There is only one Liturgy which is in heaven and it is outside of time. Every Eucharist, we enter back into God’s time and space and share in the one Eucharist.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
There is only one Liturgy which is in heaven and it is outside of time. Every Eucharist, we enter back into God’s time and space and share in the one Eucharist. [/quote]
Yeah, good explaining it brother.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
There is only one Liturgy which is in heaven and it is outside of time. Every Eucharist, we enter back into God’s time and space and share in the one Eucharist. [/quote]That’s the way I learned it as I brought up to Chris many months ago.
[quote]
Whenever any religious teaching has started becoming distorted its guardians, having already brought people to a state of weakened rational activity, have then employed every means of persuading them of what they wanted. In all faiths it has been necessary to persuade them of the same three tenets which lie at the basis of all the perversions that have corrupted ageing religions. Firstly, that there are special people who alone can act as intermediaries between man and God, or the Gods; secondly, that miracles have been, and are being, performed which prove and confirm the truth of what the intermediaries say; and thirdly that there are certain words repeated orally or written in books which express the unwavering will of God, or the Gods, and which are sacred and infallible.
As soon as these propositions are accepted, under hypnotic influence, everything said by these intermediaries is recognised as the holy truth, and then the chief purpose of the religious perversion is accomplished. The purpose is not only to conceal the law of human equality, but to construe and affirm the highest inequality: the division of castes, the distinction between people and gays, Orthodox and heretic, holy and sinful. The same division has always occurred in Christianity: complete inequality between men has been accepted, as well as division, not just according to their understanding of the doctrines into lay and cleric, but according to social status into those with power and those who must submit, which the teaching of St Paul acknowledges as ordained by God.
Inequality between people, not just between lay and clergy, but between rich and poor, and masters and slaves, was established by the Church Christian religion in the same clear cut manner as in other religions. And yet, judging by what we know of the original conditions of Christianity from the teachings expressed in the Gospels, it would appear that the chief methods of distortion used by other religions had been foreseen and that warnings against them had been clearly stated. It was straightforwardly said against the priestly caste that none could be the teacher of another (â??Do not call yourselves fathers and teachersâ??).
Against the attribution of sacred knowledge to books it was said that what is important is the spirit and not the letter, that man ought not to believe in human traditions, and that all the laws and the Prophets, that is all those books in which the writing is considered sacred, lead only to the fact that we should do to others as we would wish them to do to us. If nothing is said against miracles, and if in the Gospels themselves there are descriptions of miracles presented as if performed by Jesus, it is nevertheless evident from the whole spirit of the teaching that the validity of Christâ??s doctrine is not based on miracles, but on the actual teaching (â??Whosoever wishes to know if my teaching is true, let him do as I sayâ??). The most important thing is that Christianity proclaims the equality of all men, no longer merely as a basic teaching of universal brotherhood, but because all men are recognised as being sons of God.It would therefore seem impossible to twist Christianity in such a way as to destroy the awareness of equality between all men.
But human intelligence is shrewd, and whether it was done unconsciously or semi-consciously, an entirely new method was devised (a â??trucâ?? as the French say) in order to make the warnings in the Gospels and the clearly proclaimed equality between men inoperative. This â??trucâ?? consisted in attributing infallibility not only to certain words, but to a certain group of people called the â??Churchâ??, who had a right to pass this infallibility on to people selected by themselves.
A slight addition to the Gospels was invented saying that when He departed for heaven, Christ handed certain people the exclusive right not just of instructing people in the sacred truth (according to the Gospel texts he handed over at the same time a right, seldom used, of being invulnerable to snakes, poisons and fire), but of saving and condemning people, and more importantly of conferring this power on others. As a result, as soon as the idea of the Church was firmly established all the Gospel proposals for hindering the distortion of Christâ??s teaching became inoperative, for the Church was superior to both reason and to the writings considered sacred. Reason was acknowledged as the source of all error and the Gospels were not interpreted in the light of common-sense, but merely as those who constituted the Church wished.
