Posted on 03/17/2010 12:58:48 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
YOU SAID:
You stole someone else’s work and passed it off as your own.
I never said it was my own. YOU SAID IT WAS MY OWN, NOT ME.
YOU SAID:
How pathetic.
And because you said so it is so ? This is getting to be predictable.
YOU SAID:
And now you make excuses for what you did. Of course.
Of course you have not dealt with the argument. But I am giving you a chance because I want to hear what you have to say. Is it forthcoming ??
YOU SAID:
You took someone else’s work. Don’t avoid it now.
Yes I did because I agree with it, but where is your response?
You wrote:
“I never said it was my own. YOU SAID IT WAS MY OWN, NOT ME.”
Oh, so you admitted it was someone else’s? R-I-G-H-T.
“And because you said so it is so ? This is getting to be predictable.”
So taking someone else’s stuff and passing it off as your own isn’t pathetic.
“Of course you have not dealt with the argument. But I am giving you a chance because I want to hear what you have to say. Is it forthcoming ??”
Since you clearly didn’t read the article I linked to but instead passed off someone else’s work as your own I see no reason to respond to what wasn’t yours but you passed off as yours.
You wrote:
“Yes I did because I agree with it,...”
Oh, so that makes taking it okay?
“...but where is your response?”
Did you read the article I linked to?
“God can do anything except create the world in six days 5770 years ago. And “there is no inconsistency!”
Why do I even bother?
I didn’t say that God could not create the world in six days 5770 years ago. I said that that idea is an error, which means that He *didn’t* create the world in that way.
He chose to create the world in a way that left the fossil record, which appears to be considerably older than 5770 years.
So, yes: when one looks at what I actually said, there is no inconsistency.
You seem determined to create one, though.
“God can do anything except create the world in six days 5770 years ago. And “there is no inconsistency!”
Why do I even bother?
I didn’t say that God could not create the world in six days 5770 years ago. I said that that idea is an error, which means that He *didn’t* create the world in that way.
He chose to create the world in a way that left the fossil record, which appears to be considerably older than 5770 years.
So, yes: when one looks at what I actually said, there is no inconsistency.
You seem determined to create one, though.
“Oh, so that makes taking it okay?”
Yes, in a forum like this, it most certainly does.
Scholarly citation of sources is not required here. At all.
“Catholicism denies that J*sus takes the individual’s place in hell and is vicariously damned, thus providing assurance (ie, “presumption”)”
I was raised in hard-core protestant churches, and none of them ever taught that “Jesus takes the individual’s place in hell and is vicariously damned, thus providing assurance.”
Right here is the first time I’ve come across that idea.
Now, there may be some, ah, fringe elements whose theology has become that corrupt, but it is not true that this notion is universal in, or even characteristic of, protestantism.
Never heard of “backsliding,” I suppose.
Listen, to discuss these matters with credibility, one must correctly understand at least some things about Catholicism and protestantism. So far, everything you’ve said about either has been factually incorrect.
“Actually by your admission, you follow the Pope as your absolute head”
Where do you protestants come up with these nutty ideas?
The Pope is not the absolute head of the Church. Any authority he exercises is lent him by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The Pope may not, for instance, contradict Scripture, nor anything that flows from Scripture. This is why he is powerless to authorize the ordination of women or acceptance of sodomy. He is powerless to contradict any of the things set forth in the Apostles Creed, as they are all Scriptural.
We hope that the Pope will provide the Church with the guidance it needs, himself guided by the Holy Trinity.
If Popes were absolute heads of the Church, we would fear them. Instead, we love them (some more that others, which is to be expected when one reflects that they are just men).
It didn’t have to be scholarly. It just should have been cited. Even quote marks would have helped.
I have no idea why you’re addressing that to me when I never made the comment in question.
Sorry.
