“No, I have not. I have stated my opinions.”
False.
This is what you wrote: “But you are justifying rather than condemning burning people at the stake for disagreeing with your theology.”
If I say, “You, unlearner, justify child molestation rather than condemning child rape” is that TRUE or FALSE?
I’m sure you’ll say it’s false. (And I agree with you.) And if you demanded I substantiate that accusation, I would fail terribly - just as you did - because it is patently false and there’s no logical way anyone could not know it is false simply by looking at your posts.
Here’s something else that is false and completely obvious just looking at my posts: “But you are justifying rather than condemning burning people at the stake for disagreeing with your theology.”
I asked you to: SHOW. ME. WHERE.
And you failed to do so - of course! It’s patently false and cannot be written off as an opinion. It’s a falsehood. It’s bearing false witness.
Also, posting obvious and in-vain attempts at deflection simply won’t work. Your feelings don’t matter. Tyndale was executed for heresy. That’s a fact.
And before you whine about my not having answered your irrelevant and entirely deflective questions let me remind you about Tyndale’s psychopannychism. Be honest: Did you even know he held that heretical belief? You don’t have to answer that (and it’s pretty obvious you won’t). There’s a good chance even your sect would consider it a heresy. If so, that means even your sect knows Tyndale was a heretic.
Inescapable.
You’re repeating yourself. Even though there is nothing you’ve asked or stated that I have not addressed, you seem to be pretending that you did not hear the many questions I asked.
“If I say, ‘You, unlearner, justify child molestation rather than condemning child rape’ is that TRUE or FALSE?”
It’s false, as you already pointed out. But if someone were to say that Muhammed is despised for having consensual sex with his 9-year-old wife, then it might be reasonable to make such an accusation.
And that’s what you’ve done. Except when confronted your response is simply to claim you’re being falsely accused, and you make a non-denial denial.
What would you think of someone who made such a statement? What would you think if you asked that person if he would condemn Muhammed for this action and he refused? What would you say if he told you Muhammed was legally married, and that it was a historical fact? What would you say if he argued that the sex was legally consensual? And how would you respond if that person simply kept repeating that you were bearing false witness about his beliefs?
You refuse to denounce Tyndale’s execution as murder. You refuse to critique the actions of the representatives of the Church. Why is that? What do you have to hide?
You also hide behind your claim that “Tyndale being executed for heresy” is simply a historical fact. But you refuse to answer whether the same is true of Joan of Arc. Why is that? What do you have to hide?
You keep saying that I did not show where you made the statements which I based my opinion on. Yet I have repeatedly.
“posting obvious and in-vain attempts at deflection simply won’t work.”
I’ve answered everything specifically and explicitly.
You, on the other hand, have refused to answer my questions. All of your screaming and name calling can not obscure this simple truth.
“Tyndale was executed for heresy. That’s a fact.”
Tyndale was murdered for translating the Bible. And you will not say that Joan of Arc was executed for heresy, probably because you don’t believe she was a heretic, and you don’t consider her death to merely be execution. Looks like a lot of hypocrisy and deception.
I’ve given you many, many chances to PROVE me wrong. I’ve said clearly how you can prove my opinions to be wrong. I’ve explained what you can say which, if what you claim to be true actually is true, you should have no problem saying. But you won’t do it.
You are right that I can not PROVE that you hold the views I think you do. I am only inferring them from what you’ve posted. So, unless you disprove what I suspect to be your positions, then I will continue to think this about your views. As I said, you can easily clear this up, but you’ve repeatedly refused to do so. Why is that? What do you have to hide?
If a guy approached you at a gas station while he was dressed in what you perceived to be gangster clothing, he looked rough, and appeared to have a gun under his shirt, would you be wrong to suspect he had a gun? Would you be wrong for taking some defensive action to be sure you were prepared if he did create a threat? If someone described this person as being armed, would you call that being a “false witness?” Do you think any judge would treat such an honest opinion as perjury in a criminal trial? What if evidence later supported that the man was unarmed?
“Let me remind you about Tyndale’s psychopannychism. Be honest: Did you even know he held that heretical belief? You don’t have to answer that (and it’s pretty obvious you won’t).”
Tyndale was such a man of devout faith that if he believed in some form of soul sleep, I would take a serious look at his arguments to see if they were persuasive. I don’t agree with that view.
You build your Catholic religion over such issues which have little to do with practical obedience to the commands of Christ or the apostles.
You claim a consistent tradition back to the apostles, but most Catholics have zero familiarity with Church doctrine on this or any number of issues. Most can not tell you the basic tenets of the Gospel or how salvation is received.
It’s like the issue of whether Christ had power to forgive sins. His ability to supernaturally heal was a confirmation that His claims about forgiveness were true. Anyone can CLAIM to forgive sins. But whether they are actually forgiven is subjective and a matter of faith. The proof will happen when we stand before God and He declares out eternal fate.
These matters have been endlessly debated. We’re not going to reach any consensus on them.
You feign worry over a Protestant having an erroneous view of some minuscule religious matter, but you ignore the reality that the majority of Catholics, who attend services regularly, remain ignorant of what their Church teaches, do not care to learn, and willfully reject anything they don’t like. You give these people false comfort that they are part of the Church, even though they have never believed or even understood the basic Gospel message.
Yet your words treat men like Tyndale, who is the single man most responsible for the Bible being translated into English, as a terrible criminal. Tyndale had more influence over the language we are now communicating in than did William Shakespeare. His translating did not lead men into false beliefs. It resulted in the masses being able to see the lies and abuse of power within the Church.
God commended the Bereans for being people who, when hearing the Gospel message of Paul, searched the scriptures to see if what Paul said was true and right. Yet the clergy of the Catholic Church demands NOT to search the scriptures for ourselves to verify their claims. Some representatives of the Catholic Church tried to prevent the translation of the scriptures into the common language of the people. The clergy of the Catholic Church claims authority above the scriptures and demands unquestioning allegiance to whatever they say whether it contradicts the scriptures or not.
Acts 17:11
These [Bereans] were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word [i.e. message of Paul and Silas] with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
Such Catholic doctrine is worse than “heresy.” It’s apostasy. It’s reprobation. It’s an abomination. It is an anti-Christ spirit. It is the leaven of the false religious system that leads men to hell, of which Jesus warned His disciples to beware.
Matthew 16:6, 12
Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees...” Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Luke 12:1a-4
Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops. And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
John 16:2
They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service.
Again, I missed the scriptures and early church writings where the doctrine and tradition of the Church was to have men killed for disagreeing with Church doctrine and tradition.
I did however see where it is what commonly happened to the apostles and other men and women of God who followed their example. The pattern with Tyndale seems to match more with true seekers of God from Able all the way to John the apostle. Proponents of false religion always seem to want to kill those who truly seek God and have a relationship with Him.
It is the kind of leaven filled doctrine that allows some religious men to have others arrested and executed for disagreeing with their views, and justifying these deeds as serving God. The fact that you refuse to denounce such actions from the past speaks volumes about your present state, doctrine, and beliefs.