[quote]Sloth wrote:
<<< If I held a picture of dead my grandmother to me, perhaps even kissing it before setting it down, I suppose that too is idolatry.[/quote]
If you started praying to her through it and wearing her bones around your neck paying them “veneration” in hopes of response as millions of catholics do with saints and relics then yes that would be idolatry. Actually saints don’t receive veneration they receive “dulia” (spelling?) Relics receive veneration and Mary receives “hyper=dulia” while God including the “host” receive “Latria”. No they are not the same thing as I said. They are a semantic exercise to justify God dishonoring idolatry.
How can you possibly believe the mortally jealous God of the bible would sanction ANY honoring of anybody or anything in ANY way in relation to faith and worship other than himself? Tradition, that’s how. This is what I’m talkin about. The whole mindset that could produce these formulated multi layered theological constructs is utterly foreign to the bible. It just is. How is that even up for discussion? I wouldn’t have as much trouble with Rome if they just abandoned the bible and continued coming up with these weird superstitions. [/quote]
I see your idolatry and I raise you this:
[20] And Eliseus died, and they buried him. And the rovers from Moab came into the land the same year. [21] And some that were burying a man, saw the rovers, and cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood upon his feet.
And, 4th Book of Kings, ch. ii. we are told that Elijah, when he went up in a fiery chariot, let fall his mantle, his cloak; only what you would call a rag, mind you; a mere piece of stuff. Now, Elisha took it up, and he did a thing which none of you could, according to your relgion, have done. “He took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters,” which looked very much like the same sort of trust in a rag as these Catholics do, “and he said, where is the Lord God of Elijah?” which sounded very like trust in the merits and prayers of a saint, who had gone from earth, “and when he had smitted the waters, they pareterd hither and thither; and Elisha went over.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
<<< If I held a picture of dead my grandmother to me, perhaps even kissing it before setting it down, I suppose that too is idolatry.
Tiribulus wrote:
If you started praying to her through it and wearing her bones around your neck paying them “veneration” in hopes of response as millions of catholics do with saints and relics then yes that would be idolatry.[/quote]
We don’t pray “through” anything. This is where it starts to get exhausting. There are charges made, that are just patently false. Icons and such are not prayed through. Period. The Catholic church explicitly teaches this.
That’s why I brought in the example of a picture.
If they’re not the same thing, as you just said, then they’re not the same thing…
Here’s some of our ‘hyper-dulia.’ “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”
Among women, all women, she is blessed. Hyper-dulia. That’s Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist.
So, if one of our founding fathers is dead (of course), and was a christian, we can’t honor him with a statue? We can’t reflect on it?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Regarding how the Church regards the Blessed Virgin Mary, <<<>>> that is theologically sophisticated, yet can be read by non-theologians. >>>[/quote]
(holds head in hands with knot in throat) There is no such thing as sophisticated theology regarding Mary the mother of Jesus. None. Relatively speaking she’s barely even mentioned in the new testament. It’s pure speculative philosophy drawn from the minds of men and not from the word of God. This is some dangerous ground you guys are treading on. [/quote]
By nature…
On Sacred Doctrine, “Since this science is partly speculative and partly practical, it transcends all others speculative and practical.” (Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q.1.5)
It is not pure speculation. [/quote]
Do you remember in the death penalty thread when I told you what a towering intellect Aquinas was, but that he was given to waxing a bit too philosophical a bit too often? This is one of those times. “sacred doctrine” including my own is not science and how does it follow that ANYTHING, merely being comprised of ANY 2 things, dictates it’s transcendence of those 2 or any other things? That is nonsensical philosophically and wholly inaccurate theologically.
Christian doctrine is primarily neither speculative nor practical in it’s discovery. It’s biblical and all speculation and practice are themselves dictated by scripture or we wind up with very nice guys like you quoting Thomas Aquinas as if he were the 4th person in the Godhead and his words were to be taken as authoritatively settling a controversy regardless of what the bible says.
Besides, Chris, my dear friend, how, I beg of thee, is a sophisticated theology of Mary to be drawn from nature even if we conceded Aquinas his points? Peyote? And lots of it? Where are you gonna find data about Mary in nature? Nature IS data about God, but Mary? I just can’t believe none of this strikes you fine people as being more than a bit out there.[/quote]
Trib, I have a lot I’d like to say to all that - as much as I respect you, I personally think you’re misunderstanding a great deal. For example, its simply a historical fact that the Church and doctrine were in existence before the Gospels were written, and certainly before the Holy Bible was assembled. Where do you think the Gospels and Bible came from? However, I really don’t want to fan the flames any more. I prolly already have. LOL.
Let me instead say this: the book I mentioned is not speculative theology; it is a fascinating account of what is not only strongly pre-figured via Old Testament typology (which I’d think you’d really like; it’s really quite beautiful & amazing), but finds its roots in the very first moments of the Church, and is given passionate expression by the very early Church Fathers.
“What He bestowed on Mary in the Flesh, He has bestowed on the Church in the Spirit: Mary gave birth to the One, and the Church gives birth to the Many, who through the One become one.” ~ St. Augustine.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I knew this was comin and I knew I’d be sorry when it was here. Maybe some more tomorrow guys.
@Ephrem, nah, fighting is the wrong to look at it. Same controversies different century.[/quote]
…well, at least you guys aren’t killing eachother over disagreements anymore, so that’s good…
[/quote]
Funny how the secular powers that be are still violent and bloody, eh? Even funnier is that the more Godless they are, the bloodier they are. Still funnier is that this was always true. Weird.
