“Yep, sure have! Several of ‘em on a pretty regular basis but I don’t expect you to notice.”
Well, here’s the problem: 1) I have no immediate reason to believe you, 2) I rarely post to my fellow Catholics within a thread and rarely get involved in their conversations for any length of time so I don’t read their posts within a thread since I’m spending my time reading posts written to me, 3) I know of no example of a Catholic outright lying about such a thing - but I have caught anti-Catholics lying about it on more than one occasion, 4) go ahead and call them on it. I don’t care if you do. If a Catholic is wrong, he is wrong. I have corrected Catholics when I saw something they posted to be wrong, but that is usually something I stumbled across. It’s rarely posted to me. Zionist Conspirator gets angry at me for not going after every Catholic theological-evolutionist here. I never know what he is talking about because I didn’t see the threads he is wringing his hands over! I read a lot (just in the last month I purchased 11 books - and I’m trying to cut back in 2015 - and two of those are study Bibles that are going to take me a while to get through). So, no, I don’t read every post by everyone at FR. I have no time for it.
“It seems only the opposition ever appears on your radar.”
Since I am posting to them and them to me, that would make sense would it not?
“I read it. If that’s all you got, you only further your reputation as a nitpicking, grammar-nazi wannabe who says everyone is wrong but himself.”
No. That’s all I saved. I wished I saved more. You’ve done this before - even if you don’t remember it. It’s not about “nitpicking” or “grammar”. If a man who attacks the Catholic faith repeatedly, essentially claiming his invented sect must be better because Protestantism’s interpretation of the Bible is better and purer, shows himself to be dishonest even after GETTING CAUGHT - and only the Protestant anti-Catholics are doing this here - that says a lot about not only them, but their sect and Protestantism.
When I first started getting involved in things online I assumed that anti-Catholics were anti-Catholic out of ignorance. And yes that was sometimes true. But there are also some anti-Catholics who are just plain dishonest. I have yet to come across Catholics doing online apologetics who are dishonest. They might exist, but I certainly have not run into them here at FR. Only the anti-Catholics seem to have this problem with honesty. Why is that?
Well, here's the thing: I don't care if you believe me or not. You were the one who challenged me with: "I’ve never seen them do it without attribution. Have you?". Is it illogical to then think you might be reading other Catholics' comments to have said this or was it just another careless, haphazard brush off to avoid acknowledging the facts?
No. That’s all I saved. I wished I saved more. You’ve done this before - even if you don’t remember it. It’s not about “nitpicking” or “grammar”. If a man who attacks the Catholic faith repeatedly, essentially claiming his invented sect must be better because Protestantism’s interpretation of the Bible is better and purer, shows himself to be dishonest even after GETTING CAUGHT - and only the Protestant anti-Catholics are doing this here - that says a lot about not only them, but their sect and Protestantism.
A wise person would realize that a few badly behaved people don't represent an entire group. Look how easily Catholics brush off the sordid history of their many depraved Popes - and these are guys y'all insist are vicars of Christ, His representatives on earth. I don't judge all of Roman Catholicism by the few Catholic anti-Protestant bigots that show up regularly on these kinds of threads. I see them as demonstrating their OWN dishonest and corrupt hearts. I don't believe ALL of Catholicism is wrong - there are many areas where I find complete agreement.
I have yet to come across Catholics doing online apologetics who are dishonest. They might exist, but I certainly have not run into them here at FR. Only the anti-Catholics seem to have this problem with honesty. Why is that?
Again, I see them posted frequently here - sometimes the SAME articles get re-posted even after they have been thoroughly debunked which is ignored by the re-poster as if they had never heard or read differently. How often do Catholic anti-Protestants trot out the "Luther card" here and say stuff like "Luther removed books from the Bible" when solid evidence is shown that no such thing happened? How many times is Luther trotted out as if he were the Pope and founder of the Reformation and Protestantism in order to smear ALL non-Catholic Christians even after that lie is disproved over and over? For someone who claims to be the champion of honest FR apologetic discourse, I don't think I have ever seen you stand up to your peers when such dishonesty goes on. Why is that?
And if you had seen the thread(s) in question, would it have made any difference? I think not. Just admit it, vlad, the integrity of Genesis 1-11 (and other portions of the Hebrew Bible) is simply of very small importance to Catholics. The "important" dogmas are all elsewhere. Even the few Catholics who still uphold Biblical inerrancy don't consider it an essential dogma. Even the most right wing traditionalists don't have it on their radar screen of concerns. It simply doesn't matter to Catholics--not even the ones who dissent on the topic. "Thus saith the L-rd" means very little when one holds a synergistic G-d/man origin of the Bible. After all . . . those silly primitive men who were constantly saying that didn't understand how loving and liberal G-d really is (as we do today).
