| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 07/15/2014 4:28:23 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Flame war and childishness |
Posted on 07/14/2014 9:20:18 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
To my Protestant brothers and sisters:
It's time to come back to Mother Church. We want you, we need you, we love you.
I've spent a lot of time in dialogue with activist atheists recently, and the direction we are going is not pretty. We are witnessing a rapid cultural decline into amorality.
Satan seeks the ruin of souls through the destruction of marriage and family, and the quickest route to his goal is the profanation of sex. The truth and meaning of human sexuality is our era's cultural fault line, and unfortunately, Protestant denominations have been tumbling into its widening crevace at an alarming pace.
The first cracks denying the sacred nature of human sexuality began mere decades ago with the first tentative acceptance of contraception by a Christian church (the Anglicans). After 1,900+ years of unbroken Christian teaching on the immorality of contraception (including 400+ years of unbroken Protestant teaching), a moral evil was suddenly declared good. The entirety of Protestantism, although horrified at first, soon followed suit.
"Woe to those who call evil good" -- Isaiah 5:20
Then came other issues -- sterilization, masturbation, abortion, fornication and cohabiting, homosexual activity and homosexual "marriage". One by one, Protestant communities have broken from Christian teaching and sided with the secular culture. Many Protestant communities do not accept all the aforementioned evils as good, of course, and some are making a valiant attempt to fight one or more of them. However, there is no guarantee that those denominations won't eventually accept other sexual sins in the same way they accepted contraception, sterilization and masturbation. A majority vote by church leaders could launch an unsuspecting Protestant from the Spirit of the Gospel right into the spirit of the age -- the Planned Parenthood age.
Look where you are standing. Unless you stand with the Catholic Church, you may already have one foot off the cliff.
How to guarantee that you'll stand firmly on the ground of moral Truth? Come back home to the Catholic Church.
For over two thousand years:
The Catholic Church has never taught that contraception is a moral good, and she never will. The Catholic Church has never taught that sterilization is a moral good, and she never will. The Catholic Church has never taught that masturbation is a moral good, and she never will. The Catholic Church has never taught that abortion is a moral good, and she never will. The Catholic Church has never taught that fornication is a moral good, and she never will. The Catholic Church has never taught that homosexual activity is a moral good, and she never will.
The moral teachings of the Church have never changed, and they never will.
Human sexuality is transcendent, life-giving and sacred, and the Catholic Church will teach that Truth till the last day.
Dear Protestant, a church with a changing morality is a church built on shifting sand. If you want to build your life and eternity on something solid, build it on the Rock of Peter. Don't be carried about by every wind of social change; come back to the Catholic Church and stand strong with us -- one united Body as Jesus intended.
America may not survive many more generations at the rate we are going, but the Church and her teachings will stand regardless, speaking the same Truths, undisturbed, till the end of time. Believe me, it's a really nice place to be in a storm. Extremely peaceful.
So, come on. You'll like it here, living in peace and joy and certainty. It's your rightful home anyway.
Come back to Holy Mother Church. It really is time.
CB in 151:
“You just challenged me to show where you said there was any other infallible source for what the apostles taught! Well, you didn’t and you can’t. So that leaves Sola Scriptura by your own admission whether you know it or not.”
I should point out that this was your response to a post not to you (#145 to eagleone) so clearly I made no such challenge to you in 145.
Now, if we go back to #134, which was to you, we see this posted by me:
“Please show me where I ever claimed there was a “universally accepted infallible source of what the apostles taught other than scripture”. If you fail to post the exact post # where you’re suggesting I ever made such a claim, we will see you’re making up a straw man.”
That was in response to this from YOU in post #127: “Please show us a universally accepted infallible source of what the apostles taught other than scripture.”
That means ACCORDING TO YOUR POST #127 I had said there was “a universally accepted infallible source of what the apostles taught other than scripture.” That must be the case – according to your post #127 – because you wrote
“Please show me…” as if I had in fact made such a claim. I made no such claim.
