Posted on 01/21/2013 9:12:42 AM PST by marshmallow
My sense, PJ, is that those issues you raised were all easily answered biblically.
Those that cannot be answered with scripture are:
1. The immaculate conception
2. The assumption of Mary
3. Denominational opulence (This last one doesn’t apply only to catholic denominations)
4. Mary as co-mediatrix
I believe if God wanted us to know he would have told us, hence the faith thingy.
Anyway, unity will only come when we put aside these side differences and focus on the prize collectively. Divisive statements and name calling never have a positive result. Capitulation is also not an answer.
I opened this thread in hopes of having and actual productive debate. Instead it denigrated into this. I’m partly to blame. I reacted by hitting the hornets nest.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply.
Peace.
“Unfortunately the only thing you proved to me is that your bias runs deep.”
ROTFLMAO!
Project much?
“When presented with facts you explain them in circles.”
No, when presented with falsehoods portrayed as “facts”, he refutes them and provides the Truth. That seems to upset you, why is that?
“You then use degradation in a flaccid attempt to intimidate.”
More projection.
“As brothers we are commanded to help each other.”
I agree you do appear to need help. Since you reject FACTS and reply to them with insults, you probably need to seek that help professionally rather than on the internet.
Let me also say that if I offended any of my Catholic brothers I’m truly sorry.
Please read post 63. My discussion was not with you brother. I admitted I was stirring the pot in a previous post. I wasn’t upset with anyone other than the first post in this thread.
Peace.
You wrote:
“Unfortunately the only thing you proved to me is that your bias runs deep. You are skilled in rhetoric.”
You seem to be only skilled in failing. I knew all along that this is how it would go. It almost always goes this way. The anti-Catholic makes a flippant remark that displays his gross ignorance. He’s challenged to back that up or he’s questioned. And he folds soon after. Before cowardly running away, however, he has to try and save face by suggesting that he wasn’t defeated at all because of his lack of knowledge, his sciolism, etc. but instead he was simply outmaneuvered by superior rhetoric. Blah, blah, blah.
“When presented with facts you explain them in circles.”
You presented no facts. You claimed Constantine established Christinaity as the official religion of the Empire. He didn’t. You then mentioned a book that you apparently never read. You then raised a number of points which I addressed one-by-one and which you are apparently unable to respond to. I used scripture. You used none. I even pointed out how you conflated two different anti-Catholic arguments as one and responded to both.
“You then use degradation in a flaccid attempt to intimidate.”
No. I used no degradation at all. I simply understand anti-Catholics and how they work. I have dealt with them for years. Almost everything you have done and written has been anticipated by me. I’m certainly no mind reader. I am, however, very experienced at dealing with poorly educated, poorly read, scripturally ignorant anti-Catholics who are unable to make an argument. That’s the standard. That’s typical.
“My faith doesn’t require your acceptance.”
It certainly doesn’t. And the truth doesn’t change just because you don’t accept it either. You may wish perhaps that Constantine established Christinaity as the official religion of the Empire. But he didn’t. What does it make you think to know that you believed something acknowledged by every reputable Roman historian in the world to be a falsehood? Is it degrading? I think if someone’s going to claim “degradation” he might want to start with those who had so successfully lied to him as to convince him that Constantine established Christinaity as the official religion of the Empire when he did not.
“See the scripture posted in 46. As brothers we are commanded to help each other.”
By rebuking those in error you help them. You’re in error. I’m rebuking you. Deal with it. Also, I think you need to look into the whole idea of hypocrisy. Here you’re saying “As brothers we are commanded to help each other” but you were spreading falsehoods about the Church earlier. That’s hypocritical to say the least. How are you going to help a fellow Christian by spreading clear falsehoods about the Church?
“Peace.”
Peace? I think turmoil will better serve your soul’s needs. You stated falsehoods. You attack Christ’s Church. I think you need to do a lot of soul searching. I don’t pray that you find peace now. I pray that you ultimately surrender to the full truth - which at this time you seemingly do not know.
“Emperor Constantine was the founder and first pope of the roman catholic church.”
Where do you get these nuggets?
“Let me also say that if I offended any of my Catholic brothers I’m truly sorry.”
Sorrow is good. What is offensive is falsehoods being told. Where did you get the notion that Constantine was:
1 - a Pope?
2 - The first Pope?
3 - Made Christianity the official Roman State religion?
If you have true sorrow, you will explain what sources you have for the falsities.
