[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I have love for them, but no respect for their errors. How can one have respect for falsehoods?[/quote]Your bit above about Catholicism in the 17th and 18th century colonies won’t do. As for this here? I have a feeling you hold my protestant beliefs in much higher regard that you’re letting on.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I have love for them, but no respect for their errors. How can one have respect for falsehoods?[/quote]Your bit above about Catholicism in the 17th and 18th century colonies won’t do. As for this here? I have a feeling you hold my protestant beliefs in much higher regard that you’re letting on.
[/quote]
The Great State of Maryland (get it Mary Land) - Catholic Colony.
Charles Carroll - Signer of the Declaration of Independence - Catholic (his Cousin was America’s first Bishop)
Carrollton - Property of Carroll’s was mentioned in…the DofI, well actually it was the only land mentioned.
Daniel Carroll - Charles’ other cousin - Catholic - Continental Congress - Brother of America’s first Bishop
Interesting enough, even though Maryland was founded by and for Catholics, since Catholics were heavily oppressed, Carroll couldn’t actually hold office…why because from 1649 (to today) Catholics can’t hold public office (it has change slightly, but higher ranking political offices in the UK are still kept from Catholics).
Also interesting, Carroll is considered an important reason why the Board of War didn’t replace Washington with General Gates. He also bank rolled a large chunk of the war.
His Cousin as I mentioned above was part of the Continental Congress, but he also signed the Articles of Confederation, was a delegate for the Constitutional Convention and Signed the United States Constitution (along with another Catholic: Thomas Fitzsimons). He was also important in framing the Constitutional in it limiting the powers of the federal government and authored the enshrining of the presumption of powers not delegated to the fed are reserved to the states and people, not important I’m sure. Served as a Congressman, State Senator, and Mayor of DC by request of Washington…the President of the United States of America.
Daniel’s brother? Founded Georgetown. Also was an impromptu ambassador for Washington during the war to the French in Canada who helped at Yorktown…which if you remember your history lessons led to Washington forcing Cornwallis to surrender and bring the war to an end.
Washington designed Georgetown’s logo by modifying the seal of the US, this was because they were bros. (You can check out the seal, it is still used today).
Please get your revisionist history out of my thread, Tirib.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I have a feeling you hold my protestant beliefs in much higher regard that you’re letting on.
[/quote]
No, its heresy. I do not tolerate heresy, when I find it in myself I destroy it to the best I am able to.
Edited: the only thing respectable is how convoluting it is to almost make it seem logical. However, it still starts off with a false assumption.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<< Please get your revisionist history out of my thread, Tirib.[/quote]So you draw from what you said that Catholicism was a significant influence on the founding and direction of the young United States?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I have a feeling you hold my protestant beliefs in much higher regard that you’re letting on.
[/quote]No, its heresy. I do not tolerate heresy, when I find it in myself I destroy it to the best I am able to. >>[/quote]Sounds like you must actually hate heresy then. Including mine. My mistake. Unless you go about destroying things you love. Or things you hate, but only in yourself which would be pretty selfish. Does this mean you hate me too? [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Edited: the only thing respectable is how convoluted it is to almost make it seem logical. However, it still starts off with a false assumption.[/quote]When the Christian scriptures are the defining first standard, my positions ARE the logical ones Christopher. Even forgetting about sola scriptura. I see a beautiful system of theology, philosophy, eithics, worship and life practice that emerges out of the diligent and reverent study of the scriptures. Once that’s established, ANYTHING claiming to arise from that same God CANNOT be considered credible if it contradicts or opposes that first standard.
UNLESS, that first standard itself is dictated by an external authority that can make that standard say whatever they like by definition no matter how foreign to the original meaning of the text it actually is. In other words, unless they are replaced as first standard by one that can make them say whatever it likes.
That is where your church goes very VERY wrong Chris.
It’s why knowledge of the bible among Catholics is paltry and pathetic at very best. It’s not needed. None of that stuff comes from there anyway and if it can say whatever the authority contrives then why bother? Just look to the authority and skip the bible which is what your church would be much better off just doing. I’m not being sarcastic or mean to you Chris. There is just NO way that Roman Catholicism AND the Holy Bible can both be true.
