Free Republic

And note how the sophist resorts to psychological tactics, inferring I am making up the reality of slow, stiff arthritic typo-fingers and the lack of time and energy it would take me to once again refute his parroted polemics, and or that the propagandist from Poland(?) is worth the time exposing his errors once again.

This goading brings to mind the tactics of another:

And I sent messengers unto them, saying, I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down: why should the work cease, whilst I leave it, and come down to you? Yet they sent unto me four times after this sort; and I answered them after the same manner. (Nehemiah 6:3-4)

But, sometimes his insolence provokes me to spend some time and energy on him.

In doing so tonite, and adding to where I had left this morning, I see than in my haste I neglected to provide links to my answer to his previous attempt to cite sarx and trōgō John 6:54–58) as denote literal consumption of physical flesh. He asserted that "The Greek sarx (physical flesh) and trōgō (chew, John 6:54–58) denote literal consumption, not metaphor," and my response to it was cut short when I noticed the time. However, once again, this was another repeat of his (4 years ago) which had been exposed, as a I posted:

Sarx is used about 15 times in the NT, including in the negative sense in "the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" and as referring to the fallen sinful nature in Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. (Romans 8:12-13)

' Next, Four years ago he asserted:

"Trogon (τρώγω), unlike phago, has one very, specific, literal meaning: to gnaw, crunch or chew. It is a univocal term with a single meaning. "

To which I replied:

Actually the word "trogon" is used for simply eating bread, even by Judas, and by common eating even by lost souls in Noah's day!

I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth [trōgō] bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.(John 13:18)

For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, (Matthew 24:38) Not only that, but since this is used in John 6:57, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth G5176 me, even he shall live by me," then as also said in my reply,

just how did Christ "live by the Father"? The answer is that the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Thus for the Lord Jesus who lived by every word of God and said were are to, (Mt. 4:4) the doing of His will was "meat."

And of course he thinks the shock and departure of carnally minded (John 6:60, 66) Jews who took the Lord's words literally, meant that this what the Lord meant, which manifests neglect of content and or ignorance of the gospel of John. In which the Lord so frequently spoke enigmatically, as His intent was to separate true seekers from the superficial, the earthly minded from the eternal and spiritual, and thus judging the former by their response and rewarding the latter.

That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. (John 12:38-41)

Thus we see many examples of the Lord speaking in an apparently physical ways in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning, which, as elsewhere, the Lord revealed to true seekers while letting the carnally minded to their own delusions .

See a post here by me on that

Likewise the compelled cult member manifest neglect of context in 1 Co 10 and 11, in which the body of Christ is itself "one loaf," (1 Corinthians 10:17) with the Lords table being the communion (koinōnia) of that body of Christ. (1Co. 10:16)

And likewise, to eat and drink in pagan dedicatory feasts would be to "have fellowship [koinōnia] with devils," (1 Corinthians 10:20,21) which did not mean by literally consuming the incarnated flesh of such.

And in 1 Co. 11 the body of Christ is still the issue, and in which the Lord's supper proclaims that Lord's death by a communal meal with those who were bought by His sinless shed blood, being in union with their Lord and each other, thus treating each other as such, thereby effectually "remembering" (cf. 1 Co. 15:2) the Lord's death which made them one with each other.

However, their sin was that of rank hypocrisy, treating some members as lepers while they feasted, meaning that they were not discerning the Lord's body which the death of Christ purchased. (Acts 20:28)

Thus the apostle stated that they did not come together to eat the Lord's supper, and thus the solution was to was to examine themselves first, and not come hungry.

Thus the profanation of the Lord was the effectual failure to discern the Lord's body of blood bought souls, the church, as being just that. Which is why Paul warns of physical consequences (sickness, death) for it.

That is context.

Besides, consistent with selective blindness, the cult member even asserts that my page ignores John 6:53: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” Yet as a simple word search would show, that is indeed not ignored, but as stated (more copy and paste),

John 6 creates a larger problem as first, Jn. 6:53 is an absolute “verily verily” imperative, that one must consume the body and blood of Christ in order to obtain spiritual life.

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:53-54)

And which, if literal, excludes all those who reject the literalistic interpretation as unScriptural from obtaining spiritual and eternal life (contrary to Lumen Gentium) Also if literal, then we must see the Lord's Supper being preached in Acts and other places in the life of the church as the means of regeneration, that of obtaining spiritual life. But instead it is by believing the gospels that souls are saved, (Acts 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and nourished (1Tim. 4:6) and built up (Acts 20:32) by the hearing of it. Thus the preaching of the word, which is called "milk" (1Cor. 3:2; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat" (Heb. 5:12,14) to feed the flock (Acts 20:28) is the primary active function of pastors. (2Tim. 4:2)

And which literal understanding is one which the apostles and NT church manifestly did not get, nor the rest of Scripture. For nowhere did the apostles preach the Lord's Supper as the, or a means to obtain spiritual life, as instead they preached that this is obtained by believing the gospel of grace.

Peter preached “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43) resulting in the Gentiles believing and being born again.

