals, but as fellow Christians willing to explore those doctrines that separate us. Any thoughts from anyone who has ever done any formal debating would be appreciated.

___

Quoting the original thread, and I appologize if this is an off-topic comment, though having been through the whole idiocy of "Who's a Jew"...I hope for the best of this thread.  Until all of us, irregardless of affiliation, and explore and understand our spirituality within and without the environs of our faith communities...without trying to out-trump another...I fear for the worst.

I hope this thread is constructive...and best wishes to all of you.

Ed

Quoted: Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is the initiatory sign and seal into the covenant of grace. As circumcision referred to the cutting away of sin and to a change of heart

Did you read the quoted parts from the Catechism? It says that basically we don't know who is saved, but there is one sure way for Christians to be assured entry into heaven. It doesn't say that all the non-baptized go to hell. It just says that without baptism you are taking your chances

When are you catholic boys going to admit that if isn't in the Bible, it's NOT Biblical? Whether it's tradition, customs, papal visions or divine inspiration, or teachings that your church believes were passed down from Apostles. If it's not in the Bible, it's NOT Biblical. How difficult is that to understand?

I'm not sure what this is a reference to

Quoted: Quoted: Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is the initiatory sign and seal into the covenant of grace. As circumcision referred to the cutting away of sin and to a change of heart Did you read the quoted parts from the Catechism? It says that basically we don't know who is saved, but there is one sure way for Christians to be assured entry into heaven. It doesn't say that all the non-baptized go to hell. It just says that without baptism you are taking your chances When are you catholic boys going to admit that if isn't in the Bible, it's NOT Biblical? Whether it's tradition, customs, papal visions or divine inspiration, or teachings that your church believes were passed down from Apostles. If it's not in the Bible, it's NOT Biblical. How difficult is that to understand? I'm not sure what this is a reference to

I'm sure. It's a reference to all the previous posts in this thread. And rest assured that even when the scriptural basis for the beliefs of the RCC are posted, they still aren't 'biblical' because they don't agree with Az-Redneck personal interpretation (or whoever's interp. that he is posting) of scripture.

Good post, BTW.

I figured as much.

I've got a question for anyone who says that the Bible is nessicary for salvation. Did the Apostles or the first followers they Baptized go to hell? There was no Bible until it was written and canonized. Paul wasn't writing until at least 50 AD and even then the New Testament wasn't finalized for a few more centuries into what we call the Bible today. Thinking of things like that really puts the Bible in perspective.

Quoted: I figured as much. I've got a question for anyone who says that the Bible is nessicary for salvation. Did the Apostles or the first followers they Baptized go to hell? There was no Bible until it was written and canonized. Paul wasn't writing until at least 50 AD and even then the New Testament wasn't finalized for a few more centuries into what we call the Bible today. Thinking of things like that really puts the Bible in perspective.

Who said the Bible is necessary for salvation? All that is necessary is believing that Jesus died for our sins and that there is no way to get to heaven but through Him. Repenting of your sins and walking the walk rather than talking the talk like many here. Any believer should want to get baptized because it is part of the New Covenant and we are told to do so. But, it's not required in order to get into heaven. I have already given Scripture quotes on this.

Quoted: I'm not sure what this is a reference to

I'm sure. It's a reference to all the previous posts in this thread. And rest assured that even when the scriptural basis for the beliefs of the RCC are posted, they still aren't 'biblical' because they don't agree with Az-Redneck personal interpretation (or whoever's interp. that he is posting) of scripture.

Good post, BTW.




Mine and every other Born Again Christian on this board as far as I know... The IM's certainly have supported "my" interpretation. Be as nasty as you want to be Twire, I refuse to engage in a pissing match with you. You are trying to anger me and it won't work.

In addition, you fail to realize the RCC catechism means absolutly nothing to born again believers. So, quoting it, is moot and futile.

My point remains. If it isn't in the Bible, it's NOT Biblical... Period!

