Posted on 08/11/2008 4:58:31 PM PDT by annalex
I only jumped into this puddle because I’d seen Baldwins’ work as a Christian, and I thought Inspector Clouseau,I mean Claveau, was supremely grandiose in his thinking that Baldwin would care one way or the other about what he thought. So I’ve watched and read over 375 posts and it’s still the same deal when I left the Roman Catholic church. This institution believes it is the only way to Heaven(entry only through the auspices of the holy father and his band of not-so-merry men) The supreme arrogance of this stance is despicable, and spiritually treacherous! They say the Protestants are all wrong,but they have many sects themselves(Jesuits,Benedictines,and more)They’ve hidden their behaviours for centuries and now with so much power at their backs,try to tell us that we’re mistaken! I’m thinking that the Protestant Reformation happened precisely because whatever truth the early church had was being clandestinely crushed at every turn. The Popes were corrupt,as well as their underlings(selling indulgences and spots in heaven to the unsuspectimg parishoners, so the Holy Spirit left this corruption and touched others who would carry the message of Jesus,the Saviour of the World. And so for centuries the factions of faith fought over the mantle of the birthright(much as Jacob and Esau)...so today we are still doing the same battle,but I don’t think this is what Paul had in mind when he exhorted us to contend for the Faith. The only truth to be told is that Christ died for our sins,once and for all,and we are to carry this message to the lost on this earth! Pray God be merciful toward us!
Nope. I’m not acknowledging anything.
I, too, am in the Body of Christ.
You wrote:
“I started out responding to your last post, and decided there’s no use.”
You haven’t been doing much to respond thus far anyway.
“You’ve got me pegged as a heretic and are treating me like one too.”
There you go making things up again.
“It’s ok for you to be offensive, but cry foul when someone throws something back at you. I apologized to you for being out of line. At least I was man enough, so to speak, to do that.”
I had nothing to apologize for. You went way overboard with that “certifiable” nonsense and that was far from the only thing.
“You posted so many words you don’t even know exactly what you posted.”
Actually I do know what I posted. I know it well enough that I told you what posts had what in it that you ignored or simply pretended didn’t exist.
“You tell me you didn’t say this or that, when you did.”
Wrong.
“I don’t feel the need to perpetuate a discussion with someone who’s not willing to admit they said something.”
Look, you’re the one not willing to admit some things.
“You denied many things you did say.”
No. I never once denied anything I said. You keep making up this stuff as if it is true!
“You go right ahead and pounce on the next person, you seem to get some sort of charge out of it. You presumed many things about me, you don’t even know me, but yet you have the audacity to tell me what I’m thinking and feeling.”
Feeling, not thinking.
“It’s a losing battle talking to you....you’re right and everyone else is wrong.”
No. Catholics are right, not everyone is Catholic and not everyone is wrong.
“How can everyone else be wrong?”
Again, I never said they were. This is yet another example of you just making thing sup out of thin air.
“You misconstrue what’s being said to your own bend.”
No. YOU misconstrue things. You didn’t know the difference between faith (as in personal trust in Jesus) and Faith (the Christian faith). It was you who miscontrued that, not me.
“I have tried being what Christ wants me to be with you, but I’m no saint. First, you insult my intelligence by insinuating I don’t know this verse or that verse.”
And how would you describe the fact that you didn’t know about those verses? Also, it isn’t about your intelligence. It’s about your knowledge of scripture. There you go miscontruing one thing for another. Someone could be a genius and known nothing about scripture. While others can know scripture well and have little intelligence.
“I don’t have them all memorized. Yes, I do read the Bible. You are gonna believe what your church says to believe.”
I used Bible verses - and you couldn’t respond. Why do you keep claiming something else?
“I am going to believe what the Bible says. I did deal with verses that were posted, it just suits your purpose to say I didn’t.”
No, you didn’t deal with them. Show me the post where you dealt with Mark 16:16, or Acts 22:16 or Romans 6:3. Did you ever even touch them?
“I am willing to admit when I’m wrong, you are not.”
I haven’t been wrong in this thread so there’s nothing to admit.
“I know, because your never wrong, right?”
No, I am sometimes wrong, but not in this thread.
“All you’ve said to me is “no, NO, wrong. You responded with a sanctimonious attitude, that is a turn-off for a christian, just think about that lost soul you’re winning to Christ.”
Look in the mirror. Think of what you just said whenever you want to call someone certifiable, or make bizarre anti-catholic claims based on nothing but your own fantasies. You remember your words when you decide to go off on a verbal bender at a Catholic about pedophilia so you can avoid talking about the actual topic at hand. You chose to get involved in this conversation completely unprepared. And then you came out with bizarre statements about you don’t want to read anything from the pope. Yeah, how terrible for you to actually learn something!