Referring to this, Peter stated, 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)

And after which souls live by Christ by obeying His words. For His words are spirit, and are life. (Jn. 6:63)

And nowhere else in Scripture was literally eating anything physically the means of obtaining spiritual and eternal life. Therefore in addition to a novel miracle explained by a novel theory, we have a novel yet essential means of obtaining spiritual life, and which to be consistent) excludes all those who cannot believe this unScriptural teaching.

However, rather than souls in Jn 6 rightly understanding the Lord's words as literal but rejecting them, instead they represent another example of carnally minded souls who are presented in John (especially) who do not seek the meaning of the Lord's enigmatic words. For we see many examples of the Lord speaking in an apparently physical way in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning, which, as elsewhere, the Lord revealed to true seekers.

As with other words, the RC also tries to add sōma (Luke 22:19) as also denoting physical reality, even though soma it can refer to a body reckoned to be dead, (Rm. 8:10; cf. Rm. 6:11) or a spiritual body, (1Co. 15:44) as well as heavenly bodies (1 Co. 15:40) and the corporate body, the church, (1 Co. 12:15; Col. 1:18) Which parroted propaganda did not tell him of.

Then he proceeds to allege that my view nullifies the NT’s sacrificial language (Hebrews 10:10), rendering the Eucharist a hollow ritual, which is absurd, as I as I clearly stated. "Because they were presuming to show the Lord's death for the body while acting contrary to it, therefore they were eating this bread and drinking the cup of the Lord unworthily, hypocritically, and were chastised for it, some unto death." "The Corinthian's sin of " not discerning the Lord's body" was their manifest failure to do just that - recognize each other as part of the the body for whom Christ died, and show that love to each other. The result was severe chastisement - even unto death. Such examination of self and repentance is needed today, as a great transformation in this area is needed." (1Co. 11:27-32)

He next presents another argument one can only imagine is a refutation, stating, His page assert that only the apostles spoke with divine inspiration, unlike popes and councils, and that Scripture is the sole “assured infallible word.” Yet 2 Thessalonians 2:15 commands, “Hold fast to the traditions… whether by word of mouth or by letter,” placing oral tradition on par with written Scripture

What kind of refutation is this? It actually affirms what I said, though he excludes my broader scope, that "men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God, and thus indeed, this "oral tradition" was on par with written Scripture, since both were wholly inspired of God.

Therefore, rather than supporting Catholic oral tradition (which EOs somewhat differ on), it differentiates btwn wholly inspired words and those that are not, with the latter being the words of popes councills presuming to define what the word of god is. Yet the myopic hunter goes on to selectively invoke uninspired writings as if they were definitive of the NT church.

Of course, he also minimizes RC scholarship itself that attests to the canon not be settled until after the death of Luther, and again illogically reasons that the NT church must have had a settled canon in Acts 2:42 (If the canon wasn’t settled until Trent, how did the early Church function?) though none of the NT was penned yet, what they did have was the OT, evidences to be the Palestinian canon, which did not require Rome to discern it!

That is it, after hours of putting this together, now close to midnight, and as can seen, the sophists attempts to define his ecclesiastical, object of faith are actually an argument against being part of this org.

No replies to his attempts are actually needful, though I supplied this rare lengthy one for you and others, and as per Proverbs 26:5, but perhaps I will post links to previous posts where his parroted polemics were already dealt with, by the grace of God.To Him be the glory.

My copy and paste:

God could have, God could have,

1. made us (and angels) with no moral standard or sense or deprived us from the moral ability to respond to or choose good [morally insensible, even as with clouds].

2. granted us free moral agency, but never have given us anything to choose between [negation of moral choices, and no devil or God].

3. left man only with recourse to finite competing sources as his ultimate object of spiritual affection and allegiance and source of security, and supreme judge of what is good [atheism and atheistic governments].

4. called man to make the Creator their ultimate object of spiritual affection and allegiance and source of security as being what is right and what is best for man, versus finite created beings or things being one's "god," and provided moral revelation and influences. Yet always have moved us to do good, and never have allowed us to choose evil (even if as by making believing in God and choosing good so utterly compelling — like God appearing daily and always doing miracles on demand, and preventing any seeming evidence to the contrary - so that no man could attempt to make excuses for not believing in Him [effective negation of any freedom to choose]).

5. allowed created beings a negative alternative to faithfulness to the creator, and the ability to choose evil, but immediately reversed any effects and not penalized such [negation of consequences to choices].

6. allowed us to do bad, but restricted us to a place where it would harm no one but ourselves [isolated consequences to choices].

7. allowed us to choose between good and evil, and to affect others by it, but not ultimately reward or punish us accordingly [negation of judicial and eternal consequences, positive or negative].

8. given us the ability to choose, and alternatives to chose between, and to face and overcome evil or be overcome by it, with the ability to effect others and things by our choices, and to exercise some reward or punishment in this life for morality, and ultimately reward or punishment all accordingly [pure justice].

9. restrained evil to some degree, while making the evil that man does to work out for what is Good, with justice yet with mercy, and grace, towards those who want good, and who thus the One who is supremely Good.