I hate that church just as much as I love you. In fact they’re the same thing.
BTW, What do you think of my rendition of the Socratic method?
Calling the early American Catholics ‘oppressed’ is akin to claiming the KKK is ‘oppressed’.
Catholicism did influence early American culture, though. Just look at how many people followed the Malleus Maleficarum.
This country was founded upon the teachings of the Gospel, not religion of any sort.
We’re getting there JP.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Calling the early American Catholics ‘oppressed’ is akin to claiming the KKK is ‘oppressed’.
Catholicism did influence early American culture, though. Just look at how many people followed the Malleus Maleficarum.
This country was founded upon the teachings of the Gospel, not religion of any sort.[/quote]
Keep in mind that all this hatred is a miserably bad misinterpretation of Revelation. Because tirib has been brainwashed in to thinking that the Catholic Church IS the whore of Babylon as described in Revelation he acts accordingly. If you understand the paradigm under which he is operating, you’ll understand the lingo, the name calling, and the vitriol and flat bad information being passed along.
There is one thing about Revelation that has rang true through out history, anybody who has thought they understood it, or that they interpreted it correctly has ALWAYS been wrong.
It’s also why he is on ignore, but I think it’s necessary for people to understand where he is coming from when he insults the religion that Jesus himself established. ← No amount of revisionist history can change that fact. It’s Biblical and nobody can do a thing about that.
You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to agree with it, but you cannot change the facts, they are pretty stubborn.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< tirib has been brainwashed in to thinking that the Catholic Church IS the whore of Babylon >>>[/quote]Here’s another coward who peeks out from behind the ignore button to take cheap shots at me and then runs back. I never once said anything about believing the Catholic Church was the whore of Babylon. Never. Of course my demand for a demonstration that I have will be met with derision, as if asking for documentation of their accusation was outrageous or something. Same as always. Never said it because I don’t know what I believe there and HAVE said THAT. This poses no problem for Pat though to whom such common decencies are completely foreign.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< tirib has been brainwashed in to thinking that the Catholic Church IS the whore of Babylon >>>[/quote]Here’s another coward who peeks out from behind the ignore button to take cheap shots at me and then runs back. I never once said anything about believing the Catholic Church was the whore of Babylon. Never. Of course my demand for a demonstration that I have will be met with derision, as if asking for documentation of their accusation was outrageous or something. Same as always. Never said it because I don’t know what I believe there and HAVE said THAT. This poses no problem for Pat though to whom such common decencies are completely foreign.
[/quote]
Maybe not that exact strings of words in a row but a simple 5 second search shows this “The unholy tradition/theology goes hand in hand with them an unending self perpetuating machine of anti Christian evil. The gates of hell prevailed against that thing a long LONG time ago.
Come out of her Chris, forsake her whoredoms and taste the bread of life and living water for yourself and not through some pagan magisterium.”
Pretty much whore of Babylon written all over it
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Calling the early American Catholics ‘oppressed’ is akin to claiming the KKK is ‘oppressed’.
Catholicism did influence early American culture, though. Just look at how many people followed the Malleus Maleficarum.
This country was founded upon the teachings of the Gospel, not religion of any sort.[/quote]
Keep in mind that all this hatred is a miserably bad misinterpretation of Revelation. Because tirib has been brainwashed in to thinking that the Catholic Church IS the whore of Babylon as described in Revelation he acts accordingly. If you understand the paradigm under which he is operating, you’ll understand the lingo, the name calling, and the vitriol and flat bad information being passed along.
There is one thing about Revelation that has rang true through out history, anybody who has thought they understood it, or that they interpreted it correctly has ALWAYS been wrong.
It’s also why he is on ignore, but I think it’s necessary for people to understand where he is coming from when he insults the religion that Jesus himself established. ← No amount of revisionist history can change that fact. It’s Biblical and nobody can do a thing about that.
You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to agree with it, but you cannot change the facts, they are pretty stubborn.[/quote]
Sorry, Pat. May as well put me on ignore, too. I know you haven’t been following my posts, but suffice it to say that the only person I trust out of the entire Bible is Christ Himself.
