Posted on 04/12/2011 7:55:27 AM PDT by bkaycee
What did I say?
Your sect’s perversions
are written in the bbok of the devil.
Your sect’s beliefs are as spit in the face of Jesus Christ.
Your sect’s acts are abominations of abuse on the innocent.
Your sect’s members are diseased and wretched.
Your sect has no life and is a coven of death and wailing.
You have to ask?
Your sect has not a clue, so of course you can’t remember.
They sound like dumb sect members to me.
I never said you were.
I was just saying that your original post was ridiculous and it was ridiculous that people actually agreed with it.
we used to see that word in latin class studying the campaigns of Caesar. It is generally used as a martial term, as in hurling or casting a javelin. Roman soldiers had a sense of humor, just look up the terms for sword and scabbard. It wasnt easy being a tenth grade latin student, lol
Your sects’ witchcraft is an offense to Jesus the Lord Almighty, to God the Father, and to the Holy Spirit.
Your sects’ beliefs are knives plunged into Jesus’ back.
and on the other hand, almost everyone grows up and leaves high school behind
Thx for the ping.
That statement could be made only by someone who has absolutely no idea whatsoever about Catholic thought.
We do prefer meaningful discourse to hate-filled babble. That is true. but it is also not related to what you said, except in this.
I note that you STILL have not answered my question about how we can love our neighbor if we give all our love to God.
That question is not about 'faith'. It is about meaningful discourse as opposed to hate-filled babble. It is also, simply, wondering what you meant when you cited those verses,because they APPEAR to contain a contradiction.
Good works are a result of salvation, not the cause (Ephesians 2:8-10).
Catholics are taught their filthy rags (works) are needed for salvation.
Pay attention please: If good works are a sign of faith,then the absence of good works is a sign of a lack of faith. If faith is the gift which opens the door to salvation, then the absence of good works would suggest that the door was not opened for the person in whom good works were absent.
If you ever troubled yourself to study Catholic theology (I recommend the Summa) you would know that it is NOT TRUE, in any simple sense, that good works cause salvation. But that would interfere with the ignorant trashing of what you think we teach but we do not in fact teach, and the trashing is, evidently, more rewarding than truth.
Catholics can't handle we who are 'in Christ' are blessed, blessed, blessed' - they call it pride. LOL! More of 'their reasoning'. I am holy, I am blameless in God's sight because of JESUS!
Except for "they call it pride", that is catholic teaching. we read Ephesians (and Galatians, Romans, and Philippians also.)
Many do not know what we teach. Any good work which others might think that I did, Catholics believe that God did in me.
The skeptic Pope said, "A little learning is a dangerous thing." One of the dangers is that evidently very many people dip their toes in a few books and think they know Catholic teaching well enough to condemn it. And when we Catholics read their assaults we shake our heads at all the energy wasted on what we do not teach or believe.
One virtue of reason, which is by no means supreme, is that it helps us to avoid breaking the commandment about false witness. You have written things about us that are not true.I don't think you intended to utter falsehoods, not at all. But, reason tells us, that intended or unintended, falsehood is always destructive. I cannot think that anyone who enjoyed the love of God would choose to cause needless destruction. I would think a true son of truth would grieve to learn that he (or she) had said what was not true. Reason would help prevent that occasion of grief.
what we need to know was the ‘medical’ terms used in those days. I always thought that the current terms were consciously metaphorical.
Sure you did. You claimed I was talking myself into believing something about your Church when I was discussing individuals within your Church. It's unsurprising that collectivist thinkers are unable to distinguish the difference between arguments about individuals and arguments about an ideology.
We do prefer meaningful discourse to hate-filled babble.
Perhaps that is still true, for you.
I hope so. I’m beginning to wonder.
It has clearly NOT been true for a good number of RC’s on FR for more than 10 years.
I think you are correct.
I don’t think fantasies and delusions of grandeur count.
The RM can be mocked.
Jr can be mocked.
Even God can be mocked.
For now......
I could deal with priests chucking javelins.
So you think you are doing your job when you are not well-received. Is that a fair inference?
Being well-received means you are not doing your job. That follows, correct?
Then what is your job? Is your job to alienate, is it to FAIL TO make converts, to avoid persuading those who disagree with you that your account is correct?
As far as I can see, all these are implied by the statement in Italics.
Discord, not being well-received, is a sign to you that you are doing your job.
My statement, objectionable to you, is:
any truth that might make for peace is to be avoided — because what really matters is enmity.
Now if discord it the sign of success, if the absence of discord is troubling to you, then concord it to be avoided as a sign that you are not succeeding. That shows the equivalence between what you wrote and what I wrote up to the hyphen.
___
There are two strands of thought (well,okay, gazillions of strands of thought) in the NT. John's writings are very firm on division. We see,for example, that in the healing of the man born blind that his healing 'sets off' and emphasizes the blindness of "the Jews". And when our dear Lord raises Lazarus, that is the final straw for 'the Jews'. It is then that they resolve to put him to death by hook or by crook.
Sight v. blindness // life v. death.
But the other strand, hymned gloriously in Ephesians, is unification: the mystery, hidden until Christ and Paul, is that those who are far off and those who are near will be united.
Now, to me, the division does not need us to make it happen. All we have to do is to be true, and the division will spring up because of the work of our adversary and the poison he has put in the heart of man.
But Paul says God entrusted to him the ministry of reconciliation, and he did everything he could to fulfill the duties of THAT ministry. When he was not heard, when he was scorned, that didn't shake his faith in his proclamation. But he had been trying not to provoke scorn and rejection but to save those who rejected his preaching.
When the non-Catholics reject with abuse and scorn (rarely with real argument) what we proclaim, it does not shake our faith, But WE are not reassured by the rejection that we have done well.
My patron, Dominic, wept over sinners, and pled for them to God. He took no reassurance when he preaching was rejected. He redoubled his efforts.
But you take reassurance from rejection. This is why I say that enmity is more important to you. The issue, it appears,is not to save souls for Christ (insofar as that,which is HIS work,is given to us) but to make plain the division.
That is the ministry of Islam. Not to heal and to save but to convert the compliant kaffir, and to kill, enslave, or burden with second class status the uncompliant.
That is a critical difference. you take reassurance from those you fail to persuade. We pray for them and ask for help to amend what we view as our failure.
Me: I never said you were.
You: Sure you did.
False. Please show where I said you were discussing the merits or demerits of any particular "Romanist" dogma.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
Sigh.
I prefer the Redemption that Christ offers upon Confession, repentance . . .
However, we all make our choices and pay the fiddler.
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.