10. in accordance with 8, the Creator could have chose to manifest Himself in the flesh, and by Him to provide man a means of escaping the ultimate retribution of Divine justice, and instead receive unmerited eternal favor, at God's own expense and credit, appropriated by a repentant obedient faith, in addition to the loss or gaining of certain rewards based on one's quality of work as a child of God. And eternally punish, to varying degrees relative to iniquity and accountability, those whose response to God's revelation manifested they want evil, [justice maintained while mercy and grace given].

If America wants to expand and build an empire by occupying foreign lands and stealing their resources, then we need boots on the ground and a lot of power projection.

That era is over for the West. just beginning for China.

We know we aren’t going to be invaded. Our citizens have too many guns.

Sincerely, how do you think China will be stopped from controlling trade in the S. China sea, and Taiwan, then bullying the Philippines, etc? and threatening the Aussies?

And deterring Russia, Iran, N. Korea and China from being a combined threat? Rod's from God? Of course, the real issue is that of most of the West also being at war with God.

Diana here: "...with all the resources God has provided you, and the dwelling space He has trusted you with..." I SO needed this reminder, today! Hope you all enjoyed it, too.

Amen

Indeed he has not, my argument are not refuted by assertions and wishful arguments relying on myopic exegesis, invalid claims, strained and perverse reasonings as well as blatant false claims and or denials, and uninspired writings of so-called "church fathers." Such is indeed akin to cultists, driven not by seeking to follow the Truth of wholly inspired writings but devotion to an org which is an object of faith. Briefly, since you expressed interest, and at about 5:45 am till i must leave today, I will take some time to respond to the arguments made, beginning with my page on the Eucharist, showing it as a symbolic memorial, and which goes beyond merely "citing figurative language in Scripture."

Nor does the claim of "early Christians unanimously affirmed the Real Presence" - which means one can only wish NT Christians were Catholic, and that we have all the writings of ancients - mean they held to transubstantiation, while it remains that the only definitive source of what the NT church is inspirited Scripture.

Which transubstantiation refers to the technical doctrine of transubstantiation that - as I expressed therein - was developed in an attempt to justify the Eucharistic Catholic christ, due to the inability of them to confect what a literal understanding of "this is my body" would mean. Which would not be that of inanimate objects whose appearance did not conform to what He physically was, but the manifestly physical body of Christ. Which Scripture emphasizes, as shown in my page and posts which Catholics ignore while they blithely post the same propaganda, versus a body whose appearance did not conform to what He physically was.

Next, while compelled Catholic cultists want to argue that This is [Greek estin] my body” in place as Luke 22:19 denotes a present tense literal real body, thus an actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally, it ignores that the same word refers to John the baptist being Elijah "this is G2076 Elias, which was for to come" (Mt. 11:14) though not literally being him, as his "real" body.

Meanwhile. though Catholics argue that the Greek sarx (physical flesh) and trōgō (chew, John 6:54–58) denote literal consumption, as the subject was told before, The Greek sarx (physical flesh) and trōgō (chew, John 6:54–58) denote literal consumption. Meanwhile, RCs are not to chew the wafer god.

"If the canon wasn’t settled until Trent, how did the early Church function (Acts 2:42)? [it was I who contended the wholly inspired writings were discerned without help from Rome, resulting in an an authoritative body of writings called Scripture (Lk. 24:27, 44,45; Acts 17:3; 18:28 etc.) while mean such as the apostles could speak and write as wholly inspired of God - which Rome does not claim to do in definitive teachings, while RC scholars themselves admit that the NT was not settled till later, not Act 2]

Sorrt, i must go now, being 7AM

LOL thanks. Think it will get tenure?

Yes, if more followed, which it could mass-produce. Imagine debating such!

I next asked https://www.perplexity.ai: Could you next create one using most all these words but which is critical of it? [Response has some good and insightful statements, but concludes with a "can't we all get along" compromising ethos.]

Certainly! Here is a statement of purpose under 700 words, using most of your terms, written from a critical perspective:

As someone engaged in dialogue with contemporary social justice discourses, I approach the language of subverting norms, confronting systems of oppression, and deploying critical theory with cautious skepticism. Postmodernist frameworks, the progressive stack, and the concept of safe spaces have shifted the Overton Window, yet these heuristic devices often function as taxonomizing apparatuses—categorizing individuals into ever-finer segments that risk triggering microaggressions of identity invalidation, othering, and division rather than genuine liberation.

While intersectional epistemologies and the centering of subjugated knowledges profess to unlock liberatory potential against normativity and the alleged environmental or societal violence of privilege and cisgender heteronormative patriarchy, their practical effect is frequently the reinforcement of new systems of control. Terms such as “chest feeding,” “birthing person,” “deadnaming,” and efforts to radically police language within safe spaces and dialogue are often presented as antidotes to harm. Yet they may instead generate barriers to participation and foster an atmosphere where dialoguing devolves into taxonomic scrutiny rather than mutual respect—particularly for stakeholders who feel constantly subject to ideological litmus tests and accusations of body shaming or micro-assault.