If it's not in the bible it's not biblical. Yeah, that's pretty clear to me.

But the Gospel message (also called "the Way") is bigger than what was written down - and this is attested to IN scripture. BY WORD AND EXAMPLE.

But in any event, as I've said elsewhere, we're not going to argue ourselves into faith.

The Catholic faith is based on both scripture and the tradition of the apostles (to wit, the liturgy (how they prayed and worshipped + the moral teachings touched on by St Paul but put into practice in ways beyond what was written as is attested to in the Didache and other early letters of the Fathers.)

You say Potato I say Potahto, you say "bible alone" I say "bible itself says written word and traditions of the apostles."

You claim the billion of us aren't Christian, period. We say, of course WE are, albeit not of your denomination.

We both adhere to the Nicene Creed, but even there squabble over what "catholic" means...although one thing is pretty clear: your particular church's history doesn't go back very far and your church's CURRENT doctrine in toto wasn't the same as it was even 100 years ago. AND your particular church isn't found on every continent (so isn't really, 'universal', made of every people, race, and culture.).

I say: you guys are Christians without the full deck of God's graces, but still part of the family; you say we're not even on the family tree.

Oh well.

Quoted: In addition, you fail to realize the RCC catechism means absolutly nothing to born again believers. So, quoting it, is moot and futile. My point remains. If it isn't in the Bible, it's NOT Biblical... Period!

I've been reading this thread trying to figure out how to make that point, yet do so in a nice way.


*sigh*

Quoting from the cathecism is much akin, in my mind, to my quoting from the 'baptist faith and message' statements - which nobody is likely to see me doing.


I'm reminded of what Paul told Timothy:

Preach THE WORD.



For what it's worth, I offer this post as a statement, and NOT to further fuel a fire. It's just simple, settled fact that to protestants, the RCC cathecism means nothing.

Quoted: But the Gospel message (also called "the Way") is bigger than what was written down - and this is attested to IN scripture. BY WORD AND EXAMPLE.

Here's another point where we disagree.


You interpret the fact that other signs and miracles weren't written down as evidence that some traditions, while not recorded and canonized, are legitimate church activities.

(or something like that...don't hang me on semantics here, please)



To protestants, it simply means what it says:

i.e., Jesus did a lot of cool stuff, and not every single bit of it was written down and canonized.



It creates an importation disctinction, and a source of division.

The RCC apparently believes that these 'other signs and miracles' are worth inclusion into church practice/tradition/doctrine.

Protestants, as a general rule, believe that if these signs and miracles actually constituted doctrinal issues, they would have been recorded for posterity.

All we can know for sure, in my opinion, is that whatever other things Jesus did, he

1) didn't see fit to have them recorded, and

2) didn't contradict any of His other teachings with them.

In light of that, protestants lean on 'sola scriptura', as you call it.

Quoted: If it's not in the bible it's not biblical. Yeah, that's pretty clear to me. But the Gospel message (also called "the Way") is bigger than what was written down - and this is attested to IN scripture. BY WORD AND EXAMPLE. But in any event, as I've said elsewhere, we're not going to argue ourselves into faith. The Catholic faith is based on both scripture and the tradition of the apostles (to wit, the liturgy (how they prayed and worshipped + the moral teachings touched on by St Paul but put into practice in ways beyond what was written as is attested to in the Didache and other early letters of the Fathers.) You say Potato I say Potahto, you say "bible alone" I say "bible itself says written word and traditions of the apostles." You claim the billion of us aren't Christian, period. We say, of course WE are, albeit not of your denomination. We both adhere to the Nicene Creed, but even there squabble over what "catholic" means...although one thing is pretty clear: your particular church's history doesn't go back very far and your church's CURRENT doctrine in toto wasn't the same as it was even 100 years ago. AND your particular church isn't found on every continent (so isn't really, 'universal', made of every people, race, and culture.). I say: you guys are Christians without the full deck of God's graces, but still part of the family; you say we're not even on the family tree. Oh well.

