A Convert's Response to Friends

The Coming Home Network ^ | Robert E. Day

[papertyger]

Why is everybody talking like Yoda on this thread?

Huh? How does quoting Scripture sound like Yoda?

[papertyger]

But she has no special status apart from any other human being who died and went to be in the presence of the Lord.

Now that is utter rubbish, and if I can prove that from Scripture, will you at least be so kind as to refrain from insulting the Catholic practice of honoring the Blessed Virgin Mary?

[Quix]

Ahhhhhhhhhh,

!!!!MORE!!!! of the RCP2 phenomenon . . . and

!!!!MORE!!!! of the RC RUBBER DICTIONARY . . .

FOR RC'S:
1. ridicule now = . . . . . . deception
2. hyperbole now= . . . . . . deception
3. changing the subject now = deception

Y'all would really do better getting that

SAME = DIFFERENT/DIFFERENT = SAME problem corrected.

BTW, I usually pontificate about different facets etc. because those are more interesting and important to me to highlight. Sometimes, I do so because I'm tired of commenting on the standard issues or facets. Sometimes, I do so because the degree of deafness and blindness on the standard, routine facets or issues is well established.

I do appreciate the RC magicsterical continuing to use the RUBBER DICTIONARY. It helps bystanders recognize more quickly that they are dealing with an ALICE-IN-WONDERLAND SCHOOL OF RUBBER THEOLOGY situation, assertion.

[Quix]

LOTS of things

have been
--INFERRED,
--EXTRAPOLATED,
--FANTASIZED,
--INVENTED

using very, very, very tenuous, tangential, wispy words and phrases from Scripture to springboard thereto.

Of course, most rational folks grounded in Holy Spirit and the current time/space dimension can more easily recognize such as being a custom, habit, reflex of the ALICE-IN-WONDERLAND SCHOOL OF RUBBER THEOLOGY phenomenon and file such things accordingly.

But, hey, it's a still a slightly free country . . . adding some more layers of rubber to the skyscrapers built on toothpicks seems to be a favorite recreation of some RC's.

At least Prottys can offer popcorn.

[Quix]

The little red x above is an illustration . . .

something like . . . the RC assertions that something

is

in

Scripture

when

it REALLY is NOT.

It's SUPPOSED to be there, according to the RC magicsterical. But it's really NOT there.

However, the most appropriate response to Post #122 still is:

[papertyger]

FOR RC'S: 1. ridicule now = . . . . . . deception 2. hyperbole now= . . . . . . deception 3. changing the subject now = deception

It certainly is, because it is used in lieu of an actual refutation.

Provoking an interlocutor is not a legitimate "answer."

[papertyger]

using very, very, very tenuous, tangential, wispy words and phrases from Scripture to springboard thereto.

Do you not understand we do not require Scripture to support every doctrine, in the same way that y'all don't require Scripture to support every doctrine?

Of course, most rational folks grounded in Holy Spirit and the current time/space dimension...

Where is the Scriptural support for hystrionics?

At least Prottys can offer popcorn.

That is fortunate, because the their supply of reasonable, logically consistant, Scriptural answers is rather thin.

[Boagenes]

First, I wasn't insulting Mary. And you don't need to quote scripture to me, I already know what verse you will quote. Yes, she was "blessed" in the sense that God found favor with her and she agreed to bear the Messiah. This is wonderful, and I have no doubt the Lord's mother was a wonderful and girl and woman and did the Lord's will in bearing and raising her son. I can't imagine her pain, at the cross. I am not attacking or insulting the Lord's mother, but I am arguing that the Catholic notion of Mary is far beyond what and who Mary really was, and that most of Catholic doctrine about her is a later invention. (And virtually no modern translation translates Gabriel's words to her as "full of grace", either.)

But after Mary's death there is nothing in scripture (the words of the apostles or their followers), or early church tradition, or the writings of the earliest church fathers to indicate in any way that she was "assumed" into heaven, or that she was granted some special place in heaven or special status (co-redemptrix, queen of heaven, distributor of "graces", etc). Now, I am not opposed to these notions completely, if there were some basis for any of it, but in my own search I find no basis for any of it.

Luther's "Here I Stand" defense was based upon his conscience, reason, and scripture, and for myself it comes down to the same three things. Scripture and the early church father's writings make no case for the Catholic claims about Mary, reason tells me that this is because there was no special status (apart from being honored as the Lord's mother - there's a big gap between honoring or venerating her for her cooperation with the Lord, and praying to her). In good conscience, then, I could not join the Catholic Church and accept their doctrines which I believe to be invented. That's not an insult, but if you take it that way, then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about that.

[papertyger]

It's SUPPOSED to be there... But it's really NOT there.

Oh, but it IS there! Only the insane will argue with the law of identity. Whether or not someone 'approves' it is totally irrelevant.

[Quix]

OH REALLY?

I realize that the arrogance of the RC edifice's magicsterical PRESUMES that they are the arbiters of all that's true and holy.

However, in the REAL world . . .

I don't recall hiring them to define for me anything . . .

much less what a legitimate answer is to anything.

Try again. I'm not buying the phony rubberized constructions on reality proffered by the Roman magicsterical.

Hint: Your rubberized dictionary doesn't hold any sway with me, AT ALL. In normal reality that Prottys populate, words mean something. They aren't normally stretched far and wide to vainly try and fit them to every fool notion the magicsterical finds more convenient.

In terms of provocative idiotic assertions . . . I thought the RC magicsterical had a monopoly on that. We Prottys are just trying to hold our own with token replies now and then.