Well done Padre.
Brother Vladimir,
I am not Anti-Catholic. My lashing out was brought on by the very first statement by the very first poster in this thread. Unfortunately that person never responded.
My views on Christianity have not changed based on our back and forth. I pray that I still grow in Christ, just like you. We can collectively peel back the onion skins and argue about the minutia, but we are all faithfully hoping for the same result. You see it different from me. Our journeys are different. I was hoping for a more positive debate and I admitted I responded by hitting the hornets nest. Bad approach.
I don’t wish you or any of the brethren ill will. I apologized twice. And I will extend this to you personally. If I offended you I’m sorry. I was wrong for letting this get out of hand. Pride got the better of me.
I truly pray for unity BTW.
“My views on Christianity have not changed based on our back and forth.”
As long as you embrace falsehoods, how can it change?
“Please read post 63.”
Read it? I wrote it!
I've looked at this over the course of the last several months. I think it all goes back to Nimrod. He was the first bridge builder, Pontifex Maximus, with his Tower of Babel, his bridge to heaven.
Ironically (if true), the popes and the Freemasons both stem from same system even though they hated each other for most of 5000 years. Nimrod the first pope, and the builders of the tower the first Freemasons, separated long ago only to be recently reunited with John XXIII at Vatican II.
Look at what the bible says Nimrod was trying to do: keep the people from being scattered throughout the earth. Nimrod was the first post-Flood New World Order advocate. They're close now, especially after Vatican II.
“I am not Anti-Catholic.”
And yet you post falsehoods spread by those who attack Christianity. You ask questions that Padre Xzins answered that are the same questions that many who attack the Catholic Church ask in their attempts to claim that to be Catholic is to be pagan. So while you may say - and even believe “I am not Anti-Catholic”, you must understand that you sound like some of the worst bigots who are.
“Yup. Apparently many think things really took a turn for the worse when persecuting the church became illegal................. LOL”
:)
You wrote:
“I am not Anti-Catholic.”
You stated beliefs suggest otherwise.
“My lashing out was brought on by the very first statement by the very first poster in this thread. Unfortunately that person never responded.”
Lashing out? But the person you lashed out at never responded to your lashing? Imagine that. Gee, what would make a person not want to respond to an emotional outburst?
“My views on Christianity have not changed based on our back and forth.”
Okay, let’s try this. Again, Constantine did NOT establish Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. It was Theodosius. You said it was Constantine. Do you STILL believe it was Constantine? Or have you now changed to believing - correctly - that it was Theodosius?
That’s important. Why? Because one thing is true and the other isn’t. Theodosius is the right answer. Constantine isn’t. Either you believe the truth or you believe a falsehood. Which is it?
“I pray that I still grow in Christ, just like you. We can collectively peel back the onion skins and argue about the minutia, but we are all faithfully hoping for the same result. You see it different from me. Our journeys are different. I was hoping for a more positive debate and I admitted I responded by hitting the hornets nest. Bad approach.”
Truth matters more than debate.
“I don’t wish you or any of the brethren ill will. I apologized twice. And I will extend this to you personally. If I offended you I’m sorry. I was wrong for letting this get out of hand. Pride got the better of me.”
Apology accepted, but you need not apologize. What is offensive is not anything you said to me personally. I have come to expect that. It is that you believe in error and apparently your “views on Christianity have not changed” even though the truth has been told to you.
“I truly pray for unity BTW.”
Good, but I think you need to see what the truth is. Look into it.
Brother narses,
It was in a earlier post. It’s called Pagan Christianity, by Frank Viola. He has done other publications not related to this subject. It is not an Anti-Catholic book. It digs into the history of Christian rituals. The premise is that since Constantine was the first “Christian” Pontif then he was technically the leader of the religion at that time.
I used it because I knew it would stir the pot. I admitted as such and apologized. I could have just left, but pride got the better of me. I have also responded to every reply unlike the person I first had issue with. I had every intention of having a positive debate when I opened this thread and I responded inappropriately.
We are passionate about our faith. This is a good thing when it is channeled in the right direction.
62 sorry.
To use trash as a source is a poor way to represent Christianity. and the reviews alone make it clear you used trash. “Pagan Christianity” is rife with bad research, bad scholarship and outright lies.
Brother Vladimir,
Who am I to question any of your Pontifs. I mean that in the most humblest terms. I am not Catholic and wouldn’t know the order if it hit me in the face. I was being a horses behind.
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.