Well, considering most of my family are catholic, I would like to think I will see my mother and father in heaven. That said, I do not know a mans heart. For me to say whether they are saved or not is not up to me. What is up to me is to test every spirit and find out if it is of Christ. I am to contend for the faith and follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not to add or delete anything. It's pretty simple if you ask me.

Do I think that if you follow catholic traditions you're going to hell. read above. That's not my decision. I go to my sisters often for supper. Do we pray before we eat, yep. They say their "Bless us oh Lord for these thy gifts..." and I add my prayers saying them quietly to myself. When they come to my home, they make the sign of the cross and I say the prayers over the meal. My parents went forward for an altar call at a Billy Graham revival.

I am nobody to say whether a person is saved and going to heaven... But, I will say if something is not Scriptural. I will say if something is from a false prophet. I will show people who the Lord is in Scripture. It's up to the Holy Spirit from there.

I do know one thing; when I was in the catholic church, I was dead. I came alive when I accepted Jesus Christ into my heart and life. I will never forget it as long as I live. I will never deny that experience or what He has done in my life since. I will praise His Holy Name forever. I guess you can say I want the same for everyone. (I think He does too)

Mark 10:2 The Pharisees approached and asked, "Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?" They were testing him. 3 He said to them in reply, "What did Moses command you?"
4 They replied, "Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her."
5 But Jesus told them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.
7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife), 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate." 10 In the house the disciples again questioned him about this. 11 He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."


Matthew 19:3 Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, 4 saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?" 4 He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate." 7 6 They said to him, "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?" 8 He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."  


Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.




Pretty biblical to me. So how does this square with the tradition of your church?

Quoted: Quoting from the cathecism is much akin, in my mind, to my quoting from the 'baptist faith and message' statements - which nobody is likely to see me doing.

If I remember right the catechism was quoted on baptism because a quote from it was specifically asked for.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm not sure what this is a reference to I'm sure. It's a reference to all the previous posts in this thread. And rest assured that even when the scriptural basis for the beliefs of the RCC are posted, they still aren't 'biblical' because they don't agree with Az-Redneck personal interpretation (or whoever's interp. that he is posting) of scripture. Good post, BTW. Mine and every other Born Again Christian on this board as far as I know... The IM's certainly have supported "my" interpretation. Be as nasty as you want to be Twire, I refuse to engage in a pissing match with you. You are trying to anger me and it won't work. In addition, you fail to realize the RCC catechism means absolutly nothing to born again believers. So, quoting it, is moot and futile. My point remains. If it isn't in the Bible, it's NOT Biblical... Period!

Only two people have quoted the catechism in this thread and the first one was you. The other quote was in direct response to a question.

Quoted: Mark 10:2 The Pharisees approached and asked, "Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?" They were testing him. 3 He said to them in reply, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They replied, "Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her." 5 But Jesus told them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife), 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate." 10 In the house the disciples again questioned him about this. 11 He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." Matthew 19:3 Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, 4 saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?" 4 He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate." 7 6 They said to him, "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?" 8 He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."   Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. Pretty biblical to me. So how does this square with the tradition of your church?

You just can't keep from getting personal huh? First my parents now my former marriage where I got married at Mission San Juan Capistrano I explained in my testimony.. You're something else Twire, but I'll play your game..Here ya go...

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another commiteth adultry: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultry." (Matthew 19:9 KJV)

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commiteth adultry: and he that marrieth her when she is put away, commiteth adultry" (Matthew 19:9 ASV)

"And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commiteth adultry: and he that shall marry her that is put away, commiteth adultry" (Matthew 19:9 Douay - Rehims) (This is the version catholics use isn't it?)

Seems convenient that you changed your version, or found one, to try to fit your purpose.

And, it's not a "tradition" of my church..It's Biblical! She cheated and filed for divorce to be with her new boyfriend. I'm clear. And I don't need a Matrimonial Tribunal made up of a bunch of catholic priests reading over salacious details of my marriage to tell me anything different. Jesus says different.