And thus, all the three previous methods of religious distortion- priesthood, miracles, and the infallibility of the Scriptures- were adopted wholeheartedly by Christianity. It was admitted as lawful to have intermediaries between God and man, because the Church recognised them as such. The reality of miracles was admitted because they bore witness to the infallibility of the Church, and the sanctity of the Bible was agreed because it was acknowledged by the Church.
Christianity was perverted in the same way as all the other religions with the single difference that precisely because Christianity voiced its fundamental doctrine of equality between all men with such clarity, it was necessary to use special force to distort the teaching and conceal its basic clause. With the help of the concept of a Church this was done to a greater extent than in any other religion. Indeed no other faith has ever preached things so incompatible with reason and contemporary knowledge, or ideas so immoral as those taught by Church Christianity
(Leo Tolstoy, Confessions).[/quote]
I often find that I seek an answer or confirmation and it comes to me. I know that I have beliefs in religion and the teachings, but the prectice is unbearable. I picked up a copy of Tolstoys Confessions and Other Religious Writings, which I stumbled upon at the book store, and found that he had the very same argument with himself that I had and am having with myself. He has very sound reasoning in my assesment, and I am curious if any of you might acknowlede there might be something to what he is saying in the above section. I also think he makes the strongest rational argument against Athism I have ever read, if for no other reason I think this makes this book worth reading.
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
I often find that I seek an answer or confirmation and it comes to me. I know that I have beliefs in religion and the teachings, but the prectice is unbearable. I picked up a copy of Tolstoys Confessions and Other Religious Writings, which I stumbled upon at the book store, and found that he had the very same argument with himself that I had and am having with myself. He has very sound reasoning in my assesment, and I am curious if any of you might acknowlede there might be something to what he is saying in the above section. I also think he makes the strongest rational argument against Athism I have ever read, if for no other reason I think this makes this book worth reading. [/quote]
It’s an argument against Atheism as long as someone doesn’t point out that his first argument is circular (the first and third parts of his premise).
The most reasonable arguments for G-d’s existence I have found are these:
- The Universe began to exist.
- The Universe is fine tuned.
- Objective morality.
- Personal Experiences.
- Jesus of Nazareth (historical claims).
ALL human reasoning is circular. I defy anyone to demonstrate a basis for human reasoning that is not circular.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
ALL human reasoning is circular. I defy anyone to demonstrate a basis for human reasoning that is not circular.[/quote]
Yes, we know Tirib. However, for some people, like St. Paul using stoic philosophy, they like to not insult someone and actually meet them where they are at to explain it.
The argument:
- G-d exists.
- G-d is inerrant.
- The scriptures are the word of G-d.
- The scriptures are inerrant.
- The scriptures say G-d exists.
.: 6. Therefore, G-d exists.
That is circular reasoning where your first premise and your conclusion are the same. However, those reasons above do not commit circular reasoning.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
ALL human reasoning is circular. I defy anyone to demonstrate a basis for human reasoning that is not circular.[/quote]
No it’s not…
Deductive and inductive arguments are not circular. Circular reasoning begs the question. Any good logical argument avoids this problem. Therefore, not all human reasoning, nor it’s basis is circular.
You need to understand the difference between the terms Deposit, Dogma and Doctrine.
The Deposit is the body of truth originally given to the apostles. Some of it was written into Scripture and some maintained in oral tradition. The Church teaches that nothing can be added or contradicted into the deposit. The goal is to conserve it without no change whatsoever.
Dogma is the body of truth that has been affirmed by the councils of the Church.
Doctrine is the development of truth on the basis of deposit and dogma. This is the realm of theology. The “eating meat on Friday” thing is doctrine and may change over time.
[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
You need to understand the difference between the terms Deposit, Dogma and Doctrine.
The Deposit is the body of truth originally given to the apostles. Some of it was written into Scripture and some maintained in oral tradition. The Church teaches that nothing can be added or contradicted into the deposit. The goal is to conserve it without no change whatsoever.
Dogma is the body of truth that has been affirmed by the councils of the Church.
