Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
OK, let's take a poll. Everyone? What is Havoc's position? Does he think that 1968-present is not a "period" or does he think the killing of heretics continues to this day?
I can't wait to see what people say. And then maybe you'll tell us what you think.
SD
I think there were alot of heretic murders pre-1968.
Havoc; 24 hours is a "period". The little boy wins his argument. The fact that the Office of The Inquisition, no matter the name change, still exists and has done so for more than 700 years is meaningless to a game player.
What do I think? I think you are a devious, deceitful, person who delights in the semantics game. There are forums populated with idiots, this is not one of them and people see right through you. Why don't you move to NewsMax? They don't appear to be too swift there.
Yes, thank you, Steven. Now what do you think Havoc meant? Is it not a period or does the killing go on?
SD
Putting words in my mouth again. I am not begging for support. I'm just interested in what people think Havoc is trying to tell me. Cause I've asked him, and he is no help. I'm curious as to what others think about it.
SD
Lie: "You think Catholics and Catholicism approve of lies and deceit."
Lie: "It's sad how easily a simple request to have someone show how they misunderstood your words turns into accusations that you worship the devil."
That's not bad is it. 11 minutes elapsed, two replies to me with outright lies. I am ignoring the misdirection and semantics game and concentrating on outright lies.
Sadly, I don't believe you can distinguish between a lie and "poetic" language.
Yes, thank you, Steven. Now what do you think Havoc meant? Is it not a period or does the killing go on?
The phony 1968 date is yours, not Havoc's. The period in consideration is a 700+ year period.
BTW, I doubt II's answer was meant to support your little game.
Who cares? I think the better question is what it means to you? Apparently the soiled history of your apostate church means nothing to you.
Wrong. That is the only logical conclusion I can come to, given the evidence and the reluctance to address my questions. If you or Jim can not explain how you get from me saying that things are OK as long as they do not "damage anyone's Faith" to you assuming not only damage, but also damnation then I must conclude that you think that we think that lying and deceit is not a "damage" to the Faith.
Lie: "It's sad how easily a simple request to have someone show how they misunderstood your words turns into accusations that you worship the devil."
Y'all think prayer=worship. And you suggested that I pray to the "Patron Saint of Liars." that would be the devil, as far as I can make it out. Ergo, worship of the devil.
SD
I care. I want to be known just how much crap someone is spewing. There is a big difference between Havoc saying that the Church used to kill heretics and him saying that they still do.
That no body will address this is telling. We are liars and killers to you. No matter how much time is speant trying to reason with you folks, it always comes back to your beliefs that we are liars and killers.
SD
To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law -- though not being myself under the law -- that I might win those under the law.
To those outside the law I became as one outside the law -- not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ -- that I might win those outside the law.
To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. (1 Corinthians 9:20-22)
A good point angelo, but let me remind you of something, you and I and the RC’s do this same thing every day we’re on the TNS.
When I make a post, and later you come on and say, “good post JH.”I feel a certain bond with you, and over a period of time when I find ourselves in agreement, I begin trusting your opinion even more, all though I have never forgotten that you’re a Jew, and we may never agree on the final ends to our beliefs.
When you post, and I come on and thank you for it and say I agree completly with you on this subject, I would hope that you understand me just a little better, and respect my line of reasoning as being honest and sincere.
This doesn't mean that if we trust each others honesty and sincerity, that we’ll ever agree on the total end results, but we will be honest when considering them.
Now when I do agree with you on a matter, should I then immediately slap you with something I know we don’t agree on, just so you won’t think I’m being deceitful and hoping you’ll think were in agreement so I can trick you at some later point?
If Paul sincerely could relate to how a Jew who was under the Law felt, since he had felt the same way at one time, and then after he had won their respect, and then begin to interject his new beliefs into the conversation, would that be wrong in your book?
Is it wrong for me to relate experiences to DouglasKC, that I once had when I was in a similar Church? Is it wrong for me to let him know I relate to him and understand how he feels about certain things, even though it’s changed since I was in it, but in hopes he’ll remember some of the things I’ve told him that the original founders believed, and if he sees it heading back that way, he’ll recognize it and try to head it off at the pass.
I believe this is the same thing Paul was doing, and I hope I’ve put it in a little different light for you, because I’ve heard that same question from others, and to my knowledge no one ever tried to give a sincere honest answer.
(^g^) JH
"an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker"
Your warped thoughts don't change the fact. A lie is a lie.
SD
I just put a peach in the Microwave, see you all later. :)
(^g^) JH
Havoc: but, at this point if you can point out a period when the Church wasn't calling people heretics and putting them to death for disagreeing....
Here he is suggesting that there is no period where this isn't true. It is this idea that I am trying to get him to flush out. It's really a simple question to answer. Does he think the killing is ongoing or not. He could answer it pretty easily.
SD
LOL! ;o)
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.