Replies

I have never met a Catholics who ever studied the word on their own. And the one I knew who did study the word, did it in a Bible study led by a priest, so everything is vetted through the priest first.

I never met....and the one I did meet...O.K.

before you erroneously gave up on Catholicism, you should have looked much deeper into the church teachings (very easy to do) there is a 2,000 year history of success in Christianity in the Catholic church. Without glitches, of course not, entirely operated by humans, all good humans?, not a chance, but overall, protected by the promise to watch over her and be with her until the end of time. To be born in the 20th century, have some knowledge of the history of Christianity, and then decide that you, as an individual could rewrite the whole show and venture off on your own route to salvation strikes me as more than arrogant...but ABSOLUTELY DANGEROUS.

I never met....and the one I did meet...O.K.

Must Catholics continue to do that? Take words out of context to infer that they are contradictory?

Here is the context showing what you left out so it would appear the poster was being duplicigous, when actually the ones pulling that underhanded tactic are the ones being duplicitous. I understand you have to "debate" in the way you are instructe, but don't expect to not be called on it.

In context with bolding for your edification and to show the deception attempted:

I have never met a Catholics who ever studied the word on their own. And the one I knew who did study the word, did it in a Bible study led by a priest, so everything is vetted through the priest first.

See how clever you were? That will show those "prots" that I have been a Catholic for 2012 years!

Metmom, isn't this a good place for Reagan's famous comment "There you go again?"

Catholics debate like Mormons, who had to watch a teaching that told them to "Don't answer the questions they ask, answer the questions they should have asked."

And the Catholics accuse Christians of taking things out of context...LOL

To be born in the 20th century, have some knowledge of the history of Christianity, and then decide that you, as an individual could rewrite the whole show and venture off on your own route to salvation strikes me as more than arrogant...but ABSOLUTELY DANGEROUS.

TC, I truly appreciate your civil tone tonight. The contention that some of the not-RCC Christians have with this paragraph of yours is that we believe a great part of the history of the Christian church is off-the-books, so to speak. Not meaning the Books of the Holy Bible, but largely unrecorded factually anywhere inside or outside the RCC libraries.

In other words, I believe the true Church, the sanctified Body of Christ, has appeared in history largely as the down-trodden and the castoffs...the undesirables of society...the ones frequently seen in history as victims.

And I believe the true Church of Jesus Christ is invisible to the world's eyes. Individual members such as I may reveal myself, opening myself to one's vision, but no matter; I and the rest of the Body are secure on the Rock that is Christ, in a cleft of that Rock, under His wings of protection.

I like this less-burdensome way of living better than these rigid and demanding RCC teachings and practices put forth on these FR threads for our consideration.

Cherry picking parts of sentences to make someone look bad isn’t looked upon favorably by the RM.

I *gave up* on Catholicism shortly after I got saved and my eyes were opened to the truth found in Scripture.

I’ve learned more than enough in the past few years on this board, to convince me that Catholicism does not have all the answers.

When it sticks to Scripture, it generally is likely to get something right.

Otherwise, its off the wall in a serious way.