Even if I were the one who filed for divorce, if I asked for God's forgiveness when I became saved in 1990 for ALL my sins, guess what? He forgave me! Isn't He great! That's what His Son did for us on the cross... I didn't have to go to a man who calls himself a priest, I went to the High Priest and asked for forgiveness. And guess what? He didn't refuse me absolution! He didn't call one of His children whom He created a bastard child and refuse to baptize him either. He didn't say I wasn't a Christian because I was living in sin. He told me my sins are forgiven and He would never leave me nor forsake me. He told me He loved me. He didn't have His hand out wanting $300 for an anulment.. I didn't have to say 200 Hail Mary's, Our Father's and Glory Be's for penance either.

Salvation is a gift. I don't have to do anything for it. It's free for the asking.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm not sure what this is a reference to I'm sure. It's a reference to all the previous posts in this thread. And rest assured that even when the scriptural basis for the beliefs of the RCC are posted, they still aren't 'biblical' because they don't agree with Az-Redneck personal interpretation (or whoever's interp. that he is posting) of scripture. Good post, BTW. Mine and every other Born Again Christian on this board as far as I know... The IM's certainly have supported "my" interpretation. Be as nasty as you want to be Twire, I refuse to engage in a pissing match with you. You are trying to anger me and it won't work. In addition, you fail to realize the RCC catechism means absolutly nothing to born again believers. So, quoting it, is moot and futile. My point remains. If it isn't in the Bible, it's NOT Biblical... Period! Only two people have quoted the catechism in this thread and the first one was you. The other quote was in direct response to a question.

OK..So what? Still doesn't mean anything to born again believers if they are true followers of Christ. Go look at the context in which I quoted it. Wasn't it Your church vs. What is in the Bible? Trying to bust my chops isn't working either.

Quoted: Quoted: Mark 10:2 The Pharisees approached and asked, "Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?" They were testing him. 3 He said to them in reply, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They replied, "Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her." 5 But Jesus told them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife), 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate." 10 In the house the disciples again questioned him about this. 11 He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." Matthew 19:3 Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, 4 saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?" 4 He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate." 7 6 They said to him, "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?" 8 He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."   Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. Pretty biblical to me. So how does this square with the tradition of your church? You just can't keep from getting personal huh? First my parents now my former marriage where I got married at Mission San Juan Capistrano I explained in my testimony.. You're something else Twire, but I'll play your game..Here ya go... "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another commiteth adultry: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultry." (Matthew 19:9 KJV) "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commiteth adultry: and he that marrieth her when she is put away, commiteth adultry" (Matthew 19:9 ASV) "And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commiteth adultry: and he that shall marry her that is put away, commiteth adultry" (Matthew 19:9 Douay - Rehims) (This is the version catholics use isn't it?) Seems convenient that you changed your version, or found one, to try to fit your purpose.

Nothing personal at all.

The translation I'm using is New American. Translated from the Hebrew and Greek with no Vulgate intermediary. As an interesting aside, I don't see the merit of the claim that the Catholic Church 'withheld' the Bible for centuries when Latin was the written language of the day...I digress.

Matthew is the only version with any exemption. And despite your claim that I have altered scripture (the second time you've made that accusation), it reads in many versions "except/unless the marriage is unlawful." This refers to Mosaic law which forbade marriage between people of blood or legal relationship (Lv 18:6-8). And that seems logical to me since Jesus had just asked about and then made reference to the law of Moses (except in Matthew 5:31-32 where the almost identical saying sort of just materializes within the Sermon on the Mount).

The references from Mark and Luke make no such exception.

I would venture to say that the overwhelming majority of divorced people in any given church community were NOT divorced on the grounds of adultery. So how does that fit?

