Whatever that is supposed to mean. You are tripping all over your own verbosity.
And in which you left out the rest of the sentence which reads, “or which were related to him.”... blah, blah, blah.
Rather than hoping to get out of your own whole with obfuscation and flowery language, why don't you just tell us when did Luke meet Jesus in person, namely that he he was an eyewitness, as you suggest?
First, it is not is John 3:9 , but first John 3:9,
Then you could check your own sources.
My original statement was that “you reject its Bible and its God most antagonistically,” not some undefined abstract Deity.
I don't know what God is. I have no problems with God as a concept. I am not here to preach that God doesn't exist because I don't know that. I ask those who claim they do to tell me what is God. I also ask them to prove what they claim as faith but state as fact.
I do have disagreements with what some people write and tell me about their God, the God they made in their own mind.
No, your primary target is evangelical Protestants
Yes, because they claim to "know".
who you variously described (just of the few I've seen) as those who” seek low self-image therapy and food for their narcissistic nature,” while “
Yes, so?
Reformed "worship" is like "a pagan-like spectacle one would expect to see in a pagan temple, all swaying their hands in the air like something from "Indiana Jones" movie”...
And your point is? None of this is outside the RF rules. I am just giving the taste of their own medicine to those who relentlessly insult the Church.
The rest of your post is bellyaching to which I have nothing say.
This is altogether too typical. First, you were defending realms interpretive authority...
Whatever that is supposed to mean. You are tripping all over your own verbosity.
With 7 posts from you in one day (with typos) you are a match, and i think it should be evident whose interpretive authority is at issue, just as i can deduce what you mean with your frequent typos.
The issue being RC's authority, part of her expression of this is fitting: Thus the author of the Acts of the Apostles narrates events in which he himself took part...
Oh, sure, Luke was there in person in Chapter 1...so much for that. Luke never saw Jesus in person.
And in which you left out the rest of the sentence which reads, “or which were related to him.”...
blah, blah, blah.
It is not irrelevant, as the whole sentence it shows your reproof to be false.
Rather than hoping to get out of your own whole with obfuscation and flowery language, why don't you just tell us when did Luke meet Jesus in person, namely that he he was an eyewitness, as you suggest?
No obfuscation here, as it is you who tried to misconstrue Rome's definition of infallibility as requiring Luke to be in Acts 1, and then marginalize it with blah, blah, blah, while i do nor recall my suggesting Luke was an eyewitness of Christ, but i said “Whether Luke saw Jesus in person is not relevant to the issue.” Another post i find by me was 5,547 in ref to 2Pt. 1:16, which does not mention Luke. I believe here you have me confused with another poster you responded to, while pinging me also.
First, it is not is John 3:9 , but first John 3:9,
Then you could check your own sources.
Likewise, seeing as you ref Mt. 3:9 as referring to the devil.
My original statement was that “you reject its Bible and its God most antagonistically,” not some undefined abstract Deity.
I don't know what God is. I have no problems with God as a concept. I am not here to preach that God doesn't exist because I don't know that. I ask those who claim they do to tell me what is God. I also ask them to prove what they claim as faith but state as fact.
I do have disagreements with what some people write and tell me about their God, the God they made in their own mind.
No, you have a manifest problem with the God of the Bible, and that being what most on FR assent to, you have plenty of target practice and rather than ask, even the premise of the idea of warrant for belief in such can result in you antagonistically oppose it, despite attempts to be civil.
No, your primary target is evangelical Protestants
Yes, because they claim to "know".
Not uniquely, as Rome infallibly asserts the Bible is and its God is true, but while Roman Catholics most strongly defend their church, it seems evangelicals are more likely to personally contend more for God and the Bible.
who you variously described (just of the few I've seen) as those who” seek low self-image therapy and food for their narcissistic nature,” while “
Yes, so?
Reformed "worship" is like "a pagan-like spectacle one would expect to see in a pagan temple, all swaying their hands in the air like something from "Indiana Jones" movie”...
And your point is? None of this is outside the RF rules. I am just giving the taste of their own medicine to those who relentlessly insult the Church.
You have said more than this, and you are insulting both Catholics and Protestant as well, as both faiths are in opposition to your arrogant attacks and blasphemy of the God of the Bible and Paul etc. As for being within RF rules, they are part of FR statements on its general ethos, and somehow you suppose that you are consistent with such as,
“For God, Family, Country, Life and Liberty!! If you cannot live with the above, fine, but keep your mouth shut about it while on FR. Don't fight against us on ANY of our deeply held beliefs!!”
The rest of your post is bellyaching to which I have nothing say.
That is sufficient.