What century invented THIS fella??
Posted on 10/03/2020 1:24:47 AM PDT by Cronos
Previously from Cronos homepage:
It is intellectually stimulating to discuss these things God has allowed us to know about, but I don’t believe He intends us to be at enmity with each other over things we may only be able to nibble at the corners of. If it helps us to further our knowledge and appreciation of God and ourselves within His plan, that’s good. If it draws us away to opposing corners in anger at brethren in Christ, it’s not so good.
It did?
Got evidence?
Yet she is so restrained; not using boiling oil or Iron Maidens to get others to recant.
What century invented THIS fella??
The same century that invented you :)
The iron Maiden (besides the band - which is awesome!) is exactly like your objections to Catholicism — namely your objections are based on pure fiction.
“The iron maiden is a torture device, consisting of an iron cabinet with a hinged front and spike-covered interior, sufficiently tall to enclose a human being. The first stories citing the iron maiden were composed in the 19th century.
...Despite its reputation as a medieval instrument of torture, there is no evidence of the existence of iron maidens before the early 19th century.”
So, just like your own objections to orthodoxy, the iron maiden is a work of pure fiction by 19th century authors
The Bible teaches that when Christ comes back, it will be Good News! “‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away’” (Revelation 21.4).
Net-net, bramps old boy - your own posts are putting enmity -- snide comments on other people's beliefs and making comments that you then turn around and say "why you saying that to me!" -- you don't notice the log in your own eye?
Nor do I post flame baiting threads.
Others throughout the centuries going back to Paul have said the same thing but I think that day is fast approaching-more than ever. Unless God intervenes and cause another Great Awakening, there are just too many signs (e.g. increase lawlessness, lying, sexual perversion, disobedient children, etc.). And the church/Church is faltering-embracing worldly cultures and distorting theological truths to appease a corrupt society. This isn't just happening in the US but throughout other countries. Evil is now running unchecked and rampant with judges no longer enforcing the law and when good people try to speak up, they are put down.
The Day of the Lord is drawing close. The world is going to face judgment. Whether He raptures us out or comes back to execute His judgment, it all works out the same.
But Christians can take heart. This is not our homeland. Christians should be concentrating their efforts on the harvest. It is almost at a end. At the end of the day, I go back to what John wrote;
“ There is no pre-Tribulation rapture.”
Cronos, thanks for sharing your opinion.
Unfortunately for you, you remain wrong.
Fortunately, regenerated believers - his living church on earth -.will be taken to glory for the marriage feast of the Lamb!
And to later return with Him in battle at His second coming.
Meanwhile on earth, the unregenerate - those who never exercised saving faith in Him alone - will go through terror, the majority dying in sin and facing eternity in hell.
I’m excited that I’m in the first group, through no merit of my own.
Stay alive and don’t take the Mark of the beast!
Or come to saving faith now.
Bramps - there is no enmity in pointing out...
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
There is the way you do it.
Proven by the fact that you deleted from your own homepage in order to not look like the hypocrite and instigator that you are.
Again, a long line of excerpts but no understanding and not in context 1 Jn. 5:13 "These things I write to you, that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God." -- did you ever read anything in completeness rather than extracts? Let's read the entire chapter as it holds
Mere bombast in lieu of an actual valid argument. I have indeed read not only that chapter but all of the Bible and 1 John, more than once.
1 Jn. 5:13 "These things I write to you, that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God." -- did you ever read anything in completeness rather than extracts? Let's read the entire chapter as it holds "Is born of God": That is, is justified, and become a child of God by baptism -- refuting your belief that this baptism is just symbolic
You are reading into 1 Jn. what it does not say and denying what it says and (again) arguing against something I did not say it said. The act itself of baptism does not effect regeneration, but the faith that it requires and expresses is that which purifies the heart. But since to obey means to believe, and vice versa, then salvation is promised to those who believe - as John constantly teaches (3:16; 5:24, etc.)- as well as to those who will do what faith effects. Thus the Holy Spirit is promised to those who repent and are baptized in Acts 2:38 while the same forgiveness is promised to those who believe in Act 10:43 and the same regeneration realized by those who did - BEFORE baptism. Acts 10:44-47)
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)
For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: - and this implies that we need to act, in the grace of God, not just mumble "Lord, Lord, I've been saved, I don't do nuffing after that"
Of course, as I said and ignored by you, "living effectual Abrahamic-type faith being counted for righteousness." In fact the "these things I write to you" in 5:13 refer to previous words which describe what salvific faith is, and like as "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith" (2 Corinthians 13:5) means one can know whether they are walking in saving faith, so based upon John's description of the same, one can know if they "presently possess eternal life" as I said.