I read a lot (just in the last month I purchased 11 books - and I’m trying to cut back in 2015 - and two of those are study Bibles that are going to take me a while to get through).
And every single one of them is higher critical . . . right?
If a man who attacks the Catholic faith repeatedly, essentially claiming his invented sect must be better because Protestantism’s interpretation of the Bible is better and purer, shows himself to be dishonest even after GETTING CAUGHT - and only the Protestant anti-Catholics are doing this here - that says a lot about not only them, but their sect and Protestantism.
When I first started getting involved in things online I assumed that anti-Catholics were anti-Catholic out of ignorance. And yes that was sometimes true. But there are also some anti-Catholics who are just plain dishonest. I have yet to come across Catholics doing online apologetics who are dishonest. They might exist, but I certainly have not run into them here at FR. Only the anti-Catholics seem to have this problem with honesty. Why is that?
What is dishonest is the bizarre claim that "J*sus died for our sins" when it's all up to us. I'm no longer a Protestant and believe that Protestantism is also wrong, but they at least have a certain internal consistency. G-d (in the Bible) established a liturgical, statutory religion in order to show that no one can perfectly observe a liturgical, statutory religion. This was to prepare man for a purely passive salvation via an antinomian "loophole" (the vicarious eternal damnation of a divine scapegoat). Now this is ridiculous for many reasons (one of which is that no one person is even capable of observing "all the commandments" whey many of them apply to only certain classes of people), but there is a certain logic to it.
Catholicism/Orthodoxy on the other hand claim that G-d established the liturgical/statutory religion of the Bible to prepare mankind for a superior liturgical/statutory post-Biblical religion. This is even more ridiculous than the claims of Protestantism. G-d prepared mankind for the post-Biblical chrstian religion by giving the Torah to the Jews, who in order to be true to that Torah must of necessity reject chrstianity and all its claims? In other words, the people given the "lesson" didn't learn it, and the people who "learned" it never had the lesson! Is that anyway to "teach" anyone?
And J*sus wasn't vicariously eternally damned in anyone's place. Rather his death "re-opened the door" that Adam (who allegedly never actually existed) had "closed." What in the sam hill does that even mean? Catholics/Orthodox can thank J*sus for what . . . "making salvation possible" and then putting all the burden on them? Forcing them to spend a lifetime treading a tightrope over the flaming pits of hell to get through the door that J*sus has so generously "opened?" That being the case . . . just shut the door! Things were better off before it was "re-opened!"
As a Protestant I always wondered if J*sus was our "redeemer" why anyone would feel it necessary to perform any human action to "access" the "graces." We've had a Catholic on this thread asking Judaeo-Protestants if they believe J*sus died at all, and if so why are they observing Biblical commandments. Well right back at you, buddy! If you believe J*sus died why must you get baptized, engage in sacraments, attend mass, observe "holy days," do anything???? And yes, I know that Catholics/Orthodox often invoke the Biblical ceremonials to justify their own. But if the Biblical ceremonials were abolished, how much the more so any post-Biblical ceremonials!
Unfortunately, boatbums, these are not arguments for Protestantism . . . an unhistorical late comer with absolutely no roots in the chrstian past. This hypocritical "J*sus ultimately died to end your religion and start ours" understanding is the orthodox (small "o") historical one. It is held not only by the Roman Catholic Church but by every single one of the ancient churches still in existence--many of which were never under the Constantine who allegedly "introduced" all these "perversions." The Coptic, Greek, Syrian, Maronite, Armenian, Assyrian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Indian churches (the latter alleged founded by Thomas the apostle and with no contact with Latin or Byzantine chrstianity until the end of the sixteenth century) had this exact same ceremonial, calendar, sacraments, and theology. Protestantism is completely in vain. Historical chrstianity is illogical.
The one thing that everyone agrees on is that Judaism was the One True Religion--once--but that it has since been replaced. But what has replaced it? People have been arguing for two millenia and it's still not resolved!
I don't know about any Protestant "dishonesty." I know of the fact that Protestants are trapped trying to "restore" a "pure" religion that never existed in the first place. And all because historical non-Protestant chrstianity was dishonest enough to make the claim that "J*sus died for our sins."