I grew up in N Ireland and Protestants didn’t celebrate St Patrick. When we were permitted a parade - we were ordered to stay in our own area. When Protestants celebrated King Billy, 12th July, they insisted in parading into our area with their Orange sashes yelling insults at us. We were a minority in our own country. Today things are much better though many Presbyterians/Calvinists remain embittered but can’t act it out the way they used to...in fairness the Methodists and Anglicans were always a lot more respectful and join in the celebrations - they were probably afraid to in the past because of the ire they’d get from the orangemen.
Protestants don’t really celebrate the birthday of anyone except Jesus Christ ( and his date of birth isn’t even certain ).
The Saints Protestants quote most often for instance are Paul and John, yet, they don’t even celebrate their birthdays ( well to be fair, we don’t know when they were born ). Protestants don’t even celebrate the birthdays of Luther, Calvin or Wesley.
I also note that in the USA, especially here in NYC, St. Patrick’s day has often become an occasion for drunken revelry such that a huge number of Policemen have to be called on duty to prevent it from devolving into fights ( which have oftentimes occurred ). St. Patrick would have disapprove of what has happened in his name.
However, for me personally, celebrating or not celebrating someone great Saint’s birth is secondary. The important thing is we EMULATE their faith and their example. That honors them more in my opinion.
YOU WROTE
Oh, so you admitted it was someone else’s? R-I-G-H-T.
Yes, but his argument conforms with mine, he said it better.
And you have not even remotely addressed the argument that we both agreed with.
YOU SAID:
So taking someone else’s stuff and passing it off as your own isn’t pathetic.
I never said it was my own, I said I agreed with it. YOU are the one saying that I am passing it off as my own.
And again, you have NOT addressed the argument.
YOU SAID:
Since you clearly didn’t read the article I linked to but instead passed off someone else’s work as your own I see no reason to respond to what wasn’t yours but you passed off as yours.
I did read the article, and the article’s arguments do not convince.
It FORCES the plain meaning of the word — brother - into something else. THE NORMAL AND LITERAL MEANING IS PHYSICAL BROTHER. It cannot be “cousin” ( because there is another word for cousin and it was not used ), and it cannot be brethren in the faith because the Bible states that “even his brothers did not believe in him”.
And it does not satisfactorily deal with the issue of Joseph having sexual union with Mary ( He did not have union with Mary UNTIL the birth of Jesus ).
Elsewhere the Bible also mentions that someone said to Jesus : “Your mother and brothers are here to see you.”
Jesus’ response was ( and I am paraphrasing): “who are my mother and brothers? Those who believe in me and follow me are my mother and brothers”.
The plain reading of the text is simple and straightforward -— Mary was clearly Jesus’ mother and His other siblings were with her. Jesus then drew a distinction between the spiritual and physical -— those who believe in Him are also his mother and brother ( not only his mother Mary and his siblings ).
You would like to complicate things in order to support a theory which came centuries later.
YOU SAID:
Oh, so that makes taking it okay?
What rule says that using someone’s words ( when it is not copyrighted and free for all to use ) is not OK. It would not be OK if the writer said we cannot use his arguments.
YOU WROTE:
Did you read the article I linked to?
Yes, and I posted my response above and also the response of the person who responded to the arguments in the article you linked to.
Now I’d like to read YOUR response to these, not simply the link.
The only one who can really claim Patrick is almighty God. I’m fairly sure Patrick himself would have seen it like that anyway.
Hold on Vlad...you assert that Patrick was “Catholic”, but I was under the impression that he was part of the great Celtic Christian movement, followed later on by heroes like Columba and Gildas and so on. Now as I understand, that movement was rather at odds with the “Roman” Christian tradition, aka Augustine - which presumably was also “catholic”. They had rather different interpretations of the way things should be done, the role of monks and so on. Yet they were all Christians. Surely if there were differences between them, and yet they were still all catholics, then in the same way we could all be heirs (or more specifically beneficiaries) of Patrick and his works?
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.