I just love it when he posts like that,
so that the lurkers can know him by his fruits.
Posted on 12/10/2009 9:49:46 AM PST by Alex Murphy
Once again, emptiness. Herein lies the tragedy of the Catholic Church. It does not promote Christ, alone, but itself.
Oh, excellent! Don’t ever change.
You wrote:
“This is dangerously close to making it personal. Should we have the Mod visit?”
Sure, please waste his time.
“We can agree that I believe the Catholic Church is in error and you don’t. But, I am not speaking about you, personally, since I have no idea what you actually believe.”
I’m not making it personal either. I know what you posted and I know it is a misrepresentation of that facts. Thus, I said you should repent of spreading the usual anti-Catholic misrepresentations.
“Nevertheless, it is perfectly acceptable to point out places I observe error in the RCC.”
And it is perfectly acceptable to point out the places where I observe error and misrepresentations in your posts.
Then let us continue to discuss just how screwed up the Catholic Church is with this “vision” nonsense. The organization does not heed the Scriptural teaching of Paul (or even Peter, for that matter), but concocts a mixture of paganism and superstition that leaves the typical Catholic more interested in apparitions than doctirne.
Or, if you are unwilling to do that, then ask the typical Catholic if they can explain their way through the argument presented by Paul in Romans. Can any of the Catholics here? Lay out the entire book’s argument, please, not just a verse here or there. I am ready if you are.
Evidently a style of interaction is to throw out increasingly meaningless and fact-free charges, insist that statements be treated as questions and that what the statements actually say not be included in one's consideration of the answer.
Then, for variation, there's asking folks to write a paper on a Pauline letter. In the meantime responses to the original wild and baseless charges are ignored or answered with further charges.
A theme here is trying to make others dance to one's tune. It's an interesting playground strategy: walk up to someone, call him names, then insist that he play your game by your rules, which you only gradually divulge and can change at will.
Far out. FR never fails to interest and amuse.
Where’d you get that? My RSV says the meaning of the Heb is “obscure.”
You wrote:
“Then let us continue to discuss just how screwed up the Catholic Church is with this “vision” nonsense.”
Have you yet proved that the Catholic Church is screwed up with this “vision nonsense”? So far you have expressed your opinion, but as far as I can see it is based upon nothing but your own preconcieved notions.
“The organization does not heed the Scriptural teaching of Paul (or even Peter, for that matter), but concocts a mixture of paganism and superstition that leaves the typical Catholic more interested in apparitions than doctirne.”
I think your misrepresenting a basic idea. Every avid Protestant I have ever known is much more interested in discussing their own testimony, or a miraculous story they experienced, or a miraculous story they know someone else experienced then in discussing theology in itself. Most people are much more interested in discussing their encounter with God then in discussing the Hypostatic Union. The same goes for well supported apparition stories like Fatima - which was witnessed by tens fo thousands of people.
“Or, if you are unwilling to do that, then ask the typical Catholic if they can explain their way through the argument presented by Paul in Romans.”
No Protestant can. After all Paul never taught what Protestants believe he did - as an increasing number of Protestants are discovering in two movements: 1) the “New Perspective on Paul” movement and 2) conversions to the Catholic faith. By definition no one who is Protestant can properly understand Romans and maintain Protestantism.
“Can any of the Catholics here?”
I think all of us and then some. Romans never appeared particularly difficult to me or most Catholics whom I know. This thread isn’t about any of that, however. It is amazing how you accuse me of bringing your own claims to obfuscate things and here we are talking about Catholics and Romans. What has this got to do with the thread? And if it was germain would it not have come up sooner between you and me?
“Lay out the entire book’s argument, please, not just a verse here or there. I am ready if you are.”
Ready to be led off topic after you made a false accusation against me that that is what I was doing? Can you see the irony (I would say hypocrisy) in that?
I think you should actually stick to the thread topic. I asked you questions about your own claims - as related to the thread topic. Either answer them or admit you can’t or at least say you won’t answer them, but don’t change the subject to Romans after accusing me of changing the subject because I asked you to substantiate your own claims ABOUT THE THREAD TOPIC.
I just love it when he posts like that,
so that the lurkers can know him by his fruits.
You’re right.
What amuses me the most is when you actually have the audacity to ask them to back up their claims and assertions!
Apparently anti-Catholicism has little or nothing to do with actually bringing facts or proving points. It’s apparently all about claims and invective.
