Replies

LOL.

I appreciate your documentation and sovereign argument. But there are some things that finally occurred to me last time I debated any the points of Catholic dogma.

You know what you're up against, don't you? A person who believes in his or her heart that he or she is doomed to hell fire and damnation outside the Catholic church, has to accept all Catholic dogma as absolute truth because the perception of the churche's primacy collapses if any one of the conceptual piers upon which it rests is credibly destroyed.

Such a person's security of destination, sense of themselves, foundation of personal faith and integrity of soul is bound up in the groupthink and is protected thereof.

That, by any argument, any cite of scripture regardless of how clear and unambiguous it is, will make a person so bound say to themselves, "Well, gosh, it seems I've taken the wrong approach, so I need to rethink my entire life in faith." is not possible, I'm afraid.

Note you posted three utterly unarguable passages, still you got the argument. You're debating not about scripture and facts; you're debating conditioning based on fear.

So, it's a waste of time. But it's your duty as a Christian brother to warn other brothers of false paths, and you've done your duty, and well, too.

Note you posted three utterly unarguable passages, still you got the argument. You're debating not about scripture and facts; you're debating conditioning based on fear.

As I understand it, it takes a full year of conditioning before you're accepted into the 'Church'...Which of course is completely contradictory to the bible...I can understand the reluctance to let go o something that you've invested so much time in...

So, it's a waste of time. But it's your duty as a Christian brother to warn other brothers of false paths, and you've done your duty, and well, too.

Thanks...There's some pretty well educated folks on this site...I could never compete with them, nor do I care to try...

Thank God He wrote His bible in a way that we could all get it...Just a matter of believing it...

I too, am convinced I will never have any affect on the posters on this site but pehaps there may be a lurker who will get something out of my attempts to defend God's word...I'll let the Holy Spirit deal with that...

But the great thing about it is that it keeps me in the book...And I have no idea if any others will understand when I say, "And what a book that is"...There's nothing like it...Thanks again...

last time I debated any the points of Catholic dogma.

The issue of Peter in relation to Paul is a purely scriptural issue, and I only refer to the scripture in discussing it. Perhaps IsCool misunderstood me in thinking that I intentionally overlook verses like Gal 2:7; I believe my response to him in 190 disabused him of that notion. My one point here is that Paul sought the approval of the "pillars", which shows that he needed one. My second point is that Peter was not sidelined to preach exclusively to the Jews because scripture tells us he in fact was the one who converted the first Gentile, Cornelius. None of this constitutes any kind of "Catholic dogma" in the same sense as what we discussed with you, William, not long ago.

With you we discussed veneration of saints. As you recall, I admit that it was an aspect of Christian faith scantily covered by the scripture and that largely relies on the teaching of the Church. The shape of that argument was that I showed you scripture which explains that the teaching of the Church can, and in fact should apply to parts of the faith that the scripture is silent about. This is the case with the nature of intercessory prayer. It is not the case with simple historical accounts of who sent whom where to preach what and to whom.

You lost that argument on scriptural grounds ("enough wiggle room in the scripture", you said) and now you try to direct attention to what you imagine my motivational framework is. Not that I mind discussing my persona, but what you are offering is an evasion.