Replies

Don't flatter yourself. You attack Catholicism, but when it comes to non-Catholic false teachings or historical errors, you take an "any enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach. This is why non-Catholics can deny that obedience is neccessary for salvation, claim that the Son and the Father are two separate gods, deny that a suffering Messiah is prophecied in scripture, or post a lot of anti-historical spam to the effect that Peter never resided in Rome, all without a peep out of you, or maybe even with your agreement. Your interest is in attacking Catholicism, not standing up for the truth.

Go back and read post#11 thread 158. I'm a fundamentalist and don't agree with most prostestant faiths as I believe most of them are a works based as well as the catholics are. But they are a lot closer to the truth than you are and can learn unlike the catholic church members that have to recieve their truth at the hands of their leaders.

These threads started as a debate on baptist & catholics and if you can't take the heat.......

Oh yeah not spam just facts, Peter was not in Rome.

BigMack

I'm a fundamentalist and don't agree with most prostestant faiths as I believe most of them are a works based as well as the catholics are. But they are a lot closer to the truth than you are and can learn unlike the catholic church members that have to recieve their truth at the hands of their leaders.

The point allend was making is that you never point out any of the flaws in the thinking of other Christians, only Catholics. One would think that a professed "Bible" Christian who claims that Jesus is a second God would warrant a mention from some non-Catholic, any non-Catholic. Ditto for a fellow Christian who isn't sure if Jesus is God or not.

You yourself just said that at least Protestants can learn. Why not take this opportunity to teach them?