Posted on 10/11/2001 9:39:48 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
| Thread 151 | Thread 152 | Thread 153 | Thread 154 | Thread 155 | Thread 156 | Thread 157 |
| Thread 158<;/a> | Thread 159 | Thread 160 |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 161
in other words, "don't excommunicate him, he still buys the 'trust us' stuff" LOL.
I forgot. If Havoc says its true it must be so. Anyone that believes this is so far removed from reality that meaningful dialog is impossible.
Apparently quite a bit in your case.
If those in the Catholic Church represented the largest portion of those who could read during those years, they are certainly going to be held responsible for what was taught to the ignorant and the illiterate of that time aren't they?
Nice of you to realize that. LOL. I suppose now I can make the Limbaugh claim, I could defeat you in argument "with half my brain tied behind my back" ROFL. Ok, seriously, its a sad refrain isn't it. When you're bankrupt of proof to support your claims, you must always regroup and hit the rhetoric and propaganda line.
And being on point or on topic is not even an issue to worry with. Look at the rhetoric that went on with discussion of dates agreed upon by a wide majority of Scholars. Ya'lls rhetoric was against interpretation skills. I think we should name this the "Hit the Pinata" debate tactic. If blinded just strike out, maybe you'll hit something. Ya'll still have no candy or tatters of mache' but it sure can be entertaining to see. Pinata Catholics. It has a ring to it doesn't it?
Truth is, it isn't about me being right, it's about you guys providing claim after claim with no support, Jewish Laws and commandments against you, Scripture against you. And you clutch at straws to so called "church fathers", which is an insult to the Apostles and Jesus btw, who are no more than a bunch of philosophers and pretenders that pass along error (that was being pursued out of the church in the first century) and herald it as part of Christianity. You have to leave the actual proven texts and go to the screwball conflicting wannabes to find any support at all for Catholic ideas. Sounds like the home shopping network of religion. If the ideas of the faith wont let you do what you want, just look around at those screwing it up and use their ideas. Then have the nerve to call them authoritative when they can't agree with scripture or one another or even with you. LOLOL. Too rich.
Ok, put the blindfold back on and grab your stick so we can turn you around a couple times and let you try to strike candy again.
Who's that- the Pope, Mary, Saints, Little green men or the elusive pinata?
Like I said, there are some on these threads that are so far removed from reality that meaningful dialog is impossible. Every time you post you confirm this.
So the only people worth hearing the truth were the educated? Or the only ones that could know the truth were the educated? Isn't it true that the majority opinion on why the Decretals were passed off is that the majority of the populace was uneducated and didn't know anybetter. Fish in a barrel. Just tell them whatever you want and nobody will question it because people of the time were gullible and superstitious. Wow, how telling is that, huh? Interesting that the Reformation took place in a time when people were becoming more educated - not to today's standards mind you.
At least in the 1st century, the people were taught right. And the Apostles busied themselves as much with teaching as with warning the Congregation against errors. The Catholic church Embraced the errors and killed people for not embracing them. Wow, quite a different approach isn't it. Don't remember the Apostles running anyone through for not accepting Christianity, or teaching "error". They kept to the truth and ran the bad guys out by TEACHING the things that JESUS taught. A Christian who knows God's word cannot be led astray if obeying God. Of course the opposite is true as well, keep someone ignorant of the truth and reliant upon another for their understanding and you can feed them any line of bull you wish. Islam shows that in abundance. And they won't come to the truth any sooner than one who cherishes the truth will accept Mariology or the Pope, cause they blindly cling to their teachings rather than listen to truth. There is none so blind as he who will not see. None so dumb as he who will not learn. None so alone as he who will not suffer God in their lives.
Ok, you know the drill. Blindfold and stick. Candy games again.
Removed from reality. See, that's what I like, predictability. You still missed the pinata; but, the flailing blindly was expected.
How do you answer the reality that your own church fathers speak against you. They speak against each other's ideas. Their ideas conflict with the Bible. Is that just politics? LOL. Tell us if you will. Enlighten us. I thought one who was authoritative is one who is deadbang on the truth. I mean, if we were talking algebra and a guy couldn't get the concept of (a*b) + (a*b) = 2(a*b), he'd be laughed right out of the room in any decent school. And Lord knows if he was wrong about the quadratic equation, he'd be thumbed out of the room as well. Yet, you all would put them on a pedastal if you said 2(a*b) = 200(ab) and they agreed with you. This is what we're seeing. Not only are you putting them on a pedastal, you Saint them, elevate them to the level of scripture and praise them :until someone points out where they disagree - at which point they must have been having a bad day or gass or something? Loathe the day someone should point out that 2(a*b) does not = 200(ab). An Heretic hath attempted to corrupt the minds of the masses. Darn, and you guys really did condemn a man for scientific truth - disagreeing with the Pope - that was a nono. Can't call the all knowing church a liar now can we.