And, it's not a "tradition" of my church..It's Biblical! She cheated and filed for divorce to be with her new boyfriend. I'm clear. And I don't need a Matrimonial Tribunal made up of a bunch of catholic priests reading over salacious details of my marriage to tell me anything different. Jesus says different.

Sounds like fantastic grounds for annulment.

I were the one who filed for divorce, if I asked for God's forgiveness when I became saved in 1990 for ALL my sins, guess what? He forgave me! Isn't He great! That's what His Son did for us on the cross... I didn't have to go to a man who calls himself a priest, I went to the High Priest and asked for forgiveness. And guess what? He didn't refuse me absolution! He didn't call one of His children whom He created a bastard child and refuse to baptize him either. He didn't say I wasn't a Christian because I was living in sin. He told me my sins are forgiven and He would never leave me nor forsake me. He told me He loved me. He didn't have His hand out wanting $300 for an anulment.. I didn't have to say 200 Hail Mary's, Our Father's and Glory Be's for penance either. Salvation is a gift. I don't have to do anything for it. It's free for the asking.

That IS great! HE is great! On that we agree, friend.

The only reason I can possibly think of that a priest would refuse absolution is if the penitent would not agree to stop committing the sin he confesses! You can't say, "God forgive me for commiting adultery, but I refuse to remedy the situation and plan to continue on as before." To repent means to change. I've had the same conversation with other Catholics and X's on similar subjects.

You seem to be a very bitter man. If you think you have been wronged by the Church, so be it. But as a forgiven sinner, should you not also forgive? I see no evidence of forgiveness in the content or tone of your last post. I think that bitterness is very apparent in your completely negative view of Catholicism. But are you bitter at the Church? Or bitter that the faith of your father had no way for you to reconcile yourself with the belief system without sacrificing the relationship you had started (albeit temporarily)? I would venture to say that all the wonderful enlightenment that took place in your spiritual life after leaving the Church was possible within the Church as well. But not in the time frame you demanded of it. And that's a pity for the Church to have lost someone capable of such intensity and passion.

I write here not to convince anyone of anything, Only to answer the constant barrage of 'Catholics do ....Catholics believe.....its not biblical...' and the like. I think we have both demonstrated that Scripture can sometimes be difficult to piece together and occassionally seem to contradict itself. I've never expected anyone to say, 'Oh I guess you're right!' But I think the point that Scriptural interpretation is sometimes arguable, has been made.

We need to talk about ARs more.

Quoted: That IS great! HE is great! On that we agree, friend. The only reason I can possibly think of that a priest would refuse absolution is if the penitent would not agree to stop committing the sin he confesses! You can't say, "God forgive me for commiting adultery, but I refuse to remedy the situation and plan to continue on as before." To repent means to change. I've had the same conversation with other Catholics and X's on similar subjects. You seem to be a very bitter man. If you think you have been wronged by the Church, so be it. But as a forgiven sinner, should you not also forgive? I see no evidence of forgiveness in the content or tone of your last post. I think that bitterness is very apparent in your completely negative view of Catholicism. But are you bitter at the Church? Or bitter that the faith of your father had no way for you to reconcile yourself with the belief system without sacrificing the relationship you had started (albeit temporarily)? I would venture to say that all the wonderful enlightenment that took place in your spiritual life after leaving the Church was possible within the Church as well. But not in the time frame you demanded of it. And that's a pity for the Church to have lost someone capable of such intensity and passion. I write here not to convince anyone of anything, Only to answer the constant barrage of 'Catholics do ....Catholics believe.....its not biblical...' and the like. I think we have both demonstrated that Scripture can sometimes be difficult to piece together and occassionally seem to contradict itself. I've never expected anyone to say, 'Oh I guess you're right!' But I think the point that Scriptural interpretation is sometimes arguable, has been made. We need to talk about ARs more.

OK who are you and what did you do with Twire?

Hmmm..I don't know what to make of this post. It's too civil! It's not Saturday so confessionals are closed. Not Sunday so you didn't listen to some inspiring homily..

