Posted on 02/05/2011 11:07:42 AM PST by Gamecock
And this from his homepage even:
Why are you on my homepage? Are you interested in me as a poster? Or are you simply looking for anything to use in a personal attack because our exchange isn’t going well for you on a particular topic? Wouldn’t you rather go back and debate whatever issue we are talking about on its merits? Personal attacks simply show weakness. Plus it is easy to be nasty on a computer. But it is still bad manners.
Now from time to time I will call someone a “bigot.” This isn’t a personal attack but rather a description of behavior. Here is the definition: “A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.”
It is hard to pursue an argument when the other side will not talk about the facts but will divert to personal attacks or resort to straw men arguments. I will push back against bigotry, ignorance, hatred, etc. But I don’t hold grudges. The person I destroy in an argument on one topic, I will complement on another topic.
I think things aren't going so well for him, so he must go into personal attack mode. His post further on (#33) is more than adequate to demonstrate this tendency.
The same could be said for Catholics.
It can go two ways, you know.
That's what I was doing with my first post. Please re-read it if you've come to that conclusion. That's also why it was disappointing you only focused on one small thing out of it, rather than the more important ones.
Um, because you bait people into going there by referring to it.
Personal attacks simply show weakness. Plus it is easy to be nasty on a computer. But it is still bad manners.
Physician, heal thyself.
Now from time to time I will call someone a “bigot.” This isn’t a personal attack but rather a description of behavior.
Yeah. Right.
For anyone who believes that, I have some real nice waterfront property to sell you in FL.
Lies by omission. Lies by lack of context. Did you skip it on purpose?
The bigot definition is accurate. The fact you accessed my home page is ironic as you just proved why it's there.
Pitiful.
agree with you on TN, haven’t seen the dishonesty in her the others exhibit.
just remember, but their friuts you will know them!
You said:
i think the honest, decent Protestants don’t post on the religion board.
I think what you consider “honest, decent Protestants” are the naive and uninformed ones. The ones who have been cowed and dumbed down by the postmodernist lies of our day. Those that are ignorant of the history in Gamecock’s post, in other words.
Right. Thanks for reminding me . . .Chronic RC hypocritical Nastiness . . .
I think that would be . . . ahhhh yes . . .
Station #21
of the STATIONS OF THE WHITE HANKY:
#21. ICON of the silver figurine of the lofted tail of a skunk in honor of NAUSEATING NASTINESS in the faithful SERVICE OF the caricatured Magnificent Magical Mummy Mary.
.
Yeah.
However, given their . . . pic ineptness . . . I can charitably give them E for effort.
A hundred posts and counting and not ONE refutation by any Catholics of anything said in the body of the article.
The first (predictable) response of attacking the messenger, and then going into deflection mode.
no, just the opposite. the informed ones know the Church doesn’t teach anyone to worship Mary, saints, statues, bread, Popes, etc etc.
it is only someone extremely naive and uninformed that would believe such things.
my suspicion is, the people who post such things know they are false, but the truth isn’t in them, so they don’t care! anybody who has really put their faith in Jesus, wouldn’t want any part of such things.
like i always say, by their fruits you will know them!!
A description not an attack!
You gotta be kidding!
Well, no. I guess not. But it IS typical. Projecting on others their own faults, weaknesses, and shortcomings.
But, hey — I’m just a pig (or so I’m told)...
Oink oink.
;)
Hoss
I think what you consider “honest, decent Protestants” are the naive and uninformed ones. The ones who have been cowed and dumbed down by the postmodernist lies of our day. Those that are ignorant of the history in Gamecock’s post, in other words.
WELL PUT.
Too bad they’re so unoriginal. I’m getting bored seeing the same ol’ tired lies being trotted out to try to refute the truth of God.
It’s sad.
Hoss
shalom b’SHEM Yah’shua HaMashiach
Peace be with you also
A hundred posts and counting and not ONE refutation by any Catholics of anything said in the body of the article.
The first (predictable) response of attacking the messenger, and then going into deflection mode.
OF COURSE!
That’s no doubt in keeping with and in honor of . . .