Your denomination is (false/idolatrous/corrupt/pagan ...) Prove me wrong.How'd I do?
If any of you had any logic to your arguments at all, there would be no call for me to substantiate a claim of the negative. You, my FRiends must prove that this visionary stuff is true and biblical. I’m sure it is too esoteric for the gang of three to catch, but Paul refutes most of this Catholic tripe and lays out the Gospel delivered once for all. Rome hates it because they need an organic, a living document (where have we heard this before?), so that IT becomes the authority. It is that false authority that we repudiate and to which we say “anathema”.
Gotta run, gentlemen.
Have a good Christmas and New Year.
Count me out.
...must prove that this visionary stuff is true and biblical.
Because you say so?
LOLROFLMTO
Perhaps your own personal interpretation of Paul does, but so what?
Looks about right!
You wrote:
“If any of you had any logic to your arguments at all, there would be no call for me to substantiate a claim of the negative.”
A. Claim. Of. The. Negative. A claim of the negative?
You wrote:
“It is not about control; it is about teaching that such nonsense is true.”
Where do you hint at the claim of the negative there?
How about this:
“That begins at the top and the Catholic Church loves the top-down authority, so they get to wear it.”
Again, where is the claim of the negative there?
“You, my FRiends must prove that this visionary stuff is true and biblical.”
We do? Why? Look again at the thread opener. Where is the topic of the thread opener said to be bona fide Catholic teaching? And between you and me YOU’RE the only one making claims. So it is YOU who has to substantiate the claims. I am not asking you to substantiate someone else’s claims. I am asking you to substantiate YOUR OWN CLAIMS. Can you do it? To demand that we have to prove something that we have no even asserted or claimed is ridiculous.
“I’m sure it is too esoteric for the gang of three to catch, but Paul refutes most of this Catholic tripe and lays out the Gospel delivered once for all.”
Actually nothing St. Paul ever says refutes anything that Catholics teach and believe.
“Rome hates it because they need an organic, a living document (where have we heard this before?), so that IT becomes the authority.”
Hebrews 4:12 would suggest that God’s Word is living. It certainly isn’t dead. I am not surprised that a Protestant would see God’s word as dead, however.
“It is that false authority that we repudiate and to which we say “anathema”.”
Yet scripture doesn’t see it that way: 1 Peter 1:23.
Refresh my memory, which of the four Gospels did Saint Paul write.
Why? Why must we prove it is? As far as this Emma's visions, I don't recall a single one of us asserting that they were true or biblical. So why must we prove it?
And what does that have to do with the bizarre charges, topics like the Rosary, and false characterizations about making the sign of the cross and so forth?
I think it might help your attack against what we say if you attacked what we actually say. I think it might help your charges against what we do if the charges were about what we actually do. You might get answers if you asked questions. But to presume to require us to defend statements we have not made, positions we do not hold, deeds we do not do, thought we do not think, and beliefs we do not believe, that is incomprehensible.
If there were any accuracy to your charges at all, if they had a discernible relationship to reality, there would be no call for us to stand back and wonder at the manner of your making them.
There may be one or two debatable points in all the barrage of stuff that you say, but there is so much fantastic nonsense and so much false and characterization that it's very hard either to read our way through the tirade or to expect that any subsequent conversation will have any trace of rationality. So after a couple of attempts we give up interacting with you and start talking among ourselves.
And, as I said, if you want to play with the other kids on the playground, starting out with wild and offensive remarks and then insisting that everyone play your game is not, well, it's not what Paul would do AND it won't work.
Try some manners. Try some precisely worded questions which show some interest in what we actually do, teach, and believe and our reasons for doing so. Who knows, we might attempt to explain ourselves. I wonder if you can entertain the notion that your manner has something to do with the response you got.
Actually, we don't.
No Catholic is ever required to believe ANY private revelation.
One more time.
NO Catholic is EVER required to believe ANY private revelation.
They are free to believe those that the church has not condemned. Bishops and other clerics are free to promote those that the church has formally approved. (Which is not the case, and probably never will be, with this one.)
Is that clear enough for you?
Oh, this is going to be fun.
You actually believe that the Gospel is expounded only in the “Gospels”? Please tell me this insane claim is localized to a few spurious Catholics and not a part of headquarters bizarre claims, too.
No wonder Catholics believe such errant theology.
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.