Replies

mock elements of OUR faith

No. It depends. imho, If the shoe does NOT fit, then I'm not mocking that individual's faith. I have repeatedly asserted that I believe it's a minority of RC's. I've even guesstimated 5-25% or maybe it was 5-15%.

As to taking things at face value--it depends, too. We all have our criteria for what is convincing to us. If my face value is worthless, then, by all means, avoid being convinced.

As to extrapolating from gulf A to gulf B . . . it seems to me that RC's love to extrapolate, infer, assume more than any other denomination I know of. And every shred of extrapolation, inference, assumption is enshrined literally in centuries of custom, dogma, magicsterical edicts etc. which the faithful are either expected or given to treating as Holy Writ from Mt Sinai. The whole Mary edifice is probably 99% inference, assumption and extrapolation.

I realize, of course, that assumption, inference and extrapolation are ONLY HOLY WHEN RC'S DO IT. But, I'm human enough to do it anyway.

Faulty Mariology = faulty Christology

yields:

Mary = Christ

Talk about inference, assumption and extrapolation! That's quite a leap that I do NOT think Christ is well pleased about.

BTW, vengeance is not a pretty thing. God also insist's it's His turf exclusively.

BTW, I would be interested in the RC perspective on the historical excerpt from LaHaye's book above. I did not realize that the origin of the images was from the Greek etc. idols from Rome's pagan past. Evidently the Scriptural pattern of utterly destroying ANY idols was rebelled against and ignored by the early leaders. Doesn't sound remotely Biblical OR Christian, to me.

I see you called in your homies. And then while you denied you were mocking us you then said: I realize, of course, that assumption, inference and extrapolation are ONLY HOLY WHEN RC'S DO IT. But, I'm human enough to do it anyway.
And then you changed the subject.

Are we talking about Lazarus and Dives or what here? YOU brought it up. YOU said it proved your point. Is your argument, "RCs extrapolate so I'm going to say that a bridge over HERE is definite Biblical PROOF that GOD also put a bridge over THERE."

Of course, I've been suggesting for a while now that "proof" from Scripture is an almost infinitely elastic concept. I did't expect someone who calls himself Bible-believing but then argues that " a gulf here over which communication CAN happen" means "a gulf there over which communication can NOT happen" would be providing evidence for that point.