The Worship of Mary? (An Observation)

[Marysecretary]

You’re right, God alone knows. Thank you.

[papertyger]

Since you've obviously never read the bible, how would you know? lol

You see, that's where the old joke about "assume" comes from... Do you think just because I don't tack chapter and verse on when I use a phrase like "turn and rend" it's by accident?

Are you so conceited you don't know when I ask you for a verse it's because I already know such a verse doesn't exist?

[Marysecretary]

Sado-evanglists? No name calling here...

[Petronski]

I posted the exact words of the RCC catechism.

The exact words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church include the footnote numbers (at the least).

BTW, you know that in this instance (a) it is not the Roman Catholic Catechism, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church; and further (b) proper nouns should be capitalized.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

So it is possible He could do whatever He wanted, despite what He would later write in the New Testament.

If you base your faith on what Christ could have done rather than on what He did do, well, good luck with that.

Christ could have turned Himself into a rooster and crowed at every dawn, but I doubt He did.

[Quix]

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” — Acts 4:12

= = =

INDEED.

But but but but bbbbuuuttttt

Scripture has to be wrong—just ask the RC magisterical . . .

There’s St Mary, St Joseph, St Hotentot, St Mugwumps and a long list of others so handy to call on when folks are bored with Jesus.

/s

[1000 silverlings]

No I’m using evidence from your past posts to me and others. After I do post the verses to you, I’m met with silence. Hopefully you are searching the scriptures to see if the things we say are true.

[Petronski]

It's a blanket statement that you have never read the Bible, yet it is neither personal nor mindreading.

[Quix]

LOL.

—have to smell it anyway.

[Marysecretary]

Ah. Thank you.

[Marysecretary]

He does like to lurk around our computers...

[Quix]

Yeah, the city blocks full of lofty skyscraprs built on the

toothpick “full of grace”

. . . shocking is too mild a word.

[Religion Moderator]

The phrase "you've obviously never" is equivalent to the phrase "evidently you have not" and is therefore "not making it personal."

The pointer is on the speaker, not the object - it is his own judgment of the evidence. So the discussion should turn to his judgment. If you believe his judgment to be in error, then you might reply "false!" or "you're wrong" etc.

[Marysecretary]

Oh, I think you’ve covered that quite well.

[Petronski]

I didn’t say “could have,” I said “could.”

“Could have” is speculation, “could” means “had the power.”

[1000 silverlings]

As further evidence, when someone asks you to post the scripture that you claim to be referencing, you refuse.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The exact words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church include the footnote numbers (at the least).

There's no rule that says anyone MUST post the footnote numbers. No one complained when I excerpted from the WCF without footnote numbers.

Or are you now demanding this, too?

FYI, in the future I may choose to post from the RCC catechism without the footnotes. Be advised all references will be originating from the vatican.va website.

[1000 silverlings]

Thank you.

[Petronski]

The phrase "you've obviously never" is equivalent to the phrase "evidently you have not" and is therefore "not making it personal."

[Religion Moderator]

Name calling becomes "making it personal" when it is addressed to another Freeper, specifically.

For instance, a poster might say some or all Protestants are sado-evangelists and that is not "making it personal" - but if he is speaking to or of a particular Freeper, it is.