Posted on 12/11/2011 5:59:43 PM PST by rzman21
Mark made an interesting comment, just looking for more information.
Why so defensive?
Oh, just out of curiosity, have you changed your anti-Paul sentiment?
It was brought up on a public forum.
That, by convention, makes it fair game.
Both. And Kosta was involved, if it is the thread that I remember. Enough was in public.
I have never had antiPaul sentiment. I take Paul very seriously. It is the Calvinists that I take lightly.
Christianity is not a game to Christians.
I responded to your comment on "issues" with Paul, not calling Paul crazy.
Correct. Put it this way: one cannot derive Nicean Trinitarianism from Paul's writings from first principles.
It still does not nullify my post to you.
The other issues with Paul are simply a deflection from what I called Regulator Country out on.
He said he saw Catholics(plural) call Paul crazy, which would have been impossible since only one poster had issue with Paul.
I knew eventually this one posters opinion would fraudulently be peddled as what Catholics believe by some nefarious posters on this forum.
That is what has happened (more than once). So I’m asking Regulator AGAIN.
Were you just repeating this untruth that you saw someone else post or were you on the original thread in question?
Since I’ve asked multiple times and haven’t gotten an answer the answer is pretty obvious. I have gotten an answer which was the equivalent of “Mommy she started it” or “Why don’t you yell at her, did you see what she said?”
But no denial or clarification about how and why this blatant untruth was posted.
What kind of “Christians” would knowingly misrepresent what they knew was one persons opinion and try to insinuate that it was a more widely held “Catholic” position?
Just to bring this back down to earth, I'm going to remind everyone of the statement I wrote, from which an entire, lurid fantasy scenario has been spun:
No, I refer directly to replies by FR Catholics to the Religion Forum over the past year or two, calling the Apostle Paul crazy and denigrating the value of the books of the Bible written by him.
You're in my opinion being very disingenuous. The above statement is true. It remains true even under the strained parsing to which you've subjected it.
Now, if you all would care to cease with the breathless, negative adjectives, the personal accusations, the weird sexual innuendo and the mind reading, maybe this thread will survive the night. Or, maybe that's the objective, attempting to get the thread pulled.
It's certainly happened often enough at the behest of members of your group in the past.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Wow, you’ve got to be kidding. I invite anyone to go back to through the thread and read our exchange, so much projection I don’t know where to start!
Yes, going back through the thread, it’s evident that there are at least two Catholics who have made negative comments about the Apostle Paul since they are on this thread. This validates the statement of mine that was the source of so much vitriol.
So, I join in the invitation, please do.
I’m glad to see an effort to distance oneself from so much condemnation of the Apostle Paul. You’ll pardon me I’m sure for the impression that I’ve been dealing with a bunch of closet Ebionites, here.
I myself don’t agree with all the tenets of Calvinism, but refuse to join in with any myopic condemnations of John Calvin. His actions were no more and no less excessive than many other religious leaders of that era and before, whether Protestant or Catholic. His beliefs were sincerely arrived at and I do not question his faith nor the faith of those who sincerely follow the tenets of the denomination that arose in his wake.
Do I disagree with many scriptural interpretations within Calvinism? Yes, I do, and have made that fairly plain. However, disagreement is permissible upon some matters, even within your own church, MarkBsnr.
The Church considers Paul as the second greatest of the Apostles after Peter; for example my home church and school growing up was named Sts. Peter and Paul. The Church has no problem with Paul whatsoever; the Catechism references Paul throughout.
I myself don’t agree with all the tenets of Calvinism, but refuse to join in with any myopic condemnations of John Calvin. His actions were no more and no less excessive than many other religious leaders of that era and before, whether Protestant or Catholic. His beliefs were sincerely arrived at and I do not question his faith nor the faith of those who sincerely follow the tenets of the denomination that arose in his wake.
The pursuit and the maintenance of power trump everything else for many people, including Calvin. I do not doubt his sincerity; however sincerity does not ensure correctness, neither does it ensure truth.
Do I disagree with many scriptural interpretations within Calvinism? Yes, I do, and have made that fairly plain. However, disagreement is permissible upon some matters, even within your own church, MarkBsnr.
On some matters, sure. On basics of doctrine, no. I cannot disagree with the Trinitarian formula and remain in the Church, for instance.
Glad to hear it, since it has been made evident on this thread and others that many do not follow their own church in holding the Apostle Paul to such a level of esteem.
I've seen FReepers use the term "Paulician" derogatorily more times than I can count. I've even seen the particularly risible "Paulistinians" more than once.
Now, who would do such a thing, lol?
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.