5.4 "For whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world: and this is the victory which overcometh the world, our faith." -- Not a bare, speculative, or dead faith; but a faith that worketh by charity. Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity And [11] And this is the testimony, that God hath given to us eternal life. And this life is in his Son. [12] He that hath the Son, hath life. He that hath not the Son, hath not life. [13] These things I write to you, that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God. And then you have 16 If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly. -- Now how does this gel with the first part which says "you have eternal life" and then "pray to God and He will give Him life" and "there is such a thing as deadly sin"?
How? Very easily, and indeed if "you have eternal life" contradicts the fact that one can fall away - which is what your false dilemma argues - them you do have a contradiction. Instead, once again you display your ignoring of what I wrote, which again is that Scripture clearly teaches that one can known that they presently possess eternal life, (1 Jn. 5:13) being made "accepted in the Beloved" (Eph. 1:6) on Christ's account, living effectual Abrahamic-type faith being counted for righteousness, (Rm. 4:5) Which does not mean that one cannot fall away, and which is why Scripture clearly warns - as i have many times posted - believers as believers against having an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God, drawing back unto perdition, back into bondage, making Christ of no effect, to no profit, falling from grace, etc., (Hebrews 3:12; Hebrews 10:38,39; Galatians 5:1-5) thus forfeiting what faith appropriated.
It is very clear in the very first example you gave that Christ won for us our redemption that He freely gives to us by Grace. Justification is how we make that redemption our own. Salvation only occurs after we die and are judged. To differentiate between being saved and attain full salvation is to confuse salvation with redemption and justification.
Rather than your assertions, what is clear is that of your own lack of clarity as well as holding a false gospel. For Scripture clearly teaches that a true believer of effectual faith is presently justified ("ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God:" 1 Corinthians 6:11) and redeemed ("with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:" 1 Peter 1:19; cf. Colossians 1:14), and possesses eternal life, and is saved ("By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain:" 1 Corinthians 15:2).
So that if he died as such or if He returned in their lifetime then he/she would be forever with the Lord, though they were still undergoing growth in grace while on earth, as was Paul. (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) And that by obeying 2 Peter 1:1-10 one will never fall from grace.
But yes, the full realization of this redemption/salvation, in which believers taste "the powers of the world to come," (Hebrews 6:5) awaits next life and the return of the Lord, with the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught being that of being made like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) - and not at death as with Purgatory, which it is not - is the judgment seat of Christ. And which is not to determine who is saved or not, but is the judgment of the works of believers, with the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure!) due to the manner of material one built the church with. But which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)
After which is the battle Armageddon which believers take part in and later the final judgment in which believers shall be judges, (Luke 22:30; 1 Corinthians 6:2) and finally realize the New Jerusalem, glory to God. (Jude 1:14; Rv. 19,20)
Thus all your arguments are invalid.
Dude, you have to know better than this. Since when was the Catechism infallible? Moslems professing to hold the faith of Abraham "along with us adore the one and merciful God?" [spin/interpretation goes here]. And just how is Unam Sanctam by Pope Boniface VIII not to be considered infallible?