Doctrine is the development of truth on the basis of deposit and dogma. This is the realm of theology. The “eating meat on Friday” thing is doctrine and may change over time.[/quote]
I agree with you and you forgot one more D, discipline. Doctrines do not change, they develop and are reexplained but never do they change. Discipline, which not eating meat on Friday is and not a doctrine like that of fasting.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
ALL human reasoning is circular. I defy anyone to demonstrate a basis for human reasoning that is not circular.[/quote]
Yes, we know Tirib. However, for some people, like St. Paul using stoic philosophy, they like to not insult someone and actually meet them where they are at to explain it.
The argument:
- G-d exists.
- G-d is inerrant.
- The scriptures are the word of G-d.
- The scriptures are inerrant.
- The scriptures say G-d exists.
.: 6. Therefore, G-d exists.
That is circular reasoning where your first premise and your conclusion are the same. However, those reasons above do not commit circular reasoning.[/quote]
I’d classify that as “internal consistency.”
Yay, I’m reviving my thread. I came across this list of questions. I have a lot more, but as you know, I just want to learn more. Please, take your time, don’t feel rushed.:
If the Bible is a Catholic book…
1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
14.Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?
God bless 
[quote]forbes wrote:
Yay, I’m reviving my thread. I came across this list of questions. I have a lot more, but as you know, I just want to learn more. Please, take your time, don’t feel rushed.:
If the Bible is a Catholic book…
1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
[/quote]
Uh, how did you get ^ that out of that scripture…Those are woes to the pharisees for acting righteous in front of others but having corrupt hearts. Jesus is not admonishing dress here specifically. Especially since said dress was prescribed in Leviticus for the priests in the tent of meeting…
Jesus honored his mother and so do we. We do not worship her, we honor her. Far be it from me to not honor somebody who Jesus himself did honor. The passage has nothing to do with her, specifically. It is that all who listen and do the word is family.
That through Jesus we are part of a holy priesthood? I don’t see the issue. ‘Priest’ is just a title, a way to identify clergy.
Paul is stating that under the new covenant the Galations were not bound any longer by mosaic law.
We’re all called to be saints. Hence we have ‘All Saints day’ for the living and the dead.
We don’t worship images. Images are prayer and tools of prayer. We’re not making images of baal worshiping it. We make paintings and statues of Holy people or scenes from scripture. They are prayers and give honor to God by those who lived out his word.
It doesn’t “having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.”
There is also other ‘types’ of baptism…Mk 10:38, Lk 12:50, Acts 19:4
It doesn’t say religious leaders it says “Ã? And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
(Matthew 23:9 ESV)” if you want to get technical, that would be your Dad too.
Christ IS the founder of the church, St. Peter did not declare it, Jesus did Mt 16:18
You lost me here…Unless you got tangled up in some sort of terminology with which am not familiar.
In today’s terms he’s talking about a preist. Second, he is talking about choosing men that have no more than one wife…St. Paul prefers celibacy…1 Cor 7:32
I think you missed the point of that passage. It has nothing to do with Peter…Let the greatest be the least, the leaders must serve…
A chasm between heaven and hell is not opposition to purgatory…Matt 12:32 speaks of forgiveness in the life to come.
[quote]
14.Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?
God bless :)[/quote]
The mass is in there. The rosary is a scriptural prayer, the Hail Mary is a combo if Angel Gabriel’s speech and Elizabeth’s greeting. The Our Father is obvious I hope, and each mystery is a scriptural scene. James chap 5 is the one of the scriptures referring to confession. The mass was established in the last supper referred to several times in the ‘breaking of the Bread’ in Acts and more specifially in 1 Cor 11:17 - 30…
That’s all I have time for…
The Pope has twitter, and I re-tweeted his first message! Oh, yeah!
[quote]forbes wrote:
Yay, I’m reviving my thread. I came across this list of questions. I have a lot more, but as you know, I just want to learn more. Please, take your time, don’t feel rushed.:
If the Bible is a Catholic book…
1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).[/quote]
This isn’t a condemnation of clerical dress, Jesus wasn’t talking about dress he was talking about what is equivalent to a head band and bracelets. What is spoken here is the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. As most Jews probably wore Phylacteries (even Jesus likely wore them on his forehead and as bracelets), which were parchment with the ten commandments or pieces of the law. What is the hypocrisy is that they wore them larger than anyone else, yet they did not follow them.
