Replies

Yep, and apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. Look at the name of the author of the article. He’s Protestant. Also, I, way back early in the thread, posted a link to the book by Philip Jenkins. He’s Protestant. Get it now?

Not quite. You didn't reference those folks in your statement. Two people who are Protestants do NOT make "some" -- they make "two."

Apparently I don't have a comprehension problem as much as there is a severe lack of precision in descriptions given.... or maybe it's just....

hyperbole.

You were wrong. I was right all along. That won’t change.

THAT is comedy gold. Seriously. That was laugh out loud funny. Thanks.

Hoss

"Not quite." Yes, quite. "You didn't reference those folks in your statement." I didn't have to. "Two people who are Protestants do NOT make "some" -- they make "two."" (sigh) Once again we see how poorly served so many have been by the education system of this country. Check a Merriam Webster dictionary: "some" - "2a : being one, a part, or an unspecified number of something (as a class or group) named or implied b : being of an unspecified amount or number 4: being at least one —used to indicate that a logical proposition is asserted only of a subclass or certain members of the class denoted by the term which it modifies." I said "some" Protestants. Two shows there are "some". These are just two who published an article or book. They are not alone in the Protestant world. They just happen to be authors of an article or book. You were wrong. I was right all along. That won’t change.

“Not quite.”

Yes, quite.

“You didn’t reference those folks in your statement.”

I didn’t have to.

“Two people who are Protestants do NOT make “some” — they make “two.””

(sigh) Once again we see how poorly served so many have been by the education system of this country.

Check a Merriam Webster dictionary:

“some” - “2a : being one, a part, or an unspecified number of something (as a class or group) named or implied

b : being of an unspecified amount or number

4: being at least one —used to indicate that a logical proposition is asserted only of a subclass or certain members of the class denoted by the term which it modifies.”

I said “some” Protestants. Two shows there are “some”. These are just two who published an article or book. They are not alone in the Protestant world. They just happen to be authors of an article or book.

You were wrong. I was right all along. That won’t change.

I am getting a kick out of this thread and all the rabbit trails that are being followed.

The title of this article is a lie: Hating Catholics–America’s ONLY Accepted Prejudice

Of course, if you follow the false logic of many Catholic posters here, every Christian is a Catholic.

If you were baptized, even if it is not a Biblical baptism like sprinkling.

If you were baptized in a church other than a Catholic church, it doesn't matter you were baptized a Catholic.

If you were earlier in life a Catholic and later decide to become a Christian, you are still a Catholic. Branded for life by baptism "into" the Catholic church.

If you desire to go to heaven, you have to "come back" (even if you have never been a Catholic) to the Catholic church to enter heaven.

Popes have said that you have to be a Catholic to be saved, so it stands to "reason" if you have salvation you must be a Catholic.

Catholicism has made it clear that Christians must be under the authority of their pope.

So using all of this false logic it can be believed by those who are members of the denomination of Catholicism that the title is not a lie.

Whether or not OTC's agree with the false premise propagated by the title is just a diversion away from the Gospel message of Christianity.