Okay!
If times change, why is it I can read the Bible and apply everything in there to the present time?
I apologized. So where’s the forgiveness of the “true church” otherwise known as the catholic church? Where are the fruits of the Spirit? You have heard of them, haven’t you?
Jesus told us in order to be forgiven we have to forgive others, but I guess it doesn’t apply to catholics.
Go back through the posts and look at YOUR comments and you will find that alot of what I said is true. I actually did because I thought “hmm, maybe he’s right” and then I would have to apologize again. I’m not apologizing. I wasn’t wrong, you were.
I have a question for you.
How did the saved thief on the cross and the saved jailor with Peter and Silas eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood?
It’s equally offensive to me when you tell me I make christianity up as I go. I’ve had people call me “dumb” and “bigot” and “stupid”, so what? They also didn’t get reamed by the mod either. But my faith is extremely important to me, for you to tell me I make it up, it’s very offensive. And why do you tell me that? Because I’m not catholic? That’s just wrong.
You wrote:
“I apologized.”
Yes, you did. Thank you. That was very good of you.
“So where’s the forgiveness of the “true church” otherwise known as the catholic church?”
Is this your bizarre way of asking me to apologize? I was not the one who said someone was certifiable, said all sorts of bizarre things (can’t say more because the RM will be mad), or falsely claimed you said things you never said. That was you. I was at times harsh on you - and at times I could most definitely have shown more forbearance and more charity. For not more often showing that charity I am sorry.
“Where are the fruits of the Spirit? You have heard of them, haven’t you?”
Yes.
“Jesus told us in order to be forgiven we have to forgive others, but I guess it doesn’t apply to catholics.”
I could have had more forebearance with you, but I ceratinly was not as way off base as you were.
Again, look at your posts. Your comments about me and the about the Church were outrageous. I only told the truth throughout based about what you wrote.
Feelings seem to dominate your life. You wrote (and this is only a partial sampling from earlier on):
“You are certifiable. I definitely don’t ever want to darken the doors of any Catholic church. False conclusions and opinions are what church doctrines are all about.”
“Honey, the Catholic church is the last place I want to be, especially if you’re there.”
“You don’t like Bible believing Protestants?”
“Do you have anything nice to say about any “bible believing” non- catholics?”
“You are now starting to scare me.”
“Now I know, firsthand, why people critize the Catholics. Your religion ranks right up there with Mormonism.....pssst, that wasn’t a compliment. Anyway, take care and God bless.”
“They condemn pedophilia? Right.”
“I just had an epiphany. I now know why you think I need the Catholic church, more money to pay for all those lawsuits you’ve got going from all those pedophiles.”
“Just ask Lucifer.”
“Why do pompous people like you, have to take something simple like salvation and complicate it?”
“You are making it sound like one has to jump hurdles and shoot out of a cannon to share in God’s inheritance.”
“SHAME ON YOU!!!!!”
“Lighten up for pity sake.”
“As far as being a “lone ranger”, I read the Bible everyday and have not let dogmas get in the way of understanding God’s Word.”
“Being Catholic is an organized religion, christians are followers of Christ, not a religion.”
“How do you justify all the pedophilia in the Catholic Church, much less the homosexuality?”
“What are you? A Pharisee?”
How is someone supposed to deal with that sort of posting? I kept posting verses and arguments. You kept posting your beliefs but often with no evidence and no arguments to speak of.
And here’s an example of how you didn’t post. You once asked:
“Quote the scripture that says baptism washes away sin, please.”
I posted a verse, and later another. Response? They were never dealt with. I may be harsh, but if I said anything to you it was either absoultely true or all the evidence pointed towards it being true.
“Go back through the posts and look at YOUR comments and you will find that alot of what I said is true.”
I did. And you aren’t.
“I actually did because I thought “hmm, maybe he’s right” and then I would have to apologize again. I’m not apologizing. I wasn’t wrong, you were.”
Apologize. Don’t apologize. Apologize. Take back your apology. Stick to something!
“It’s equally offensive to me when you tell me I make christianity up as I go.”