Rather than promoting small “d” democracy, many advocates of these frameworks risk perpetuating new systems of exclusion—employing the progressive stack to determine worthiness, centering groups but inadvertently othering persons who immigrated or those not fluent in the favored lexicon of oppression. Indeed, the ritual invocation of environmental violence, food insecurity, housing insecurity, or privilege can sometimes constitute a form of discursive violence, displacing nuanced lived realities in favor of performative radical transparency.

The language of “holding space” and “safe space” is purported to create environments of radical openness, yet often seems to amplify trigger warnings and elevate microaggressions to existential threats, undermining frank debate and intellectual risk-taking. The constant focus on cultural appropriation, transnational awareness, and intersectionality shifts attention away from core universal values and toward endless taxonomies that subvert the possibility of solidarity.

Moreover, in the drive to deconstruct normativity and privilege, the apparatus of critical theory too often enacts a sort of reverse othering, wherein “cisgender” and “heteronormative” individuals are cast as perpetual oppressors. The ideal of “radical transparency” morphs into relentless public confession, reinforcing social surveillance and conformity, while the call to amplify “subjugated knowledges” creates a climate inhospitable to dissent and genuine diversity of thought.

In addressing material concerns like the unhoused, those experiencing food insecurity, or birthing and inseminated persons, we must be wary of reducing individuals to identity markers, or viewing personhood solely through the prism of systems of oppression. Instead of genuine dialoguing, the prevailing discourse taxonomizes, polices language, and sets up heuristic frameworks that increase, rather than decrease, barriers to participation.

Ultimately, while the stated goal of these movements is the expansion of liberatory potential against normativity, the result is often the creation of new hierarchies, the reification of group boundaries, and the narrowing of the Overton Window around accepted dogmas. To avoid enacting fresh violence—environmental, social, or intellectual—we should be prepared to question the intersectional and postmodernist apparatus itself, fostering instead a truly open dialogue that respects complexity, rejects body shaming and othering in all forms, and remembers that the most radical transparency is found in earnest human engagement, not endless self-taxonomizing.

Heh... just ask AI to write a job posting incorporating all of those terms.

I was thinking that would be quite an experiment. So I did ask perplexity.ai, using terms from the article and most words from my post. It took perplexity.ai about 2 seconds (rather alarming):

me: Could you create a statement of purpose, of under 700 words, that uses all (or most) of the following words....:

Certainly! Here’s a statement of purpose (under 700 words) using most of your requested terms:

In pursuing advanced study, my purpose is to critically examine, challenge, and subvert norms and systems of oppression that have perpetuated violence—especially environmental violence, housing insecurity, food insecurity, and barriers to participation for the unhoused, pregnant people, birthing and inseminated persons, and those who immigrated. My commitment lies in engaging critical theory and intersectional epistemologies to expose the taxonomizing apparatus that sustains privilege and upholds heteronormative patriarchy, often centering cisgender voices while othering LGBTQIA+ and subjugated knowledges.

The existential threat to climate, the planet, democracy, and the economy necessitates confronting the Overton Window that too frequently defines what is “acceptable” discourse, thereby triggering microaggression, invalidation, and assaults on marginalized stakeholders. I am committed to dialoguing across difference, holding space and creating safe spaces informed by radical transparency and the progressive stack, where those most impacted by violence and oppression—including persons experiencing body shaming, deadnaming, cultural appropriation, and housing insecurity—are centered rather than further marginalized.

Postmodernism inspires my rejection of universalizing narratives and reductionist taxonomies. Instead, I seek the liberatory potential of transnational, intersectional approaches against normativity. Using heuristic inquiry, I interrogate the ways in which social hierarchies, progressive stacks, and the structural normalization of privilege function as barriers to small “d” democracy and authentic stakeholder engagement. I believe in amplifying the voices of the unhoused, those experiencing food and housing insecurity, pregnant people, chest feeding parents, and those who immigrated, recognizing their lived experiences as vital forms of knowledge production.

My goal is to challenge the violence embedded within the ambient environment and to confront microaggression and invalidation in all forms. I recognize the necessity of dialoguing across intersections and holding space for the experiences of those routinely subject to othering—creating opportunities to deconstruct the Overton Window to allow room for new, emancipatory discourses. I reject the pervasiveness of body shaming and the policing of gender identities, advocating instead for radical transparency and the creation of environments where lived experience is valued above the interests of the taxonomizing apparatus.

I suspect she has “eaten the fruit of lies?” (Hosea 10:13)

Bears that develop habits like this are a danger to humans.

Yes, though you may no want to be the bearer of bad news, the bare fact is that unless a animal has lost its bearings, which is barely possible, the source of a food source as this likely means a return visit.

Hope that puts a smile on your face, by the grace of God.

Quite a list, but to add some to it, and in one paragraph, there is this:

"...intersections with race, ethnicity, coloniality, class and ability, the sex/gender system of oppression has long served as a taxonomizing apparatus. And yet, the literary, in league with anticolonial, civil rights and LGBTQ social movements,...animates the liberatory potential of imagining embodied relations otherwise... representations of gender and sexuality can leverage critiques against normativity...Taking our transnational cue from subjugated knowledges and intersectional epistemologies, we’ll constellate the diverging genealogies and methodologies...
Against the traffic of binary opposition, we’ll index the possibilities of intimacy and performativity... As a class collective, our aim is to read and reread as well as write and rewrite texts that interrogate and complicate how gender and sexuality, as contested sites of pleasure and pain, are embodied and experienced."