THESE STATIONS OF THE WHITE HANKY:
1. ICON TO BEARING FALSE WITNESS
2. BLACK/WHITE ICON OF DUPLICITY, DOUBLE STANDARD DANCE
3. THE ICON TO THE DOCTRINE OF—WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS—KILL THE MESSENGER.
4. ICON TO CHRONICALLY CHANGING THE SUBJECT
5. ICON OF OBFUSCATIONS TO THE SUPREME DEGREE
10. ICON OF HUBRIS TO THE SUPREME DEGREE
11. ICON OF THE GOLDEN GROPING HAND—GROPING FOR ANY EXPLANATION BUT THE TRUTH
16. ICON TO THE RC RABID CLIQUE TROLLING RITUAL
17. ICON TO THE UNDIVINE RIGHT OF TERMINAL SNOOTINESS TO THE MAX.
18. ICON OF THE SLIPPERY GOLDEN DANCE SHOES FOR DANCING THE RATIONALIZING-WEASEL-WORD-JITTER-BUG.
AND THE
20. ICON OF THE GOLDEN THUMB SUCK IN HONOR OF RC’S RELIGIOUS DUTY TO BE TERMINALLY OFFENDED 24/7/365.
“The first (predictable) response of attacking the messenger, and then going into deflection mode.”
Sounds like they’re being true to form. Soon, the twisting and warping will start, then shifting the focus by trying to change the subject, and then the hue and cry that they are being personally attacked.
You are right as rain: boringly predictable. Let’s hope no one tries another exorcism. ;)
Hoss
Below are the examples
of exalting other deities.
They are real.
They are serious.
They are owned,
operated in,
manifested in,
heart-felt wallowed in
by millions of Roman Catholics around the world.
Pretending otherwise does not change the facts.
White washing it with magicsterical diplospeak
doesn't change the facts.
Rationalizing it with 101 weasel words
doesn't change the facts.
.
.
.
Here's the title:
And it carries the official sanctions of:
ni•hil ob•stat
n.
1. Roman Catholic Church An attestation by a church censor that a book contains nothing damaging to faith or morals.
2. Official approval, especially of an artistic work.
WITH RICHARD CARDINAL CUSHING’S IMPRIMATUR
Let me track down the brief portion of quotes upthread . . .
Here they are:
However, as we've seen through a variety of sources--a pile of them in Ferraro's manual about the Rosary--the Roman Catholic et al/Vatican Edifice disagrees with a lot of the claims of RC's hereon to the contrary.
p.32
.
[Quixicated emphases below]
Mary is crowned Queen of heaven and earth, dispenser of all graces . . .
p32
4 - She became Queen of Purgatory, where she exercises her power as mediatrix in behalf of these suffering souls.
5 - She became Queen of us sinners, to assist us through the dangers of this life and to help us in difficulties.
6 - She became the ruler of hell, that trembles at her slightest gaze and is defeated by her power.
"Just as a rock extracted from earth will precipitate into the abyss, so will man, left without Mary's help, quickly slide toward hell." --Richard of St Victor
p37
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Thy kingdom come; Thy kingdom come through Mary! --Partial Indulgence
p41
"Mary is the tree of life to those who grasp her, and he is happy who hold her fast." --Prov. 3:18
p43
1 - "Hail Mary, beloved daughter of the Father, Mother of the Divine Son, Spouse of the Holy Spirit, complement of the most august Trinity!"
p45
6 - To her was granted grace greater than that conferred upon all others, 'that she might vanquish sin in every respect.'
.
[Qx: I guess Christ's vanquishing sin was unnecessary--or ineffectual without Mary's assistance?]
p46
7 - "Mary is the dawn of God because, just as the dawn marks the end of darkness and the beginning of day, so Mary indicates the end of vices and the beginning of virtue."
.
[Qx: I guess Christ's conquering on The Cross and HIS conquering trip to hell were unncessary?]
9 - God loved Mary so much that He gave her the keys to His heart. 'No one can go to God without Mary drawing him.'
.
[Qx: I guess Holy Spirit has been relegated to a 'Walter Mitty' role as spouse of Mary? That's SOME POWER to cancel & take over HOLY SPIRIT'S role to draw men to God!]
p47
4 - "Mary, trusting in the word of the angel, destroyed the sin Eve committed by trusting in the serpent.'
.
[Qx: Evidently, she beat Christ to the job of vanquishing sin!]
5 - "She desired the safety of everyone, went in search of it, and obtained it; it was also through her that this salvation was wrought."
.
[QX: What an unnecessary waste of precious Blood and suffering on THE CROSS!!!/sar]
p47
10 - "As Noah's Ark saved all the animals that entered it, so Mary saves all the souls that entrust themselves to her care."
p50
8 - "If she were not so holy as she is, how could God appoint her to be the ladder of Paradise, the advocate of the world, meatrix between HIm and us?"
p50
4 - "By becoming Mother of God, Mary belongs to the order of hypostatic union; hence she participates IN the infinite sanctity of God."
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.