[Quix]

Do you not understand we do not require Scripture to support every doctrine, in the same way that y'all don't require Scripture to support every doctrine?

HEY, TOOTS . . . YOU were the one who asked in post #122:

. . . and if I can prove that from Scripture . . .

I guess a remotely consistent follow-through in thought and action must be too much of a stretch? . . . overtaxing for the RC magicsterical and reps? Maybe such concepts are simply missing from the RC RUBBER DICTIONARY.

In terms of what's REQUIRED FROM GOD'S PERSPECTIVE, I suspect all Creation will find that CHRIST'S "IT IS WRITTEN . . . " IS !!!!THE!!!! STANDARD. If RC's prefer to be CRUSHED UNDER that standard vs broken and contrite ON it . . . it's their choice.

[Quix]

Where did I claim there was Scriptural support for histrionics?

Actually, I think there is but that’s another topic and I don’t recall claiming so heretofore. LOL.

Have you had your coffee yet? Keeping up seems to be a bit challenging this morning.

[Quix]

Actually, the Protty supply of reasonable, logically consistant, Scriptural answers left those of the RC magicsterical in the dust and the RC rabbit hole a long time ago.

[Quix]

Say WHUT?

That must be in Klingon.

[papertyger]

First, I wasn't insulting Mary.

I never thought you were; I think you are insulting Catholics that accept the Church's teaching and reasoning for the Marian dogmas.

And you don't need to quote scripture to me, I already know what verse you will quote.

The Proverbs tell us answering a matter before hearing it is shame and folly.

That is not the Scripture I was going to quote, but even so, your comment:

Yes, she was "blessed" in the sense that God found favor with her and she agreed to bear the Messiah. This is wonderful, and I have no doubt the Lord's mother was a wonderful and girl and woman and did the Lord's will in bearing and raising her son. I can't imagine her pain, at the cross. I am not attacking or insulting the Lord's mother, but I am arguing that the Catholic notion of Mary is far beyond what and who Mary really was, and that most of Catholic doctrine about her is a later invention.

shows you either have only the barest awareness of Catholic teaching on the matter, or are determined to find reason to undermine the teaching.

(And virtually no modern translation translates Gabriel's words to her as "full of grace", either.)

Why is that significant? I thought "older was better" in previous argumentation?

But after Mary's death there is nothing in scripture (the words of the apostles or their followers), or early church tradition, or the writings of the earliest church fathers to indicate in any way that she was "assumed" into heaven...

Not so. It is at least debatable that Mary is the woman of Rev 12. Furthermore, this woman is not referred to as a "soul" like the martyrs crying out to God.

You may not find such things convincing, but they are certainly not "nothing."

Now, I am not opposed to these notions completely, if there were some basis for any of it, but in my own search I find no basis for any of it.

What Catholic sources have you availed yourself of?

In good conscience, then, I could not join the Catholic Church and accept their doctrines which I believe to be invented. That's not an insult, but if you take it that way, then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about that.

You are familiar with the "New Eve" and "New Ark of the Covenant" teachings? My understanding is much of it comes from Irenieus (sp?) in the second century.

[papertyger]

I realize that the arrogance of the RC edifice's magicsterical PRESUMES that they are the arbiters of all that's true and holy.

It's no presumption when it goes unchallenged for fifteen hundred years.

I don't recall hiring them to define for me anything . . . much less what a legitimate answer is to anything.

No, you didn't, but then they aren't answering to you, anyway. The Catholic Church has historical precedent for it's authority: others do not.

In normal reality that Prottys populate...

Do you really want to go down THAT road?

In terms of provocative idiotic assertions . . . I thought the RC magicsterical had a monopoly on that. We Prottys are just trying to hold our own with token replies now and then.

Now see. There we have a splendid case of exactly the kind of deception I was referring to earlier. There is no Magisterium here: only me. For whatever unexplained reason "thinly veiled" is only a violation of the posting rules when a Catholic is doing it.

Personally, I take great pleasure from that fact, much more so than any hypothetical heavenly chickens, yet to hatch.

[papertyger]

HEY, TOOTS . . . YOU were the one who asked in post #122: . . . and if I can prove that from Scripture . . .

Different poster, different question. Why is that confusing?

I guess a remotely consistent follow-through in thought and action must be too much of a stretch?

FRiend, one can not reasonably complain about inconsistancy when choosing disparate issues to juxtapose.

In terms of what's REQUIRED FROM GOD'S PERSPECTIVE, I suspect all Creation will find that CHRIST'S "IT IS WRITTEN . . . " IS !!!!THE!!!! STANDARD.

Your suspicions are demonstrably disprovable with only nominal education and reasoning skills; however, intellectual integrity is absolutely required.

If RC's prefer to be CRUSHED UNDER that standard vs broken and contrite ON it . . . it's their choice.

This has been working pretty good for us so far...how 'bout y'all?

[papertyger]

Where did I claim there was Scriptural support for histrionics?

I don't recall you making such a claim. I simply note the lack of Scriptural support for such techniques.

Actually, I think there is but that’s another topic ...

By all mean! Hold forth!

Have you had your coffee yet? Keeping up seems to be a bit challenging this morning.

Are you in a hurry? You can come back later.

[papertyger]

Actually, the Protty supply of reasonable, logically consistant, Scriptural answers left those of the RC magicsterical in the dust and the RC rabbit hole a long time ago.

I have to disagree with you there. Remember, I've been on both sides.

Catholics are MUCH smarter.

[papertyger]

Have you had your coffee yet? Keeping up seems to be a bit challenging this morning.

Okay. Mea Culpa. I'm at work and FReeping from my cell phone on my free time.