This counts toward the methods requirement for the major. Prerequisite: ENGL 103 or 104. Open only to first-year and sophomore students.

Author is Brianna Thompson, who teaches courses in American women’s literature, queer theory and utopias/Afrofuturism at Kenyon college (founded by Episcopal Bishop in 1824). Course is Reading and Writing Gender and Sexuality ENGL 214, https://www.kenyon.edu/academics/departments-and-majors/english/academic-program-requirements/courses-in-english/

Such a feminist wordcrafter in wokeducation, warring against what God ordained, and who is employed from a college founded in 1824 by Episcopal Bishop Philander Chase, be has a potential candidate ("Brianna Thompson") for the office of implementation of WOKE policies under the auspices of a Council of Transexuality.

And that, ladies and germs, is the Roman Catholic gospel! You save yourself by how good you are. You have to merit eternal life by your works. Jesus opened the door, but you have to prove you're worthy to walk through it.

As often shown, "salvation by grace" in RCism means grace via the act itself (ex opere operato) of baptism rendering one justified due to actually becoming good enough to be justified (thus the newly baptized would go directly to Heaven), and finally via meriting (by God's grace) eternal life by obedience, and usually entering God's presence via postmortem expiation and purifying punishments. (Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul VI) All can be stated to be by the grace of God, but it is the means and method that is the issue.

Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church. (Can. 849)

Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies. (CCC 1227)

The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification... (CCC 1266) Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes

us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. (CCC 1992) The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift...infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. (CCC 1999) 

To wit (emphasis throughout is mine): 

Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words.
(CCC 1994: “Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ... It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy”).

The Catholic idea maintains that the formal cause of justification does not consist in an exterior imputation of the justice of Christ, but in a real, interior sanctification effected by grace, which abounds in the soul and makes it permanently holy before God (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii; can. xi).  

Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis).” (Catholic Encyclopedia>Sanctifying Grace; https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm) 

Thus it is believed that the newly baptized, who are thus inwardly just, formally justified and made holy by their own personal justice and holiness, would go to Heaven if they died before they sin: 

By virtue of our apostolic authority, we define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints . . . and other faithful who died after receiving Christ's holy Baptism (provided they were not in need of purification when they died, . . .) have been, are and will be in heaven, in the heavenly Kingdom and celestial paradise with Christ, joined to the company of the holy angels. (CCC 1023) 

Justification as per Rome is thus based upon actually being good enough, first via the imagined effect of the act itself of baptism, even via proxy faith and absent the required repentance and whole-hearted faith (Acts 2:38; 8:36-37) for those incapable of this condition of heart. Yet Scripture states: "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Romans 10:10)

And finally (for most all), a RC is finally able to enter Heaven via purifying postmortem punishments.

For while RCsim asserts that baptismal regeneration by the act itself renders the soul "permanently holy before God," it also confesses that "certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence..." (CCC 1264)

Thus, having begun salvation under with the premise of being good enough, being justified by his own righteousness (by grace) via an act itself, then in the face of the reality of the inclination to sin, and acts thereof which make it manifest that the baptized is not fit to enter Heaven, then thus this (usually) necessitates Purgatory, so that he may once again become good enough to be with God. Besides making expiation for sins that were forgiven, but for which the subject did not suffer enough for.

if they die truly repentant in charity before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for (sins) committed and omitted, their souls are cleansed after death by purgatorical or purifying punishments, (Denzinger 856)

In contrast, despite the false repeated charge of antinomianism, then as often stated,

One is spiritually born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:2-7) by effectual penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating, justifying faith (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Titus 3:5) in the Risen Divine Son of God and Lord of all, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) Jesus the Christ, sent be the Father to be the Savior of the world, (1 Jn. 4:14) who saves sinners by His sinless shed blood.

And which faith is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28) manifesting fruits which accompany salvation, (Heb. 6:9,10) including repentance when convicted of not obeying their Lord. (2 Samuel 12:7-13; Psalms 32:3-6; 51:3; Hosea 5:15; 1 Jn. 1:8-10; 2 Corinthians 7:9-10; James 5:19-20)

And whom such shall go to be with at death or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Glory and thanks be to God. In contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. thereby forfeiting what faith obtained. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; 10:25-39)

Therefore, effectual penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating faith being imputed for righteousness is the Cause of justification, but it not separate from works of faith in effect, thereby going together, with saving faith being that which confesses the Lord Jesus in word and deed, with baptism Biblically normally being the first formal profession of this, confirmatory of one being a believer. (Acts 8:12; 10:47)

Thus, the promise of the Spirit if one will be baptized, for that act is a profession of justifying faith, thus to believe is to obey, and to obey is to confess the Lord Jesus, confirmatory of regeneration.