Imagine those WWJD? bracelets and imagine crosses, now imagine that religious people consider the bigger ones you have the more pious you are, yet the ones that wore the biggest one were the ones that followed his Commandments the least.
And, that is what Jesus was talking about.
That doesn’t teach against adoration of Mary. It teaches that it is better to be part of Jesus’ spiritual family than Jesus’ biological family. His mother Mary is blessed in both categories as she is both, she is Christ’s biological mother (1:42, 48) and the par excellence example of one who hears and keeps the word of the Lord (1:38, 45).
Because all Christians are priests. The reason he said royal priesthood is two fold 1) there were likely minsters of God, who were truly and properly priests, of whom Christ is the cheif. 2) Every Christian is a priest in a less proper sense, so much as he offers God what in a less proper and metaphorical sense may be called sacrifices and oblations; which is the sacrifice of an humble and contrite heart (Psalm 1), the sacrifice of self-denials and mortifications, of prayer, almsdeeds, &c.
As well it is a called a royal priesthood, as Christians can also be called metaphorically kings, by governing their passions, or because they are invited to reign with Christ in his kingdom, to sit on his throne, &c. See Apocalypse iii. 21 (Witham)
Ver. 9, and if you look at Ex 19:6, where Israel is gathered at Sinai and consecrated as a royal priesthood and a holy nation. These titles and privileges, once the exclusive prerogative of Israel, are now extended to the whole messianic people, who have come to share in the blessings of a covenant relationship with God (Rom 11:17-24; 15:27). However, they had distinction between the priests that did the sacrifices in the tabernacle and the rest of the priests.
I’m going to say that this doesn’t, because about a large portion of the Gospels Jesus is celebrating ‘special days.’ However, I’ll look at the verse and get you a real answer.
It has to do with the Judaizers. It refers to the liturgical calender of Israel, which regulated by the cycle of the sun and moon (gen 1:14). Apparently the Judaizers persuaded some of the Galatians to begin celebrating the weekly (Sabbath, Ex 20:8-11), monthly (New Moon, Num 28:11-15), seasonal (Passover, Pentecost, &c., Deut 16:1-17), and a yearly (New Years, see note on Lev 23:24) festivals of the Old Covenant (Col 2:16).
And as St. Augustine says: “We dedicate and consecrate the memory of God’s benefits with solemnities on solemn appointed days, lest in process of time they might creep into ungrateful and unkind oblivion.” And of the martyrs thus: “Christian people celebrate the memories of martyrs with religious solemnity, both to move themselves to an imitation of their virtues, and that they may be partakers of their merits, and helped by their prayers.” (Conta Faust. lib. xx. chap. 21.)
It is much different to celebrate those things and celebrate feast days in which celebrate the Lord.
These false teachers were for obliging all Christians to observe all the Jewish feasts, fasts, ceremonies, &c. Some of the later reformers find here an occasion to blame the fasts and holydays kept by Catholics. St. Jerome, in his commentary on these words, tells us that some had made the like objection in his time: his answer might reasonably stop their rashness; to wit, that Christians keep indeed the sabbath on the Sunday, (not the Jewish sabbath on Saturdays) that they keep also divers holydays, and days on which great saints suffered martyrdom, (let our adversaries take notice of this) but that both the days are different, and the motives of keeping them. See St. Jerome, tom. iv. p. 271. (Witham)
It says they are called to be saints, not that all Christians are saints.
All such images or likenesses, are forbidden by this commandment, as are made to be adored and served; according to that which immediately follows, thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them. That is, all such as are designed for idols or image gods, or are worshipped with divine honour. But otherwise images, pictures, or representations, even in the house of God, and in the very sanctuary, so far from being forbidden are expressly authorized by the word of God. See Exodus xxv. 15, &c.; chap. xxxviii. 7; Numbers xxi. 8, 9; 1 Chronicles xxviii. 18, 19; 2 Chronicles iii. 10. (Challoner)
Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth…that is as an idol. We know what God looks like, God made his own graven image in Jesus. However, before Jesus there was not material thing that which was God.