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself." — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302), emp. mine: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
and there is more:
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox “schismatics] and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?...Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned...” Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873) The Promotion of True Religious Unity), 11, Encyclical promulgated on January 6, 1928, #11; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html
And more:
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), [considered infallible by some] And since you seem to prefer catechism teaching:
Q. 554. Could a person who denies only one article of our faith be a Catholic?
Of-course, just what all the article of faith include and mean is subject to interpretation. But not submitting to the pope is one denial. A. A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all. ( http://baltimore-catechism.com/lesson12.htm)
Your chosen interpretation that this doctrine "does not mean that everyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned in case of inculpable ignorance" is an interpretation of V2 interpretation (subject to interpretation such as to the meaning and extent of the escape clause), and which multitudes of self-considered "true Catholics" disagree with. Here apparently is another one:
(https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-pastor-teaches-Pope-Francis-to-high-five-5584331.php)
It is not without cause that Catholic V2 dissenters write that,
Conservative Novus Ordo Catholics who object to the drastic changes call them "abuses" that result from the "misinterpretation" of Conciliar teachings. They point to many fine and orthodox statements in support of their contention. Those on the other hand who are on the forefront of the Revolution - the Liberal post-Conciliar Catholic - can justify almost anything they wish by recourse to the same documents. The much debated issue as to whether the Council is only an "excuse" or in fact the "source" of the "autodemolition" of the Church is entirely beside the point. Whatever the case may be, as the Abbe of Nantes has pointed out, "there is not a heresiarch today, not a single apostate who does not now appeal to the Council in carrying out his action in broad daylight with full impunity as recognized pastor and master" (CRC May 1980)....It is then the ambiguity of the Conciliar statements which allows for any interpretation one wishes. - Rama Coomaraswamy, M.D.; http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html
Secondly, It is also held by many historic Protestant churches. However, Protestants, Catholics and the Orthodox each have a unique ecclesiological understanding of what constitutes the Church.
This is crafty, for while you attempt to compare Cath Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (in which "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing") as uniquely being the one true church with what many historic Protestant churches hold to, the two are not comparable for the only way the latter hold to outside the church there is no salvation is in the sense that the Mystical Body of Christ and visible Church are not the same thing as regards a visible church uniquely being the one true church.
Your false church has sadly become as the gates of Hell for multitudes. In contrast, the body of Christ, (Colossians 1:18) is the one true church to which He is married, (Ephesians 5:25) the "household of faith," (Galatians 6:10) for it uniquely only and always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes ever believer into, (1Co. 12:13) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.
The degree that a church retains and preaches the convicting gospel of grace, of salvation by grave thru heart-purifying, justifying faith, then they are part of the church which the Lord promised would overcome the gates of Hell, that being
What? You think my list did include your vast multitudes of Democrat-voting liberals, or do you mean Teddy K Catholics whom Rome manifestly considers to be members in life and in death believe in all your the core fundamentals? And dismiss the conservative dissension against V2 and so much modern Cath teaching as not being contrary to the core fundamental of submission to the pope?
If you want to argue for sola ecclesia as an alternative to holding Scripture as being the wholly reliable, wholly God-inspired authoritative word of God then you need to allow yourself to be led like a docile flock to follow the Pastors (Vehementer Nos) as broadly so much papal teaching requires in encyclicals, bulls and public papal teaching and actions - which thus includes treating Teddy K Catholics as she does (thereby showing her interpretation of canon law), in contrast to the dissension in your ranks based as RCs presuming that they know better than the Vatican how Rc teaching is to be understood.
The fact remains that you must either require RC cultic submission to leadership (blind leading the blind) or face the fact that ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is not Scriptural, and is not how the church began. And that you cannot escape the problem of interpretation, from what magisterial level each belongs to and what required assent this entails, to the meanings of which. But that the limited unity of the NT church was under manifestly Scriptural men and teaching of God which church began in dissent from the historical magisterium. And that while evangelical churches fall short of the prima NT church, yet Rome, whose distinctive teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed is not even in the running.
Hence your entire argument falls flat on its face, Cronos.
"Woah? Whoa, you jut missed the point (again) which is that arguing again this big tent (which is based upon how Catholics class Protestantism) is invalid since no one here is defending that.