That means, somewhere before post #127, according to YOU, I had claimed that there was “a universally accepted infallible source of what the apostles taught other than scripture.”
That means the following:
It would have to be somewhere in between post #5 (my first post in the thread) and #124 (which was my last post to you before your post #127).
This mystery post would have to contain the following elements:
1) I would have to have said: there is something that is UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED.
2) I would have to have said: there is something that is INFALLIBLE.
3) I would have to have said there was something that is A SOURCE
4) I would have to have said that that same thing was what the APOSTLES TAUGHT.
5) I would have to have said that that same thing was something OTHER THAN SCRIPTURE.
I MADE NO SUCH COMMENT. You have been proved wrong YET AGAIN.
In case you did not know the number 127 comes before 134.
Now, just so everyone can see what you did here, I am going to post all of the pertinent comments in ascending order – including what you left out:
Post #127
CynicalBear said: “Please show us a universally accepted infallible source of what the apostles taught other than scripture.”
Post #134
vladimir998 said: “Please show me where I ever claimed there was a “universally accepted infallible source of what the apostles taught other than scripture”. If you fail to post the exact post # where you’re suggesting I ever made such a claim, we will see you’re making up a straw man.”
Post #145 – this was a post from me to eagleone and it never mentions of references CynicalBear.
Post #151 – which responded – on CynicalBear’s part – to post #145 even though 145 wasn’t to her in the first place:
CynicalBear said: “You just challenged me to show where you said there was any other infallible source for what the apostles taught! Well, you didn’t and you can’t. So that leaves Sola Scriptura by your own admission whether you know it or not.
In post #172 (in response to 151) I noted the following:
CB: “You just challenged me to show where you said there was any other infallible source for what the apostles taught!”
Vladimir998: Nope. And I think you know that’s the case too - hence you’re calling in all of the usual suspects to come to your aid in your hour of need.
CB: “Well, you didn’t and you can’t. So that leaves Sola Scriptura by your own admission whether you know it or not.”
Vladimir998: No, since I didn’t do the former, I could not have done the latter. And there is no way - by my own admission (since none was made) nor by default - to prove sola scriptura.
Vladimir998: Wow. Yet another failure on your part. And worse than that. You actually make claims that I did something I never did. Why do Protestant anti-Catholics SO OFTEN resort to outright making things up???
Then in post 203 CB pastes only some of the above – AND COMPLETELY FAILS TO SHOW WHERE I EVER CLAIMED: “there was a “universally accepted infallible source of what the apostles taught other than scripture”.
So, CynicalBear, time to come clean where did I ever say, there was a ““universally accepted infallible source of what the apostles taught other than scripture”?????
Time to put up or shut up, CB. Where did I say, there was a
“universally accepted infallible source of what the apostles taught other than scripture”?????
Hey, Iscool, you arrive - as usual - late. I hope you had a nice day at work. Too bad you missed the fun here. Be more timely next time.
Is the Wedding at Cana in your Bible?
Read it again. Mary intercedes for the married couple with her son telling him, “They have no wine.”
Then she tells the servants and us to obey her son, “Do whatever he tells you.”
Thus her last words in the Bible are a model to us — to intercede through her and to do whatever Jesus or the Father or the Holy Spirit tells us to do.
Why is this woman (and any other Catholic on this site)trying to convert Protestants? Francis has no interest in doing so. The post Vatican II Church does not require others to be Catholic to be saved.
Where did I say I was proud?
Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
>> and you decide that you know better.........<<
Hail Mary……………………
your post shows that you know NOTHING about Catholicism....NOTHING!!
LOL!!!
You claim there is not other infallible source for what the apostles taught. Paul said anything they didn’t teach was to be considered “accursed”. What you teach is therefore accursed. Your teachings accursed and your credibility a zero. Not a good track record there vlad.
OK, then.
Here is what Jesus told us to do regarding prayer.
Luke 11:1-4 Now Jesus was praying in a certain place, and when he finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples.” And he said to them, “When you pray, say: “Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.”
You wrote:
“Your pope says Catholics don’t have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ...Why would we or you doubt him???”