The truth is often offensive. Were you offended that I just pointed out that you apologized and then took back your apology? Do you think you could make it any easier looking like you can’t stick to something? Again, the truth is often offensive. You asked for verses on baptism washing away sins. I provided them. What did you do with them? Anything? Did you even look them up? You admitted yourself that you just read your Bible and YOU measure everything against it - and that REALLY MEANS you are making up Christianity as you go along. Christianity exists OUTSIDE of you. It is an absolute because it comes from God. You are really relying on your feelings. You FEEL this verse means that, and that verse means this. Who are you to decide? Also, you can’t even use the argument that you’re guided by the Holy Spirit because how is it that your interpretation is so starkly different than that of millions of others who also claim the guidance of the Holy Spirit and yet come to different conclusions. There’s only ONE Holy Spirit. He is NOT the Father of Confusion. How do you know you’re right? Based on what? Your feelings? You’ll deny that that’s what you rely on, but that’s what you rely on.
“I’ve had people call me “dumb” and “bigot” and “stupid”, so what?”
I never called you dumb. I never called you a bigot. I never called you stupid. I said, repeatedly, that you were wrong and demonstrated, repeatedly, that that was the case.
“They also didn’t get reamed by the mod either.”
You didn’t either - unless it was in private. You got a warning, a mild chastisement. I too have accrued the wrath of the RM.
“But my faith is extremely important to me, for you to tell me I make it up, it’s very offensive. And why do you tell me that? Because I’m not catholic? That’s just wrong.”
No. I don’t tell you that because you’re not Catholic. If you were Eastern Orthodox I would never have said that to you. But as a Protestant, who admits she relies only on HERSELF (see above for why I say the Holy Spirit isn’t doing this), there is no other possible conclusion - you’re making up your Christianity. You are your own church, really your own sect.
Again, revisit the issue of birth control which you sidestepped earlier and tried to turn into another issue. Christians - ALL CHRISTIANS - believed brith control to be immoral. Until the 1930s not a single Christian church or sect in the world, THE ENTIRE WORLD, approved of birth control. Every Protestant I ever met all approved of birth control. I know there are some who don’t. Hence, the organization of Protestants Against Birth Control. There are now other orgs like it too: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/nov/06111605.html
How does being a lone ranger solve this dilemma of “to contracept” or “not contracept” for millions of Protestants?
It doesn’t.
Amen. I agree. Especially the part about the church corrupting itself, and taking away the True message of Christ.
Do you believe Ignatius wrote three versions of his letters? The Short Recension, the Mid Recension, and the Long Recension? If you believe that it is fine with me. If you don't believe that you must explain where the "extra" versions came from. Further, you mut choose the one "authentic" letter.
From one of my favorite "anti-Catholic" sources.
The oldest collection of the writings of St. Ignatius known to have existed was that made use of by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century, but which unfortunately is no longer extant. It was made up of the seven letters written by Ignatius whilst on his way to Rome ; These letters were addressed to the Christians
of Ephesus (Pros Ephesious);
of Magnesia (Magnesieusin);
of Tralles (Trallianois);
of Rome (Pros Romaious);
of Philadelphia (Philadelpheusin);
of Smyrna (Smyrnaiois); and
to Polycarp (Pros Polykarpon).
We find these seven mentioned not only by Eusebius ("Hist. eccl.", III, xxxvi) but also by St. Jerome (De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport to be from Ignatius.
Catholic Encyclopedia - Ignatius Of Antioch
Obviously the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia did not have the confidence in the authenticity of any of the letters which you apparently do. I imagine he deserves the label "anti-Catholic" also.
You wrote:
“Do I understand you to be claiming skeptics of the authenticity of the Ignatius Letters to be anti-Catholic? That is the reason? How sad.”
No, I said: “The anti-Catholics believe differently because it satisfies them to do so.”
You’re an anti-Catholic. You WANT to believe Ignatius’ letters are forgeries. Not all people who believe Ignatius’ letters are forgeries are anti-catholics, but YOU are. And like every other anti-Catholic I’ve ever come across who want to believe Ignatius’ letters are forgeries, you do it for the reason I gave: The anti-Catholics believe differently because it satisfies them to do so.
If you’re going to attack what I say, then attack what I say and not something you’ve imagined.
“Do you believe Ignatius wrote three versions of his letters? The Short Recension, the Mid Recension, and the Long Recension?”
No. Nor do I believe Mark wrote two different endings for his gospel, but we have mss. that attest to one or the other and both.
“If you believe that it is fine with me. If you don’t believe that you must explain where the “extra” versions came from. Further, you mut choose the one “authentic” letter.”
No. YOU must prove that the letter - and any and all versions of it - that was addressed to the Smyrneans is a forgery.
“From one of my favorite “anti-Catholic” sources.”
Which said: “It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form.” So, just as I said, the letter to the Smyrneans, is genuine. It is only that not everything in it can be independently verified by another source. Thus, my point still stands. There is no reason to doubt the quote from Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrneans.