And thus - in the context of refuting the premise that a dead faith justifies, being "alone," not having evidential fruit, of fruit-bearing faith, and that one is justified as being saved via the obedience of faith - then it is stated that Abraham was justified by works (of faith) many years after His faith was counted for righteousness, (Gen. 15:6) passing a test of his faith. However, being willing to sacrifice his only miraculously son of promise (due to Abraham believing God could also miraculously raise him up) was not the day when Abraham was justified:

He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; (Romans 4:20-24)

Regardless of those who protest that justification by living faith separates faith from works - even imagining that this amounts to antinomianism - the fact is that one cannot have one without the other, as cause and effect. All we chose to do is a result of what we truly believe, at least at the moment. Yet justification cannot be due to one actually being good enough via real, interior sanctification - though evangelical salvation by grace means that this does take place in the regenerating of effectual heart-purifying faith - because the reality is that the sinful nature yet remains.

Characteristic obedience of faith, by the Spirit, is the necessary fruit of faith) which again attests to faith, these being credentials, (Matthew 7:16-20; Romans 8:13,14; 1 Thessalonians 1:3ff; Heb. 6:9,10 without which one is not saved, presuming ability. For interior holiness will be manifest externally - which includes penitent repentance for deviating from this. (Psalms 32:5, 6; 51:3; Hosea 5:15; 1 John 1:9)

And thus baptism is normally concomitant with conversion (see post here on that).

However, fruit is not the cause of justification. Instead, as Christ became sin for us, God laying upon Him the iniquity of us all - thank God - so those of effectual penitent, heart-purifying faith are counted as righteous, being made "accepted in the Beloved" and made to sit together with Him in Heaven, all on His account, eternal life being a gift.

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.(2Co 5:21) [Note, "might" is not in the Greek.]

Yet God rewards obedience, Thus believers are exhorted, "Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward." (Hebrews 10:35) At the judgment seat of Christ, (1 Co. 3:8ff) which precedes the final judgment.

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. (Revelation 20:4-6)

And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. (Revelation 5:10)

Note however, that I believe the "rapture" is at the Lord's return, at "the first resurrection," (Revelation 20:5,6; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17) “the resurrection of life, ” (Jn. 5:29a) "of the just." (Luke 14:14)

Of course, Catholics and preterits dismiss all the clear statements on the 1,000 reign of Christ as being literal, as well as the extensive descriptions of the Lord's reign on earth in Ezekiel and Zechariah , relegating them as being symbolic. Yet, since this is not an issue essential to salvation,

Lots of red toms. Thanks be to God.

Note, my above comment is more specific to the similar story (as regards healing) of the palsied man in Mark 2.

And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house. And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them. And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) (Mark 2:1-10)

Just wait.

Indeed, since I have been slowly working on another post, albeit with some more copy and paste from previous posts, one of the few of much length I have made on any subject this summer, aside from copy and paste.

Note that as forgiveness was the cause of healing, and thus walking was the effect, so the Lord commanding "take up thy bed and walk," was effectively saying "be healed," since walking required healing. However, the effect is not be confused as being the cause .

Likewise, as faith is the causative means of appropriating justification, and obedience the effect, but which effect requires and manifests faith, so likewise to promise the Spirit to souls if they will repent and be baptized in the name of the crucified and risen Lord Jesus, (Acts 2:38) is effectively promising the Spirit is they will effectually believe in Him. However, once again, the effect is not be confused as being the cause.

Therefore, Peter makes it clear that being spiritually born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:2-7) is by effectual penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating, justifying faith, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Titus 3:5) for a whole household of lost souls received forgiveness and Spirit before they were baptized, purifying their hearts by faith:

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Acts 10:43-48)

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 baptism is to be the first formal confession of the Lord Jesus, in "body language" as confession of the Lord is to in word and deed, and which is confirmatory of faith, and of salvation.

Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. (Luke 12:8-9)

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. (Romans 10:9-11)

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:15-16)

In a day when even putting the ring on in marriage (which also signifies a fundamental covenant) is often treated as superfluous ritual even though simply a tradition), and baptism is likewise, while others imagine that the act itself effects regeneration*, then we need to affirm that in the NT, conversion and baptism are normally concomitant, as saving faith and confession in word and deed go together as cause an effect, with the latter confirming one as being a true believer, and thus with baptism being referred to as signifying conversion (Mark 16:15-16; Galatians 3:27)

*Which act actually could be the occasion of that heart decision, though certainly regeneration usually precedes it, as in Acts 10.

He/she is so afraid of going to hell

I am not trying to pray mod here, but that used to be cited as making it personal. Of course, both sides engage in this.

Anyway, I see this thread is still going, so I will add the below which I began 3 days ago on a rainy day (garden could use it), though much of the below is copy and paste from previous posts of mine. .

In these debates, the real issue is why a person believes what he/she does.

For me it is Scripture because Christ became real to me via conviction of the Holy Spirit, and deep repentance and faith in the mercy of God in Christ to pardon my sinful life (as a working young man, living in a "party house"), and save me on the merits of Christ, not my own. Which resulted in basic but profound fundamental changes in heart and life (even nature seemed new to me, while I realized more what sin was and sought to overcome it).

