WHO REALLY IS 'ANTI-CATHOLIC?'

Alpha and Omega Ministries ^ | 1-23-10 | James Swan

[1000 silverlings]

Stop with “the sweet nothings” and see who loves ya now

[verity]

It is an Agape in the theological sense.

[Petronski]

Surface level piety. It’s all circumference.

Thank God you're not talking about Catholics.

[1000 silverlings]

I know --the things some feel at liberty to say but of course it's not bigotry, lies, etc if they feel you deserve it for some reason

[the_conscience]

[1000 silverlings]

You know you force me to post emotibutt

[the_conscience]

Looks like a circumference of surface level piety.

[1000 silverlings]

I am still looking for scripture on this Dave??

I'm still looking for the biblical reference that says the Holy Spirit is imparted to the unrighteous evil man.

One certainly has reason to fear that he or she is not heaven-bound if one is not, as Jesus said " born again".

Ye must be born again. We see from the biblical example of Simon Magus that baptism does not automatically confer the HS. Right or wrong,from debate on these threads, I perceive that Catholics think that by being born into their belief system and baptised at birth, that this somehow gives them the gift of the HS.

The tribes of Israel thought their physical birth saved them as well, but Jesus disabused them of that thought. Nicodemus was an observant Jew and Jesus spoke these words to him.

The fear of not being saved must cause one to try to do all sorts of things, when really all one has to do is sincerely repent of their sins, some of which Paul lists in Galatians 5:

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

[1000 silverlings]

Evil men and evil deeds have nothing to do with God, in any way, shape or form.

John 3

19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

[Quix]

Threw the TV out years ago. It was the TV or the loom.! LOL.

Thx for your kind reply.

[Quix]

Thanks for your kind reply and perceptiveness. You are right, of course.

[Quix]

I’m getting a little lost in all the back and forth assertions. Maybe I should just pretend I understand and walk on by.

[Quix]

THANKS MUCH FOR YOUR KIND WORDS.

YOU ARE A TREASURE.

[NoRedTape]

"Since the Roman Catholic church is not universal, the word means something different when prefaced by “Roman.” It means allegiance to the papacy."

Actually, the "Roman" tag refers to the same Church, with or without the tag; we are Catholics. The Pope is in Rome; in Vatican City. There is no other meaning or implication. And of course Catholicism is "universal". If it's not "universal", then I don't what is. "Catholic" also means "whole". Rather appropriate since Jesus (God) founded the Catholic Church.

...just sayin'.....

[Quix]

Ahhhhhh

[Joya]

Quix, have a day blessed by God’s favor and by a sense of His presence.

[Quix]

NONSENSE.

God did not grant your edifice a copyright nor a trademark to the term.

And at least SOME Prottys find it outrageously

—UNBIBLICAL
—UNHISTORICAL
—UNCONSCIENCEABLE
—ARROGANT TO THE MAX
—HOSTILE TO THE MAX
—SELF-RIGHTEOUS TO THE MAX
—CLUELESS

THAT modern, well red, bright folks would even imagine any such thing.

And some of us are not about to give your edifice a free pass on your tyranny over the term without a persistent protest against such outrageousness.

[Quix]

Thanks ENORMOUSLY for your GREAT HELP TOWARD THAT.

YOU, HAVE THE SAME.

HAPPY WORK.

[trisham]

Good question. From Wiki:

Three previews went well. Beatty described one in Toronto as the best he'd ever had, and he and the studio considered striking more prints. Those discussions ended after the opening weekend, May 22, 1987. Ishtar, on more than a thousand screens across the country, took in $4.2 million ($7.87 million in contemporary dollars) in receipts, winning the weekend and #1 at the box office. But it beat The Gate, a low-budget horror film with no stars, by only $100,000.[2] Ultimately it grossed only $14.3 million in North American box office receipts against its $55 million budget .

Negative buzz about Ishtar and its outrageous budget was widespread in the press long before the film ever reached theaters, despite three successful previews. In an interview with Elaine May, Mike Nichols describes the bomb as "the prime example that I know of in Hollywood of studio suicide",implying that Puttnam sandbagged the project by leaking negative anecdotes to the media because of his grudges against Beatty and Hoffman.[8] Chicago Reader critic Jonathan Rosenbaum surmised that the media was eager to torpedo Ishtar in retaliation for instances of Beatty's perceived "high-handed way with members of the press".[9] The film had been completely closed to the media, with no reporters at all permitted on set during production, a restriction greater than Beatty's previous productions.[3]

The film was nominated for Worst Picture and Worst Screenplay in the 1987 Golden Raspberry Awards, winning one for Worst Director. The movie received overwhelmingly negative reviews, and holds a 19% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Ishtar has since become synonymous with "box office flop".

[Quix]

Should we call such hopes

INQUISITION WISH FULFILLMENT?