As well, you have the tabernacle, you have brazen serpent, you have ark, you have the cherubim that were all commissioned by God himself. Doesn’t make sense that God would command his people to break his own commandment.
Well, if you want to, go ahead and “immerse” a baby under water. Most rivers at the time when Jesus was baptized, even the Jordan was shallow, immersion would have been impossible. The likely form of baptism was pouring of water on one’s forehead three times.
Although, baptism is done by immersion (I personally favor immersion, because the last time you dunk the person in the water you have to hold them under water for about four to eight seconds depending on how fast you talk, and I talk slow).
And, my point is that immersion is good, I like it, but it’s kind of bad practice to be dunking babies and trying to put someone’s entire head under water when there is only four inches of water.
Side Note: Recently I went to the pool with a friend who just had a baby, did you know new borns know how to instinctively swim? She was like two days old and knew how to swim! Amazing.
Jesus uses hyperbole to post a warning that no one should pridefully desire honorific titles. His words aren’t meant literally, you can still call your pops, father. The NT wirters elsewhere use father for natural fathers (Heb 12:7-11) and spiritual fathers in the Church (1 Cor 4:15; Philem 10). The spiritual fatherhood of New Covenant priests is an extension of its application to Old Covenant priests (Judges 17:10; 18:19).
And, if you go up a whole 20 verses later (v. 29), Jesus uses father is a kind light twice.
I don’t know why does it teach that all the apostles are part of the foundation? Peter is not another foundation, he is in a special way, as the Prince of the Apostles, brought into the foundation of Jesus to be made as well the Rock which Jesus built his Church.
If you look at Eph 2:20, we can see that the it is built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, with Jesus being the cornerstone, but not the entire foundation in this image, but he is. So how can he be the entire foundation and be just the corner stone? Because Peter and the apostles are brought into relationship with Jesus and made part of that foundation.
Same thing as why it teachers there is one Rabbi or teacher, one Father, one Lord, one King, one High Priest. Because there is, but when we are in a relationship with Jesus we are brought into those things in certain degrees. We are brought into the one Fatherhood when we have children (either spiritual or biological), we become King when we rule over our house and our appetites, we share in Him being a teacher, when we teach the gospel.
It says that a Bishop should be of one wife, as in not a polygamist or someone that is married multiple times. I mean if a Bishop has to be married, then I guess Jesus as well as Paul and Timothy couldn’t be Bishops. That isn’t he case.
Then how come Jesus prays just for Peter right after that in verse 31 if he has no primacy?
Want to see Peter’s primacy?
Simon Peter is the most visible and most vocal apostle
- Peter is at the top of the list of Apostles Jesus picked.
1.2 Matthew said he was “first” - When the evangelist mentions the apostles, Peter is singled out that no one else is singled out “Peter and the eleven.”
- The collectors of the Temple tax approach the apostles and go to Peter as the representative of the group.
- When Peter speaks to Jesus, he usually speaks on behalf of the twelve.
- Peter gets special attention by Jesus, along with James and John, the sons of Zebedee, he was chosen to witness the raising of Jairus’ daughter, Transfiguration, the agony of Jesus in teh garden of Gethsemane. He’s also one of the only three who were renamed, from Simon to Kepha and James and John to the sons of thunder.
- Jesus prays for Peter personally on the night of his betrayal so that he may turn again and steady the faith of his brother apostles.
- Easter morning, Peter and John raced to inspect the empty tomb. John outran him, but he waited for Peter to catch up and allowed him to enter the tomb first
- Jesus appeared privately to Peter on Easter. So, he was first witness of the Resurrection among the apostles.
- Jesus made promises that no other apostle received
9.2 That Jesus was build his Church on Peter, so that he alone would be the foundation stone of Christ’s new and living Temple, that he alone would be the keeper of the keys of Christ’s kingdom, and that he alone would be the head shepherd in charge of Christ’s sheep.
Peter keeps up his primacy act in the book of acts, he excerises authority on a level of leadership that is unmatched in the ministry of any other apostle:
- After Jesus ascended, Peter intiated and oversaw the replacement of Judas Iscariot with another longtime disciple.