Since due to this conversion, the Holy Spirit placed an insatiable hunger in my heart to know how to please God by the Holy Scriptures, the wholly God-inspired substantive source o the essential gospel message I believed. What helped was being a truck driver/delivery man, thus I could listen to evangelical radio, which was basically uniform in preaching the basic gospel by which I was born again, though a heart must be convicted of the dire need for salvation, as The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. (Psalms 34:18)

And while essential salvific Truth are overall clear, yet there is a limited amount of the Bible in which believers can have a limited amount of disagreement, yet motive and means is critical. And in any case, I am to honestly follow the Truth of Scripture wherever it objectively leads, and despite what I may want it to. And which obligation also includes the Lord's leading in calling my to do something, in reliance on Him to enable it (though not I do is led by Him, and I also fail some tests).

But therefore I contend for or against teachings depending on the test of Scriptural substantiation, and defend Truths such as cults deny, and enjoy fellowship of Spirit with anyone born of the Spirit, this not constrained by devotion to any particular church or org, but by Scriptural warrant.

And indeed, if 1st century souls simply followed the judgments of leadership rather than an itinerant Preacher and preachers who established their claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, then there would be no NT church.

In contrast, RC arguments are assertions that a RC interpretation (such as John 16:13 translates into what can be termed ensured magisterial veracity; 2 Thessalonians 2:15 translates into Catholic oral tradition; 2 Peter 1:20 forbids private interpretation; Mt. 16:18 translates into a perpetual Petrine papacy; Jn. 6:53 is to be taken literally, etc.) is the right one. In addition is that of invoking so-called "church fathers."

Yet, despite appeal to Scripture, for a faithful Catholic Scripture is not the supreme authority, while the ancients are only correct based upon Rome's (or the EO's) judgment ("the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings–she judges them more than she is judged by them.” — Catholic Encyclopedia: “Tradition and Living Magisterium”)

Therefore, "The One True Church" (RC or EO) - herein referred to as the OTC - is the supreme authority for a faithful RC, and determintive of Truth, under the premise that the word of God only consists of and authoritatively means whatever she states. Which includes that she is (conditionally) infallible, and that she uniquely is "The One True Church" that will never lead the flock astray from salvation but into all Truth.

Ultramontane cardinal Manning asserted,

"It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves.... The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. ." (Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation, pp. 227-228).

And Cardinal Avery Dulles asserts:

"People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high"(Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, "Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith, p. 72)

The decisive test and criterion for our understanding of what the Scripture means is the mind of the Church http://oca.org/scripture/how-to-read-the-bible; — http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/ware_howto.aspx

Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church - (Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html) Thus, their church is indeed, is an object of faith, in which one must trust to know what is of God (herself excluded). (It is wholly proper to say that the Church is an object of faith...we are called to have confidence and faith in whatever the Church solemnly teaches us to be revealed by God." "Evangelicals...must still accept that they are depending on the Catholic Church and its authority to delineate the Scriptures" - https://www.oursundayvisitor.com/do-catholics-believe-in-the-church-more-than-the-bible)

Therefore, under this premise of reliance upon and faith in Rome to know what Scripture consists of, then in order to avoid circularity (that of invoking Scripture as the Word of God in seeking to establish that Rome is the OTC, and then establishing Scripture by invoking the authority of the OTC), then we have this recourse within RC apologetics:

"when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration." (Catholic Encyclopedia > Infallibility)

Meaning that it is expected that souls will be able to assuredly know that Rome or the EO is uniquely the OTC but not Scripture.

However, contrary to needing Rome or the EO to assuredly know what divine revelation is of God, an authoritative body of wholly inspired Scripture had been established by the time of Christ (due to their uniquely heavenly quality and attestation), as manifest by the frequent appeals to Scripture in the NT, including "He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27) And writings of which provided the prophetic and doctrinal epistemological foundation for the church.

In addition, rather than 2 Thessalonians 2:15 or any such texts supporting Catholic oral tradition as assuredly being of God (due to Rome possessing ensured magisterial veracity), the fact is that while men such as the apostles could speak "(oral tradition") as wholly inspired of God (thus ) and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of which popes and councils can claim to do so.

For while the Lord, prophets and apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God, He manifestly made writing His chosen means of preservation, versus materially insubstantial oral transmission, which is thus highly vulnerable to undetectable corruption (Exodus 17:14, 34:1, 27; Deuteronomy 10:4, 17:18, 27:3, 8, 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15, 18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11, 102:18, 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7, 22:29; Luke 24:44, 45; John 5:46, 47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2, 11, 18:28; Revelation 1:1, 20:12, 15;

It was not oral transmission that the Lord Himself defeated the devil and Jewish leadership, (Mt. 4; 22) and substantiated His messiahship and ministry by, but the Scriptures and which He opened the mind of disciples to (Luke 24:27, 44,45)

And if being the official authoritative discerners and authorities on what is of God means that all their other like judgments are to be followed, then first century souls should have submitted to the judgment of those who sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2; cf. Dt. 17"8-13) which judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not. (Mk. 11:27-33) Which were the historical magisterial head over Israel which was the historical instrument and steward of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2, 3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33, 34; Jer. 7:23)