Then you give a link to a poll site about what people respond to polls -- I'm guess you also believe that Biden will defeat Trump because the polls say so?
A congregate of surveys on what people believe overall are accurate in showing what people profess, or are willing to, and are employed by Catholics as well (some even being commissioned by the same) while the results in last election revealed both media bias as well as indicating that those who respond to political polls may be more liberal.
Of course, when conservative Catholics see anything from evangelicals that impugns their church then they want to deny it, however not only are the sources for the surveys on my poll from numerous researchers, but they show an overall consensus. And Catholics themselves cite them as reliable. Thus by impugning the accuracy of these then you manifest more disagreement among Catholics, which actually testifies to the reliability of polls showing just that! And which is what my documentation of beliefs of Catholics vs. evangelicals was in regard to, the premise that Catholics are more unified than those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the wholly reliable, wholly God-inspired authoritative word of God.
The fact is that you, daniel, roundly disagree with the Lutherans on core doctrine:
I hope so, but so what? My comparison was btwn evangelicals and Catholics, and many or most Lutherans are liberal. Regardless, while the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod and much smaller the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod are overall conservative, yet I never inferred or claimed that most evangelicals professed unity on all doctrines, but that "Catholics overall testify to far less unified in polled core beliefs than those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God."
And the so-called Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is the largest Lutheran church body in the United States, and only 58% of 35,556 ELCA adherents polled professed that the Bible overall is the "word of God" while 32% actually denied that it is, while only about half pray daily, and just 42% profess they mostly look to religious teachings on questions of right and wrong, and and are not likely to subscribe to a doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, and allows for LGBTQ+ marriage and ordination of LGBTQ+ clergy, in contrast to the LCMS and WELS [minority], which practice the historical-grammatical method of biblical interpretation. And an older study found that 73% (highest) of Pentecostal/Foursquare believers strongly affirm that Christ was sinless on earth, with Catholics, Lutherans and Methodists being tied at 33%, and the lowest being among Episcopalians with just 28%. (http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/53)
The Lutherans strongly believe in the True presence of Christ in the Eucharist -- your beliefs deny that.
And which Lutheran concept your own church disagrees with, while surveys report that only around a third to abut half of Catholics profess agreement with their church that the Eucharist is the body, blood of Christ.
Thus you have not impugned my claim to greater unity among classic evangelicals, and actually lost yardage in arguing for greater unity in Romanism. And note that you cannot excommunicate liberals whom Rome manifestly considers to be members in life and in death. They are your brethren, and you must own them.
Lutherans teach baptism to be necessary —but not absolutely necessary—to salvation. you don't, right?
You must know that your own church does not believe that the act of baptism (ex opere operato) is absolutely necessary to salvation (baptism of desire - Baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus Sancti - associated with "perfect contrition" works ex opere operantis), while I believe that heart-purifying faith (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9) which effects obedience (by the Spirit) to the Lord is necessary for salvation, faith and obedience (given grace and opportunity) being inseparable, including repentance when convicted of failure in that. But not that the act itself of baptism effects regeneration.
But regardless, my argument was and is that of greater - not comprehensive - unity among evangelicals vs. Catholics.
The Lutherans have the sacrament of Penance in which one receives private absolution from the pastor. You reject that, don't you?
See here, but this red herring warrants that the same response as to your previous all-or-nothing ones. It remains that "Catholics overall testify to far less unified in polled core beliefs than those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God."
Next, let's compare you, Daniel, and your beliefs with the Oneness Pentecostals
Same applies, while I would vote for one of the latter versus one of your Catholic Ted Kennedy Catholics you would have us be brethren with. If you do not acknowledge them as such then you are not following your leadership.
These are differences in fundamentals, not just in externals or in non-core beliefs.
And again, this is not contrary to my statement, and Catholics whom Rome manifestly considers to be members also express differences in fundamentals, and thus again my statement remains valid while your attempt to counter it is spurious.