Where's Twire?



I'll bet MY AR is better than YOUR AR!

Mine was dunked in oil as a complete AR not as just a lower. And not just sprinkled with oil. It had to be a complete AR first and show it can shoot straight and will not shoot off target! But, if it does shoot off target, it doesn't have to go to a gunsmith for correction. It doesn't have to shoot 30 extra rounds for not being on target either. I just make some adjustments and try to keep it on target. Mine is an offshoot AR. I discovered that the first AR was very different and made some changes. My AR was built using different plans and ONLY those plans were used without any deviation. I got away from the mainstream AR's. It was made to look just like the first AR which are 3 AR's in 1. It is a rifle, a weapon, and a firearm, but is still an AR15. (calling it a g*n is blasphemy) And, no matter how hard I try, my AR15 will not change into an AK47. And there isn't an AR at Armalite telling my AR how to shoot either. If I see my AR fraternizing with other AR's in the safe, I can draw up a Bill of Sale and get rid of it. My AR sometimes shoots off target because it isn't perfect. But, it's good to know I know how to fix that problem and limit the outer ring shots.

Quoted: OK who are you and what did you do with Twire? Hmmm..I don't know what to make of this post. It's too civil! It's not Saturday so confessionals are closed. Not Sunday so you didn't listen to some inspiring homily.. Where's Twire? I'll bet MY AR is better than YOUR AR! Mine was dunked in oil as a complete AR not as just a lower. And not just sprinkled with oil. It had to be a complete AR first and show it can shoot straight and will not shoot off target! But, if it does shoot off target, it doesn't have to go to a gunsmith for correction. It doesn't have to shoot 30 extra rounds for not being on target either. I just make some adjustments and try to keep it on target.

Look whether its CLP immersion, a dab of rem oil or Militec, you've still been lubricated.

And yes, for sight adjusment and minor repair home gunsmthing is fine. But for serious redress of repeated malfunctions shouldn't one consult a professional gunsmith? My AR rarely requires a smith, but sometimes I simply don't have the tools to fix it myself. I simply can't change a barrel profile or rechamber. I don't have a MAPP torch for high-temp silver soldering. Yes, I've refinishied many a weapon, but that is sometimes only covering up the imperfections rather than absolutely correcting them.

Mine is an offshoot AR. I discovered that the first AR was very different and made some changes.

Very good! At least you've admitted that Stoner's was the original creation. Over time, the reputation for unreliable operation has been overcome by subtle evolution of the design. Although, the basic design is the same. Would you REALLY still want a charging handle under the carry handle? Is a 1-12 gov't profile the most accurate barrel configuration? Is traingle shaped bakelite, still better than a quadrail? YMMV, that's all  I'm saying.

And to recognize Armalite as the arbiter of originator's design, and as an authority is a key. Once the military contract was changed, we've been having this Colt vs. Armalite battle forever. And are we really a better community when we argue whether Olympic, DPMS, Bushmaster or others are superior. After all they are all ARs.

And the mistakes with ball powder in the past have been addressed and remedied.

My AR was built using different plans and ONLY those plans were used without any deviation. I got away from the mainstream AR's. It was made to look just like the first AR which are 3 AR's in 1. It is a rifle, a weapon, and a firearm, but is still an AR15. (calling it a g*n is blasphemy) And, no matter how hard I try, my AR15 will not change into an AK47. And there isn't an AR at Armalite telling my AR how to shoot either. If I see my AR fraternizing with other AR's in the safe, I can draw up a Bill of Sale and get rid of it. My AR sometimes shoots off target because it isn't perfect. But, it's good to know I know how to fix that problem and limit the outer ring shots.

Nobody wants your AR to be an AK. I only resent you calling MY AR, an AK.

What I can't figure is why, if someone, seeking accuracy, could freely obtain MY version, with national match upper, stainless WOA 1-8, free float, they would settle for an M4 chromelined with a Hakko reddot.