- When the Spirit came down upon the apostles at Pentecost, it was Peter who gave the inaugural sermon on Church history to the Jerusalem.
- When the crowds accepted his testimony, it was Peter who urged them to repent and receive Baptism
- It was Peter who performed the first recorded healing in Church history
- When Peter and John were arrested, it was again Peter who addressed the Sanhedrin and gave witness to the gospel.
- Peter handled the first recorded case of ecclesial discipline excerised in Church history.
- Peter brought the spirit to endorce this new missionary development when the gospel first spread beyong Judea.
- When God arranged for the first Gentile conversions in Church history, he sent Peter to preach and administer Baptism
- The first recorded council in Church history convened in Jerusalem, it was Peter who stood up to end the debate with a solemn proclamation of Christian doctrine.
Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59…Jesus teaches us that we should, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.”
The word “opponent” is the devil (1 Peter 5:8) who is the accuser against men (Job 1.6-12, Rev 12.10) and God is judge.
If we haven’t dealt with satan and sin in this life, we are held in a temporary prison and we can’t leave until we satisfy our entire debt to God. This “prison,” Catholics call purgatory and Orthodox call the final purification. And we don’t get out until the last penny is paid.
Matthew 5.48 Jesus tells us, “be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.” When you die, are you purified from sin? If you would live another 100 years from the moment you died, would you be tempted to sin? Well then you’re not perfect like your Father is perfect. Without purgatory, then no can be perfect, and as we know nothing unperfect can be around the Father.
2 Macc 12.43-45, the prayers for the dead help free them from sin and help them to the rewards of heaven. We do know that there is no sin in heaven, and of course those in hell can no longer be freed from sin as they are fully entrenched in it. Of course they are in purgatory. It is evident that Luther was troubled with these verses bc he threw them out of the Bible and rejected age-old teachin of purgatory. As a result, he removed Maccabees from the canon of the Bible for Protestants.
[quote]14.Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?
God bless :)[/quote]
Because there is Sacred Tradition.
If you read the ECFs you can see that infant baptism, music, indulgences, confession to a priest (which is in the Bible, confess your sins to one another), the Rosary (which is in the bible, just not in its current form and because the Rosary came around the second millennium), the mass is all up in the Bible. The mass is Scripture, pretty much every word said in the Mass is out of the Bible.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The Pope has twitter, and I re-tweeted his first message! Oh, yeah![/quote]
Pffft, he’s behind the times. The Dalai Lama has been on twitter for over a year
Chris, I didn’t realize Catholics offer baptism by immersion as an option. Interesting to know.
By the way, I’m a baptized Catholic. In my hospital, all of the infants were baptized by a Catholic priest as a matter of course. So I guess I’m covered 
Holy Jesus!!! Elder Forlife stepped in it now. Chris is on the charge!!! I WILL say that almost none of the totally unbiblical, reprehensible, perversions of Roman Catholicism are as easily dismissed as baseless idiocy as her critics often allege. They will have SOME answer for absolutely everything. In other words it will never be that somebody points out some passage of scripture or chapter in history that has that church gape jawed in surprise LOL!!! As if they’re going to say “GOOD HEAVENS!!! Great point, never saw that before”. Yeah right lol.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Holy Jesus!!! Elder Forlife stepped in it now. Chris is on the charge!!! I WILL say that almost none of the totally unbiblical, reprehensible, perversions of Roman Catholicism are as easily dismissed as baseless idiocy as her critics often allege. They will have SOME answer for absolutely everything. In other words it will never be that somebody points out some passage of scripture or chapter in history that has that church gape jawed in surprise LOL!!! As if they’re going to say “GOOD HEAVENS!!! Great point, never saw that before”. Yeah right lol.[/quote]
It’s called confirmatory bias.
Pot, meet kettle.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
<<<…perversions of Roman Catholicism are as easily dismissed as baseless idiocy as her critics often allege.>>>
[/quote]
Oh? This was a stellar rebuttal too, I think you should go for Supreme Court Justice, with this logic in tow.
Which is better then no answer for anything, which is your response to hard questions.