Question for Freeper Catholics

1/27/04 | LS

[Havoc]

Typical pegleg answer.. stop sulking. If you can't prove your case, don't ask me to take your word for it and say "trust us" because there is no basis for trusting you.
Nor would that reflect on the monumental problems you guys have with scripture. I'm under no biblical obligation to just accept your word for it or anyone elses without requiring that the message be identical to the apostles and that anything without support be proven beyond any doubt. This is my soul your talking about, not your shoe. If you have less respect for a soul than for your shoe, then we've nothing more to say anyway.

[Cronos]

Forget it. Your responses are too numberous and long. Your heresy hunting is boring. Cya.

Actually, most heresies require that much or more space to explain. They can get boring. However, if you don't bother to understand them, you have NO RIGHT to debate them, but then, you ARE invincibly ignorant. ;-P

[Cronos]

So bankrupt you have to resort to name calling, huh.

Nope, you're claiming things to be true when you have NO proof. That's a propagandaist.

[pegleg]

I hope so. I'll let you know tomorrow. ;-)

How 'bout them Pats!

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Actually, most heresies require that much or more space to explain. They can get boring. However, if you don't bother to understand them, you have NO RIGHT to debate them, but then, you ARE invincibly ignorant. ;-P

I understand them all too well. Happy heresy hunting.

[OLD REGGIE]

How 'bout them Pats!

Whew! Carolina gave them all they could handle didn't they?

The funny thing is the Pats dominated all the statistics but they gave up big plays, something they didn't do all year.

[Havoc]

No, I'm just stupid enough to trust scripture more than I trust charlotans. Fancy that lol

[Cronos]

No, I'm just stupid enough to trust scripture more than I trust charlotans.

Just your intrepretation of scripture.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

No, I'm just stupid enough to trust scripture more than I trust charlotans.

Ya mean when there's a choice between Scripture and Papal authority you'll go with the Magic Sternum? :-)

[Fury]

I'm under no biblical obligation to just accept your word for it or anyone elses without requiring that the message be identical to the apostles and that anything without support be proven beyond any doubt. This is my soul your talking about, not your shoe. If you have less respect for a soul than for your shoe, then we've nothing more to say anyway.

Ahh, our friend Havoc... ;)

Havoc's been caught espousing a message clearly not identical to the apostles. For an example of this, see:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1053637/posts?page=99#99

and:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1053637/posts?page=105#105

and:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1053637/posts?page=110#110

Of course, bringing up these inconsistenecies concerning what one does in becoming a Christian is called "attacking me personally". So, you discuss Scripture and it morphs into "attacking me personally". Go figure. I suppose it's a way to slide out of the discussion. Oh well.

There's several other examples of SATH, if 'ya ping me.

Havoc, how's Mina?

[Fury]

Havoc writes:

Stop what, stating the obvious? It goes without saying that your clergy slaughtered and entire sect for daring to do what Christ had commanded - make no provision for themselves, take to the road and spread the word. Stark contrast to the clergy of Rome. Rome was so offended at their obedience to Christ that the clergy had them all tracked down and murdered. Can't have people out there making the clergy look bad. Polemicism - no. There's a track record to go on.

An entire sect?

All tracked down and murdered?

Citations? I thought so...

[Cronos]

Havoc's idea of a charlatan is strange. I wouldn't call people who've dedicated their lives to Christ and his teachings as charlatans. Yet, havoc seems to say that the Holy women and men who have been part of the Catholic church are charlatans.

Does he furnish proof? No, just contradictory words.

I wouldn't say that some of non-Catholics who were Holy men(like John Wesly) were Not Christian, I'd say that they did follow the precepts. I may not agree with all they taught, but that doesn't make me call them charlatans.

Let's see the main points of belief needed to be a Christian as stated by Havoc (in no particular order):

1. Repent
2. COnfess
3. Learning Scripture and following Christ
4. Believe
5. Born again and baptized in the Holy Spirit
6. Follow Christ in the holy Spirit

hmmm.. let's take the case of Pope John Paul, he does fulfill all those criteria stated by Havoc. But he is a Catholic priest, so is he a charlatan??

[Fury]

Ahh, more from Havoc:

"And Eusebius was a lying quack..."

Citation please? Gibbon?

As none will be forthcoming, I suppose it sounds good to label Eusebius a liar.

Havoc is spot on about the philosophy of men and several other matters. What I do note and will respond to is when Scripture is misquoted or partial answers given, then espoused as Truth.

[polemikos]

Havoc is spot on about the philosophy of men and several other matters.

Before you give Havoc a blank check on this, you had best read what he says on the subject throughout the thread. Most of it is inane. Where he does stumble across the truth, one is left with the impression it is by accident only.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Before you give Havoc a blank check on this, you had best read what he says on the subject throughout the thread. Most of it is inane. Where he does stumble across the truth, one is left with the impression it is by accident only.

You guys are priceless. All these accusations about the way he handles the truth but you never really do refute the subject material in his posts. Typical followers of manmade traditions that you are.

[Fury]

You guys are priceless. All these accusations about the way he handles the truth but you never really do refute the subject material in his posts. Typical followers of manmade traditions that you are.

You guys? ;)

The *way* one handles the truth? That's not my concern, that's for each person (their ego) to deal with. I'm concerned about souls and truth.

I provided citations of our friend posting and the discrepancies between different posts, discrepancies that amount to teaching error. What happens? Eventually it's called "attack[ing] me personally". Please. It's not about him, it's not about me. It's about souls and truth. And that means what one writes about Christianity better be spot on.

As far as "typical followers of manmade traditions", what's that have to do with what was posted? Could it be a non sequitur ;)? I've seen similar comments when someone's caught telling a half-truth about becoming a Christain. The question is - does what someone write as coming from Scripture really square with Scripture? If it doesn't, expect people to note as such.

We *all* need to check our egos at the door and admit if one has posted something that doesn't square up with Scripture. We've all done it - most unintentional, some intentional. In the end, it's all the same - it's error.

[Fury]

Before you give Havoc a blank check on this, you had best read what he says on the subject throughout the thread. Most of it is inane. Where he does stumble across the truth, one is left with the impression it is by accident only.

I've read what he and others have written. I don't give him, or anyone actually, a blank check. He's been asked to provide citations for some of the comments he's made (sometimes they are provided, many times they are not).

[Invincibly Ignorant]

And that means what one writes about Christianity better be spot on.

Why hold someone to a standard your church has failed at over and over?

As far as "typical followers of manmade traditions", what's that have to do with what was posted?

has everything to do with it. Again, your church has "held for doctrine the commandments of men" for many years. That's basically what's being argued.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

yo

[Havoc]

LOL. Away for a few days and it's amazing what crawls out of the woodwork eh.. Fury thinks he's found some red meat to slander me with again. I'm dyin. God is good isn't he.