Quoted: You guys crack me up. ETA: We already know that my AR is the best.

For all we know, yours is a Hesse.

Look whether its CLP immersion, a dab of rem oil or Militec, you've still been lubricated.

I disagree. I think the whole AR needs to be immersed otherwise some parts wouldn't be as they were when it first came out of the factory.

And yes, for sight adjusment and minor repair home gunsmthing is fine. But for serious redress of repeated malfunctions shouldn't one consult a professional gunsmith?

Nope. Eugene Stoner, the creator of this fine weapon, told us exactly how to fix them in his instruction manual. If you want to make major modifications, then yes, one would need a gunsmith. But, my AR is fine how it is and I don't need a gunsmith if I read the manual. An engineer (a degree which trumps gunsmith school) wrote the manual. Everything you need to know is right there. I don't need a gunsmith to tell me how to shoot straight when many gunsmiths don't shoot straight themselves.

My AR rarely requires a smith, but sometimes I simply don't have the tools to fix it myself. I simply can't change a barrel profile or rechamber. I don't have a MAPP torch for high-temp silver soldering. Yes, I've refinishied many a weapon, but that is sometimes only covering up the imperfections rather than absolutely correcting them.

You see, that's the beauty of these weapons. They're simple and don't need to change. As long as they're shooting on target and are maintained according to Stoners manual, they're fine just as they are. All AR15's are created equal. Now, the AR10, that's an abomination. Not an AR at all. Kind of a wannabe rifle. It says it's an AR, but if you look at it, it has a lot of similar features as an AR15, but very different. It looks like an AR from a distance, but up close, it's a fake. They try to give you another manual and tell you to read it and see for yourself it's the same, but if you look close and compare it to Stoner's manual, it's very different.

Very good! At least you've admitted that Stoner's was the original creation. Over time, the reputation for unreliable operation has been overcome by subtle evolution of the design. Although, the basic design is the same. Would you REALLY still want a charging handle under the carry handle? Is a 1-12 gov't profile the most accurate barrel configuration? Is traingle shaped bakelite, still better than a quadrail? YMMV, that's all  I'm saying.

Yes, Stoner is the creator. It's Armalite that THINKS they were handed the first contract and have exclusive rights to it. The basic design of the Armalite is kind of the same. Then they had to change things like adding quad rails, Aimpoints, Forward Grips, etc. and they say it's still and AR even though when you look at the Stoners original rifle and his manual, it's very different. But those hardcore Armalite guys swear it's still an AR15 and they'll go to their grave believing so.

And to recognize Armalite as the arbiter of originator's design, and as an authority is a key. Once the military contract was changed, we've been having this Colt vs. Armalite battle forever. And are we really a better community when we argue whether Olympic, DPMS, Bushmaster or others are superior. After all they are all ARs.

Stoner was the "originator" of the AR15 and it's Stoner's design that should be used when one accepts that Stoner's AR15 is superior to Kalashnikov and we don't need AK's in our lives anymore. When Kalashnikov was our weapon of choice, you will notice it was VERY inaccurate never on target and always malfunctioned. Now, I know that comment is going to get me in trouble with the AK fans, but, I have shot the AR and I'm NOT going back! Colt vs. Oly vs. DPMS, etc. is a healthy debate.

What I can't figure is why, if someone, seeking accuracy, could freely obtain MY version, with national match upper, stainless WOA 1-8, free float, they would settle for an M4 chromelined with a Hakko reddot.

I think the question should be; Why would someone want a rifle with all kinds of added bells and whistles on it that were never intended in the original design, when the original design is all that is needed for target shooting, 3 gun matches, home protection, and war?



(Don's flak jacket and kevlar helmet for the AK remark)

Quoted: Quoted: You guys crack me up. ETA: We already know that my AR is the best. For all we know, yours is a Hesse.

That's gonna leave a mark..  

Them's are BANISHMENT words 'round here!