“Obviously the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia did not have the confidence in the authenticity of any of the letters which you apparently do. I imagine he deserves the label “anti-Catholic” also.”
No, but it does bear mentioning that the old Catholic Enclcopedia was written in 1909/10. Textual evidence has progressed since then and now you would be hard pressed to find a scholr who summarily dismissed Ignatius’ letters as you’re desperately trying to. Just in that year or a year later, for instance, a papyrus mss. fragment of the letter to the Smyrneans was published by Schmidt and Shubert in Altchristliche Texte. And three years later Wessely published a Coptic fragment.
And even your citation from the CE is extremely self-serving because you pretended this wasn’t there:
While it can hardly be said that there is at present any unanimous agreement on the subject, the best modern criticism favors the authenticity of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius. Even such eminent non-Catholic critics as Zahn, Lightfoot, and Harnack hold this view. Perhaps the best evidence of their authenticity is to be found in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which mentions each of them by name. As an intimate friend of Ignatius, Polycarp, writing shortly after the martyr’s death, bears contemporaneous witness to the authenticity of these letters, unless, indeed, that of Polycarp itself be regarded as interpolated or forged. When, furthermore, we take into consideration the passage of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., V, xxviii, 4) found in the original Greek in Eusebius (Hist. eccI., III, xxxvi), in which he refers to the letter to the Romans. (iv, I) in the following words: “Just as one of our brethren said, condemned to the wild beasts in martyrdom for his faith”, the evidence of authenticity becomes compelling. The romance of Lucian of Samosata, “De morte peregrini”, written in 167, bears incontestable evidence that the writer was not only familiar with the Ignatian letters, but even made use of them. Harnack, who was not always so minded, describes these proofs as “testimony as strong to the genuineness of the epistles as any that can be conceived of” (Expositor, ser. 3, III, p. 11).
Reading the mind of another poster is a form of "making it personal."
You are totally wrong and off base.
No need to reply. Future posts from you will be ignored.
Read my words. I might have to apologize AGAIN. “Again”, being the operative word. Then I went on to say that I didn’t have to apologize, after I checked the posts. I obviously have a life, therefore I can’t possibly find the time to (like you),post everything you said that you said you didn’t say, but you did. Wow, that sounded like something you would say. Maybe I’ll bother after I vacuum, do up the dishes, put a load into wash and do some filing. I’ve been reading a very enlightening article by a catholic, who says the catholic church is not “the church”, and the most ironic part about it is he’s using their own documents to refute it. Now that’s a hoot.
I never said that I relied on myself. Do you read all the words in posts, or do you skim over and post prematurely? I don’t rely on organized religion to feed me spiritual food. I rely on the Bible. That’s hardly relying on myself. You know, God’s Word, the Bible, which we are supposed read in obedience to Him. How else are we to know how to conduct ourselves or find comfort? Apparently, after “debating” with you, I think God is trying to humble me, and I need to be more receptive to Him, and less reactive with you. YOu don’t think anything you said was offensive because you claim it’s the truth. The truth according to who? You? The catholic church? I am not subject to your churches teachings or rules.
If I were to get into a discussion with say, a Methodist. We may disagree with something petty that pertains to church doctrine, but we won’t argue salvation. Yet, you did, you insinuated anyone who isn’t catholic is not a true believer. In the long haul we have a common denominator....a belief in Christ as our Savior. Why don’t we just rejoice in the fact that what matters most we agree on, and that’s salvation in Christ. Don’t sweat the other stuff, God can sort it out.
You weren’t as way off base as I? I will repeat myself, my faith is very important to me, and for you to call it into question was equally offensive to me. And don’t tell me you did’nt, you did.
I wasn’t looking for an apology from you. You started again listing all the things I said to you, after I apologized. When someone tells you they are sorry, and you accept it, you don’t keep bringing it up again, because then it appears you haven’t forgiven them. And if I go by your posting you didn’t. I can assume, just like you.
You told the truth, I told the truth.
I had’nt looked at your full post until now. I’ll I can say is....wow. I definitely don’t have enought time in my day to pursue this right now, but you can be sure I will work on it.
I will admit, I do get a little passionate about what I believe, but the true message of salvation should be most important, and it is for me. Have you noticed that most of the strife in the world is religiously motivated? Let me clarify, organized religion, which is manmade. Maybe, we all, as christians, need to get back to the basics.
Because the Bible is inerrant. However, you are not inerrant, and while you may think you are applying the Bible correctly, there is no guarantee of that. But in principle, yes, everything the Church teaches today is in some way based on the teachings of the Bible.
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.