No, he never said that. He did say this, however:
“Hence the way of belonging to God is explained: it comes about THROUGH A UNIQUE AND PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS,
which Baptism confers on us from the beginning of our rebirth to new life. It is Christ, therefore, who continually summons us by his word to place our trust in him, loving him “with all the heart, with all the understanding, and with all the strength” (Mk 12:33). Therefore every vocation, even within the variety of paths, always requires an exodus from oneself in order to centre one’s life on Christ and on his Gospel.”
http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-listen-and-follow-jesus-for-day-of-pr
Maybe if you read articles instead of headlines you would not have made the mistake you have made. How sad and embarrassing for you.
I’m sure you are referring, incorrectly, to this:
In his address, he warned against those who “THINK they can have a personal, direct, immediate relationship with Jesus Christ OUTSIDE of the communion and the mediation of the Church.”
He wasn’t doubting that people can and MUST have a relationship with Jesus. He just warned against the idea that you can do it without any reference to or communion with His Body. And he was right to do so. http://www.asianews.it/news-en/For-pope,-we-are-Christians-because-we-belong-to-the-Church,-one-cannot-love-God-outside-of-the-Church-31455.html
I really pity you. You are either completely unfamiliar with what the pope really believes - even though he makes public statements calling on people to have a personal relationship with Jesus just as I posted at the top of this post - or you are doing something far more despicable.
I’ll mail this to you just in case it gets deleted to protect you from your embarrassment.
nope, if you're baptized, you're Catholic....if you don't practice the religion, you left the church....can't be any other way.....impossible.
The post is self explanatory.
Roman Catholicism. The religion of control freaks. They just have to own everything, don’t they.
And giving man credit for everything God should be getting credit for.
in the year....say 1326, was there a Christiaan on Earth that was not a Catholic???
Holy Mother Church...
Ha!
“I’m choosing not to be Catholic.”
Exactly.
“You’re taking my beliefs about the Church personally,”
Actually not at all.
“mocking my reasons,”
I don’t think you presented any reason that even approach reasonable. If I mocked what is unreasonable, so be it.
“and insulting me.”
Are you crying?
“Of course in doing so you’re supporting a lot of my reasons for not wanting to be like you.”
Don’t be like me. Whatever that means. But that should never stop you from embracing the truth in any case. I reject all false things because they are false not because of who does or does not hold what is false.
“But I don’t expect you to get that level of nuance.”
It isn’t that I don’t get “that level of nuance”. It’s that there is no nuance in your statement. Of course you’ll just claim that in itself is proof that I don’t get the nuance.
“Nor do you understand that people who don’t want to be Catholic don’t in fact, diminish your personal faith.”
Honestly you seem out of touch with reality. Truth is completely unaffected by opinion. I have NEVER, and I mean NEVER, assumed that my faith is diminished by anyone else’s opinion. No one else’s opinion affects my faith one way or the other. I have been with groups of Catholics - it in no way affected my faith in terms of my belief in it. I knew it was true beforehand and that didn’t change. And the same happened whenever I was surrounded by non-believers whether Protestants, atheists, agnostics, pagans, whatever.
“But you don’t get that level of nuance, either.”
Again, there is no nuance there - as shown by the fact that you’re not even getting what I believe right while making judgments based upon your erroneous conception of what I believe.
“I imagine you sitting at night guzzling wine out of a jewel-encrusted gold cup,”
I occasionally drink wine, but I never guzzle it and I have the usual glasses, no jewel-encrusted gold cups. I guess you’ll just say I’m missing the nuance when actually you’re just making up fantasy like things, right?
“the wind howling outside and shut off by heavy draperies,”
Wrong on both counts.
“your thick velvet coat pulled up around your neck, while you mutter “heretics, damned heretics” as you slam the point of your dagger again and again into the table.”
Wow. I think you’re the one guzzling wine. And I claim no nuance in that statement at all.
Nothing that you said even remotely approached refuting what I said - which is fine -because you can’t do it in any case because Jesus said what He said and Matthew said what he said.
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.