Repeating what you can only wish was accurate will not make it so. As shows, justification a present condition by living effectual Abrahamic-type faith being counted for righteousness, (Rm. 4:5) so that believers are washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God, (1 Corinthians 6:11), redeemed ("with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:" 1 Peter 1:19; cf. Colossians 1:14) and saved. 1 Corinthians 15:2) Yet the full realization of this redemption/salvation awaits the next life. In which the believers are first judged as regarss the manner of their workmanship in building the church.
Thus you are only contradicting Scripture if you define salvation as only meaning the next life.
Christ is the Head of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, Assyrian) right from 33 AD
Again, repeating what you can only wish was accurate will not make it so, and which here is more bombast. For as said and shown, distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
And the Church has asserted through Christ that we are saved. We are justified through our following His teaching to accept His redemption
Actually such are damned for teaching a false gospel.
For as 1 Peter God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. 21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God[g] for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, -- note - it's not a symbol. Note also Jude Keep yourselves in the love of God and wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. 22 On those who waver, have mercy;[l] 23 save others by snatching them out of the fire; on others have mercy with fear,[m] abhorring even the outer garment stained by the flesh. -- what do you see "snatching them out of fire" as?
What do you see "snatching them out of fire" as? Not Purgatory, and unlikely rescuing fallen believers, contextually this is about saving the lost in this life.
Thus once again you have no valid argument against what I said, thought you ignore key aspects of that and presume what I did not argue.
Actually once again it you who fails to show knowledge of the larger issue, for while Paul uses the Law here in contrast with faith, the Law represents all systems of justification based upon merit of them, ("for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law:" Galatians 3:21) and Paul broadly disallows "by works of righteousness which we have done" (Titus 3:5; cf. Eph. 2:8,9) as justifying one, nowhere does Paul teach that another class of works is salvific in this sense.
However, the "obedience of faith" does justify one as it did Abraham long after his faith was accounted for righteousness, in the sense that works justify one as being a believer, having a complete faith, as James 2 teaches, for faith without works is dead, yet it is the faith itself behind works that is imputed for righteousness. Yet since the two go together, as Luther himself taught, then they can sometimes be used interchangeably like as forgiveness and healing were in the account of the Lord healing the palsied man in Mark 2.
In contrast, teaching that a soul is actually justified by being made good enough to be with God via baptism and later in mythical Purgatory is not what Scripture teaches, but is a doctrine that is a result of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults) that Rome has "infallibly" asserted she possesses. And which must be the faithful RCs real basis for his faith that RC teachings are true, and not because of the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, which is what the NT church began with.
Nah, I was talking to boatie, but it hold to you too - What is your motive for talking on topics outside your faith system?
You mean it is not obvious? Esteem for the Scriptural Truth of God versus falsehood, and not some guile about ecumenism.
Both statements are categorically and provably wrong and you have been provided proofs many times. But you just believe whatever you want, you're entitled to your own opinions. I know why I believe what I do and I'm not afraid to defend it. What I won't do is ridicule or mock others who disagree with me on it. Nor will I condemn them as un-Christian or hell-bound like some have towards those of us who believe in the Rapture/catching-up of the church prior to the Tribulation and then the Millennial (1000 years) reign of Christ upon the earth.
If I am commenting on the rapture threads or against your flawed beliefs it is because we are commanded to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints.
Except that's not what you were doing with THIS thread, were you? You posted an article from a link by someone named "James" who stated:
Just like James, you disbelieve in the Rapture and used the writings of someone who thought he could set the date for the Rapture and was wrong 32 years ago to mock the whole doctrine and those who believe in it. I think you posted this as a reaction to several threads here about the subject and the comments of others with whom you often criticize and disrespectfully mock. You have established your own reputation for that, you know. You hold grudges.
That curiously seems to bother you that I point out the numerous flaws in your belief system - why is that?
Nope, it doesn't bother me at all - if that's really your motive - but that's not what you do. As I pointed out, you intentionally provoke and then mock when others voice their disagreement. I think you have missed the benefit of us having OPEN Religion Forum threads here. I don't see much edifying not to mention "intellectually stimulating" dialogue from you.
Changes things, doesn't it?
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.