Pfft...yeah right.
Posted on 07/23/2008 2:47:21 PM PDT by Pyro7480
Well, she got me all scared and everything ....
Besides, around here, with my recent clientele, you call somebody mother, you’re gonna get hurt.
Annalex made the statement in Post 312 that if a person knowingly and willingly does not believe in the "Marian dogma" then that person "is going to go to (drum roll) hell."
No one has to "twist" anything nor put any words in anyone's mouth. These statements were made in black and white. Deal with that, and not with what you may have preferred to have been said.
Pfft...yeah right.
The canon you cite condemns the doctrine of “faith alone”. What is says is that anyone who thinks so is excommunicated; that is the precise meaning of “anathema”. It does not mean that he is condemned to hell because he is not dead yet. It was explained to you many times, “doctor”.
Once again you continue to trash people without pinging them to your assault.
I have read the entire thread, including her posts, and you continue to twist her words to create a false accusation...FALSE WITNESS...and it is shameful.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Christ told us why men love the darkness instead of the light...
**Well, she got me all scared and everything ....**
Sorry about that. You have FReepmail MD.
[Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.]
Wilco.
Please pass that on to the individual I was answering, who in the last hour has made numerous personal attacks on posters to this thread.
Thank you.
Well, yeah! Duh!
I suppose it doesn't explain why some women prefer darkness, but that doesn't mean I have to read the stuff such women write.
Yes. I did. I stand by it. I also explained that according to the Catholic Church, "knowingly and willingly" is an important qualifier that exculpates many protestants and unbelievers. I also explained that "going to go to hell" (or, earlier, "hell-bound") refers to the event in the future which is not predetermined and the sinner may and hopefully will repent and convert.
The misrepresentation of what I said is not in that you don't quote me correctly (you can, you very much can, quote) but you omit my context and insert your own. We don't believe in the predestination of the reprobates. You do. That is the contextual difference.
Because it is a ridiculously dark false doctrine.
Parsing uhGAIN!
Predestination is another of those doctrines that diminishes the Triune God by believing that God purposely creates “garbage”. Talk about a Satanic doctrine.
Well, as we have been reminded lately, some prefer darkness
You said: some prefer darkness
....and claim it’s the light, wishing to drag the rest of us into the pit with them.
You wrote:
“But you made the comment about Protestants in particular...”
Because we were discussing Protestants going to hell - or have you already forgotten that fact?
“I assume you believe the words of Christ who called on men to repent of their sins. Protestants believe that.”
Some men who might refer to themselves as Protestants, or might be called Protestants no matter what they would call themselves, may not any longer believe what you say or what Christ says. We have Catholics who - for whatever reason - fall away, ignore the teachings of Christ and the Church, etc. There are Protestants who do the same. You are correct - generally - when you say that Protestants believe men must repent of their sins. But that does not mean that is, in fact, the case with all Protestants at all times in their lives.
“So what are the “different reasons” Protestants would “go to hell?””
As I already said - sins for which they have not repented.
Why do you struggle with basic reading comprehension? We were discussing Protestants going to hell, or being consigned to hell, so I specifically mentioned Protestants going to hell and you assume it means something different than what was already said about it?
Why is it that anti-Catholics seem to have so many reading comprehension problems?
IF
You start with the notion that reason is so depraved that it cannot be relied upon
AND
IF
You claim thereafter to "reason" from Scripture or from anything else
ELSEIF
You claim anything at all for your discourse other than ecstatic utterance
THEN
Your auditors can expect nothing firm to be built on so self-negating a foundation.
BUT
having forsaken reason, you do get to frustrate communication, inhibit learning, and spread darkness and its emotional concomitants by misinterpreting anything that is said to you. Context and such considerations amount to appeals to reason, but reason was abandoned at the starting gate.
Consequently there is little to no possibility of real conversation, but plenty for polemics and insult and the like.
(But God works best where there is little to no possibility -- Can these bones live?)
Awwwwww
bess him lil ol heart!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.