- Christ told us to call no man ‘father’ for you have only one Father
- Christ specifically told the Apostles that there should be no rulers among them, only servants.
There are many more, but these two basics rule out any possibility that the Catholic church follows the teachings of Christ.
[quote]storey420 wrote:<<< Pretty much whore of Babylon written all over it[/quote]Ummm… nope. The use of generally biblical language to make a point is NOT The same as espousing a specific view of a specific entity described in the book of Revelation whose actual identity I have never been sure of.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:<<< Pretty much whore of Babylon written all over it[/quote]Ummm… nope. The use of generally biblical language to make a point is NOT The same as espousing a specific view of a specific entity described in the book of Revelation whose actual identity I have never been sure of.
[/quote]
And I want to thank you for pointing that out, in your round-about way, Ti. I did some cross-referencing to OT scriptures, and this entity is certainly not Christ. You still haven’t responded to my e-mail on that particular subject, but I have found more specific references to add to the general observations I pointed at before.
The biblical language points to Jerusalem if anything. So just to be clear the Catholic Church is a whore just not specifically the whore of Babylon.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
The biblical language points to Jerusalem if anything. So just to be clear the Catholic Church is a whore just not specifically the whore of Babylon.[/quote]
Can you provide evidence as to why you say this?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
The biblical language points to Jerusalem if anything. So just to be clear the Catholic Church is a whore just not specifically the whore of Babylon.[/quote]
Can you provide evidence as to why you say this?[/quote]
This guy puts it together way more succinctly than I could THE WHORE OF BABYLON - REVELATION
Feel free to enlighten me if you find errors with his interpretations of the lines in Revelations but I thought most of it made sense to me.
[quote]storey420 wrote:<<< So just to be clear the Catholic Church is a whore just not (necessarily) specifically the whore of Babylon. addition mine.[/quote]Actually this is about how I would phrase it. Pat however jumps on me about being “brainwashed” into believing that the Catholic church IS (caps his) the whore of Babylon. A thing I wouldn’t have said because I’ve never claimed to know. However Pat has made a virtual career out of attributing things to me I never said and which I have documented many times. He put me on ignore when I caught him red handed in a falsehood that was crystal clear. I asked him to just say “hey, I was wrong” and we’d move on, but no. He stood by his statement that I had quoted and linked to and put me on ignore instead. The conversation is still there.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
The biblical language points to Jerusalem if anything. So just to be clear the Catholic Church is a whore just not specifically the whore of Babylon.[/quote]
This is true also because it also says its the great city where Christ died, which is Jerusalem.
I don’t know why people keep espousing a futuristic view of Revelation (Or Daniel, or Isaiah) when the first paragraph clearly states that the things written in it are specifically for the 7 churches in Asia Minor for events that are to happen soon (so within their life time).
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
The biblical language points to Jerusalem if anything. So just to be clear the Catholic Church is a whore just not specifically the whore of Babylon.[/quote]
Can you provide evidence as to why you say this?[/quote]
This guy puts it together way more succinctly than I could THE WHORE OF BABYLON - REVELATION
Feel free to enlighten me if you find errors with his interpretations of the lines in Revelations but I thought most of it made sense to me.[/quote]
It’s going to take me a while to read all of it, but a couple of notes to begin with:
The woman is a separate entity from the beast, therefore she is not one of the seven hills, she rides on the beast’s back. Jerusalem is the city, therefore it cannot ride on its own back.
Rev 11 refers to a completely different event. It does not confirm that the beast is Jerusalem. Both Jerusalem and Rome are great cities.
Why can’t the whore and the city be the same thing? In a literary sense you can see how it could refer back to the same entity. I think in the case of revelations it is supposed to be a whore and adultery of the spiritual sense (idol worship) versus just the physical fornication sense.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< You still haven’t responded to my e-mail on that particular subject, >>>[/quote] I’m sorry man. There’s a couple other guys I still need to respond to too. I can barely keep up with my posts here.
The preterits view as mentioned here by Forbes is gaining popularity again. I’m gonna have to just say again that eschatology ios my weakest area.
We should take this somewhere else though. I was really trying to keep it to what Chris and I were finally getting to.