Yet instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27, 44; Jn. 5:36, 39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Furthermore, God has been progressively leading His people into all Truth (cf. John 16:13) from before there was a NT church, and which was not dependent on ordained leadership, but was mainly thru prophets who could reprove leadership, as valid as that office is. Israel was preserved by a prophet, (Hosea 12:13) And the NT church was built upon Scriptural dissenters from the official magisterium, as required submission to such (Mt. 23:2) is always conditional upon lack of conflict with God. (Acts 4:18-20)

Neither does 2 Peter 1:20 censure private or non-official interpretations of Scripture, but invoking this is another example of Catholics trying to compel Scripture, as its servant, to support their church. For that verse does not refer to interpretation of Scripture, but refers to how prophecy was given, that it was not the product of one's own private understanding, but wholy inspired of God. For indeed, as Peter states by the Spirit, "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." (1 Peter 1:10-11) And note that this mystery refers to prophecy, not doctrinal teachings.

And it is not street-level leader holy Peter but the LORD Jesus who is manifest as being the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built (cf. Mt. 16:18), this being is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)

Likewise, by comparing Scripture with Scripture, in context and literally forms, we see that to live by "eating," even chewing (which RCs are not to do) the flesh of Jesus to live, is to believe and obey the word of God, for "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me," (John 6:57) for "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God," (Matthew 4:4) and thus living by the Word, thus doing it was the Lord's "meat," (Jn. 4:34) and whose words are "spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)

Which use of figurative language, referring to material things which represent spiritual realities, and often contrasting the earthy from the heavenly, and the temporal from the eternal, is consistent with John, in which Jesus is the "Lamb" of God, (Jn. 1:14-15,29) and in chapter two He is the temple, (John 2:19) and and in chapter three we are told one must be "born" anew, (Jn. 3:3) and with "wind" representing the Spirit, (Jn. 3:8) and in chapter four "drinking" the "living water" that the Lord gives provides eternal life, (John 4:14) and "meat" is continually obeying the will of the Father, (John 4:34) and in chapter 5 John the baptizer was a "shining light," (Jn. 5:35) and in chapter six "eating" and drinking Jesus means having eternal life, and whose words are Spirit and life (Jn. 6:53,63) and in chapter 7 believing on Jesus means having "rivers of living water" flowing out his "belly," (John 7:38,39) and in chapter eight one can "taste of death," (Jn. 8:52) and in chapter nine. Jesus is again "the Light" and those that claimed to see are made "blind," (Jn. 9:4,39) and in chapter ten Jesus is the "door" and the Good Shepherd over His "sheep,"whom He gives His life for, (John 10:7,11,14) and in chapter eleven dead Lazarus is "sleeping," (Jn. 11:11) and in chapter 12 Jesus is the the Light and the "arm of the Lord," (Jn. 12:36) and in chapter thirteen "washing and being made clean is spiritual, (John 13:10) and in chapter fourteen Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me," (John 14:6) and in chapter fifteen Jesus is the The True Vine and disciples are "branches" and the the Comforter is the Spirit. (Jn. 15:5,26) And the list goes on.

See post here for more examples of metaphorical language related to eating and or drinking, and a list of missing evidences of the Catholic Eucharistic theology being that of the NT church.

Of course, compelling Scripture to act as a servant to support one's earthly object of faith is what all typical cults do, which is not how and why the NT church began.

And ou claim I ignore your distinction between “conversionary justification”

Um,I see that somehow my statements about stiff arthritic typo-fingers means I cannot post even a 233 word post, even though I stated that the issue is that of the time and energy to do so, while after so many refutations which remain unrefuted, no further ones are necessary.

For while I have indeed abundantly manifest that I am well prepared to make a defense, by the grace of God - including in refuting you time and time again and your wresting of Scripture - Scripture also teaches that heretics and recalcitrant opposers of gospel truth have no warrant for continued attempts by men of God to convert them, nor do they (you) have a valid claim to demand such.

But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. (Acts 13:45-46)

And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles. (Acts 18:6)

And it remains that an honest and informed reader should be able to see, your retorts are not refutations of my arguments, regardless of imagining otherwise, but they are testimonies to your servanthood to a church which is indeed an object of faith. Thus trying to compel Scripture to support it (even though Scripture is not the supreme basis for assurance for a faithful RC), and recourse to uninspired writings of certain ancients. Which is besides your lack of comprehension of some of my refutations, as misrepresentations of them (the charge antinomianism being one).

Thus, absence of further responses to you of compelled cultic contentions means your have achieved the level of a troll.

I work and recreate in all the major OSes: Windows, Linux, MacOS/iOS. They all have aspects of their culture or their history (or both) that annoy me. I tolerate the annoyance because what practical other choice is there? Yes, I agree, the hatred toward Israel is indeed viral malware, evil in intent and execution. I'd like to live long enough to see it utterly defeated, but at 73 I dunno... maybe I should exercise more... :-)

Thanks for the honest response, and at 73 myself, we likely will not see the culmination of this, as per Romans 11, but praise be to the Lord who will perform it.