You see, we don't need to make up stuff about Catholicism to attack it's credibility and show it wrong. People just can't make up the stuff half as interesting as the truth. And some of us Christians get tired of explaining to the atheists that Christians don't say the earth is flat, that was a Catholic argument.. Course, ya'll don't think about the absurdity of it all as we do. We can see it, you just shrug it off because you are sure you couldn't be sold a bill of goods. You make excuses for the abuser, try to explain it away, or just get out the pinata stick. Must suck having to work so hard to maintain the rosy tint on the glasses. Must also suck having to wear earplugs all the time so that you can't hear or understand the arguments.
Pinata time again, Or will there be actual on topic conversation instead of rhetoric?
I'd have to guess it isn't understood or they have no answers. The majority of the volume of questions I've asked in the last two weeks were answered with silence or rhetoric. Requests for proof - silence, rhetoric, and the usual unproven catholic line of claims and hearsay - nothing of substance. Go back and refresh yourself on the 2.5 threads of asking for One single piece of factual evidence that Peter was in Rome - nothing. I specifically said factual evidence - proof. Not claims, not conjecture or hearsay from disputed references. They gave me every thing I told them I didn't want to hear along with a barage of rhetoric. And still have not produced a single minute shred of factual evidence. They make the claim, I say prove it.. One would think I'd asked them to hack off an arm and feed a pet with it. The cries of foul and woe... unbelievable. If they'd been defending themselves against a crime, they'd all be in jail.
That's weak Peg. Respond to the substance (or lack thereof) of his posts. Don't attack.
What? Give up everything they have. :)
BigMack
So what kind of evidence would you like? Frankly the Bible does suggest it in several ways and the testimony of early Church fathers is evidence. The only situation where it would not be considered conclusive is if there was evidence he died some place else. Since there is no other testimony or hard evidence that he died some place else we have by default only Rome as a plausible grave. Why should we not take the testimony of St. Irenaus(180 AD) who said "The blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, having founded and built up the Church handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus...." Against Heresies 3,3,3 This was the belief of all Christendom for a long time, we don't need to prove it, you need to prove that he wasn't there. Now you may not like the burden of proof, and you my say "Oh No YOU guys have to prove it!" but frankly no we don't. The evidence you want seems to be some thing other then writings of early Christians, I wonder what other evidence would survive? I suppose inscriptions in the Christian catacombs of Rome "Paul and Peter pray for Victor" Wouldn't be good enough either?
Now if you can't give us one single bit of "factual evidence - proof" that he did not die in Rome, why should we respond to you on that issue. If you can't you should drop it now.
But I would like to repeat what I have said before: Baptists submit their children to Baptism at a very early age, and usually before the age of legal consent and certainly before they are legally adults. Therefore, believers baptism ought not normally to be administered to anyone before they have the right to vote, age 18 or at the earliest, age 16.
And the Catholic church apparently ignores the extra-biblical documents which do not support their case. As for not saying one way or the other, please tell me how one is to interpret the passage. Do you propose infant confirmation classes? And how do we know that they're retaining what we're teaching them? Should we give them a test? And if they can't speak, what sort of test would that be? You can't just say, "It doesn't say." Because the implication is quite clear. It just doesn't fit your box. Sorry.
If my notes on Irenaeus are correct, there are no original copies of his works in existence, and what is credited to him was written in ancient barbarous Latin at some point in time, and then these didn't turned up until around 1526AD, and it was then that they were copied and printed.
Hummmm, they didn't turn up until 1526AD, that sure is a long time for these writings to be floating around the monasteries giving someone plenty of opportunity to make some interpolations, and it seemed to me there was something else going on at this time in history in the 1500's.
I think he developed the doctrine of "apostolic succession" too, boy you had better keep this guy propped up as long as you can. Oh, wait, I see here he had some pretty weird ideas that you may want to look into before you take anything he said too serious.:-)
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.