Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
More out of context comments.
“Planted”?
You are right. I really did assume too much of you. I will remember it in future.
No, the nut is the one who claims he knows the truth but can't prove a thing, especially is he suggest one knows (the truth) simply because he wants to know.
The nut is the one responsible for finding out for itself what others have proof of
In their empty pockets, with nothing to show for?
Some nuts don't want to grow up and take responsibility for it's own destiny. Some nuts like to stay in their own poop
Speaking form personal experience?
You just said the nut is the one who doesn't want to know. Make up your mind, you are tripping all over yourself.
Once you say Christ alone and than go off and reject what He clearly taught regarding Sacraments(that has 2000 plus years of consistent teaching from Church fathers as well) etc..You become me alone conforming what I believe over what Christ taught.
The Orthodox don't believe in transubstantiation and don't recognize the papacy.
The Orthodox believe exactly as Latins do in that Eucharist is really Christ present ,Body,Blood Soul and Divinity -they just regard this a mystery that did not need an explanation of transubstantiation. They do not reject our Pope either they view Him as head of Bishops
For that matter, the issue of salvation outside the Catholic church is taught both for and against in different places in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
For good reason, because we believe that all love comes from Christ and The Holy Spirit blows where He Wills,thus a person who loves can be saved. If someone does not reject Christ and has Never heard of Him, but loves others unconditionally they can be saved
Do you have a life outside of FR? Spending a lot of time here results in puffing self up.
Pride puffs up but love builds up,dear sister
Describing yourself? I find things all the time.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
So, you know psychiatry too? Funny it doesn't show.
According to your post, since your interest lie in what you don't believe - that would mean you believe in SANTA. How cute.
Doesn't sound like logic is near and dear to you either. Did you skip school a lot?
The God in your Bible.
So he gets a pass for this? BS. He wanted to exterminate them.
I have no idea. :-)
I don’t know that Luke voiced his approval or disapproval, or his opinion on apostolic succession at all.
I dunno either.
Who is this Ahaz kosta is posting about?
How do we know he existed?
Why are you speaking about God when you don’t know Him or if He exists. That’s speaking about the unknown. Are you into fantasies? Do you speak about Alice in Wonderland much? It’s already established you believe in Santa.
Not sure - all that has been established is he posts alot about God that he doesn’t know or exists. Maybe that’s the name of his imaginary friend - that doesn’t exist either? Unless he has proof Ahaz exists, then I stand corrected.
You should listen to The Holy Spirit than because He would be leading you back to His Church-The Catholic Church
Catechism
"Christ is the Head of this Body"
792 Christ "is the head of the body, the Church."225 He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father's glory, "in everything he [is] preeminent,"226 especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things.
793 Christ unites us with his Passover: all his members must strive to resemble him, "until Christ be formed" in them.227 "For this reason we . . . are taken up into the mysteries of his life, . . . associated with his sufferings as the body with its head, suffering with him, that with him we may be glorified."228
794 Christ provides for our growth: to make us grow toward him, our head,229 he provides in his Body, the Church, the gifts and assistance by which we help one another along the way of salvation.
795 Christ and his Church thus together make up the "whole Christ" (Christus totus). The Church is one with Christ. The saints are acutely aware of this unity:
There is NOTHING nonsensical about the argument we are trying to discuss. The point, again, is that though the "terms" sola scriptura, sola fide, and trinity are not in the Bible, their concept and their doctrinal references certainly are. The gist of the argument is then that we can believe in those doctrines that Holy Scripture teaches but issues or points in which Scripture is either silent or is NOT in agreement with cannot be stated as dogma and certainly not as salvific. Hence, the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness cannot be stated as de fide or "of the faith" nor can belief in it or disbelief of it be used to determine the righteousness of the Christian. Perhaps if that plank were removed you could understand the difference.
And here we have an excellent case study of why people who do not believe in God should not be taken seriously when expounding on the Scripture they consider part of a magic book written by a God they don’t know exists.
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.