This is what I am having issues with. Putting Mary on a pedistal that she was better than us. I understand the issue with Mary interceeding for you so that is why you pray to her. I alright with going to the priest for confession but then take it to the High Priest in Jesus Christ. These are just my thoughts. I do not understand why you need to go to Mary for help. [/quote]
Why wouldn’t you ask someone to pray for you? You don’t request prayers for you and your family? You don’t pray for others?
[/quote]
I stated that I could understand going to a priest to pray for me. Mary is not omnipresent or omniscent so she can not hear everyones prayer.[/quote]
We don’t believe so either. We do believe she can hear our prayers because God allows it. And even hearing all of our prayers, does not make for omnipresence or omniscience, anyways. Such is the knowledge of knowing where the tiniest constituent of matter has been, is, and ever will be, in all of creation.
Let me just cut to the chase for a minute. Have you ever lost a loved one? Do you visit their grave site? Do you let them know you miss them?
[/quote]
Yes, but I do not ask them to pray for me. We have never seen or talked to Mary. I talk to God because we walk with him daily. The Holy Spirit speaks to us. Mary does not have a Holy Spirit given to us so there is no reason to ask her to pray for us. It is one thing to think about Mary and her being the Mother of God, but that is all she is. The Doctrine of Mary in the Roman Catholic Church is not Biblical by any stretch of the imagination. It distracts us from going to the one that we should be going to. The foot of the cross and the throne of grace.
I am really trying to understand where you all are coming from. As Protestants we think about what God did through Mary every Christmas. The Birth of Christ. The issue we as Protestants have is it seems like many Catholics take the Mary thing to the nth degree. When a picture of Mary shows up on a grilled cheese sandwhich (hyperbole but you know what I mean) people bow down to it. They may not be worshipping the grilled cheese sandwhich but there is definitely a portion of Catholics that think Mary is a supernatural being and she is reveling herself in the grilled cheese sandwhich. She is not supernatural in any since. She was a humble and poor virgin Hebrew girl. She was favored by God no doubt, but no supernatural powers were ever bestowed upon her. The Baby she was carrying was the supernatural being, but not her. It is very clear that supernatural powers were bestowed upon the apostles. If Mary would have received them do you not think that it would have been reported somewhere in the Bible? If she had these powers why would Jesus ask the favored apostle to take care of her. She would have been just fine. Why is Mary given so much power by the Catholic Church? I think at first the Catholic Church only wanted to honor Mary, but it has snowballed into something more than it should have been, as seen in the grilled cheese sandwhich, knot on a tree, crumple of paper, or pick you best Mary sighting. With these sightings the Catholic Church deems them as miracles and divine revelation. Why would God send Mary to talk to people. He has angels to be his messengers and in the Bible that is all he used was Angels.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
<<< We don’t pray “through” anything. This is where it starts to get exhausting. There are charges made, that are just patently false. Icons and such are not prayed through. Period. The Catholic church explicitly teaches this. >>>[/quote] Again, sacerdotal semantics. Call it what you want. From the 25th section of the The canons and decrees of the sacred
and oecumenical Council of Trent which is absolutely authoritative to this day as I’m sure you well know: CT25
“Also, that the holy bodies of holy martyrs, and of others now living with Christ,-which bodies were the living members of Christ, and the temple of the Holy Ghost, and which are by Him to be raised unto eternal life, and to be glorified,–are to be venerated by the faithful; through which (bodies) many benefits are bestowed by God on men; so that they who affirm that veneration and honour are not due to the relics of saints; or, that these, and other sacred monuments, are uselessly honoured by the faithful; and that the places dedicated to the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of obtaining their aid; are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and now also condemns them.”
I linked to the document so the rest can be read by whoever may care. Spin it however you will, but in the end dead bodies = great divine benefits and those who deny it are CONDEMNED. That’s quite a bit more my friend than fond historical reflection at Mount Vernon.
Again the 25th of Trent. And here is a prime example of the slipperiest of word-smithing double talk to which I previously referred. The council was very careful to qualify that the objects are nothing in themselves (people can read it at the above link) and then dazzle us with this: “but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent; in such wise that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear: as, by the decrees of Councils, and especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the opponents of images.”
You are gonna sit there with a straight face and tell me that this does not amount to praying through? Kissing and PROSTRATING YOURSELF before an earthly object (my God man, I can barely bring myself to type that) as a help to reaching the prototype is not praying through it? Again, I’ll leave it to people to determine for themselves how they perceive that works itself out in practice regardless of what smooth rhetoric may be employed to justify it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If they’re not the same thing, as you just said, then they’re not the same thing…
Here’s some of our ‘hyper-dulia.’ “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”
Among women, all women, she is blessed. Hyper-dulia. That’s Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist. >>>[/quote] I would have hoped you had more respect for me than this. There is no way you are gonna have me believe that this is the extent of hyper-dulia? Why have a theology and term for it JUST FOR HER if that’s all it meant. Any second grader can read that in the gospels. How therefore pray tell are whole volumes written as we’ve seen right here, propounding sophisticated mariological systems of belief? Here comes more semantic double talk.
[quote]Sloth wrote:So, if one of our founding fathers is dead (of course), and was a christian, we can’t honor him with a statue? We can’t reflect on it?[/quote]Please see above!! I will not prostrate myself before or kiss a graven bust of George Whitfield in the hope that he will make extra special supplication before the throne of Grace on my behalf. He, like Mary (who was indeed an exceedingly godly and blessed woman) would severely rebuke me to my face and rightfully and thankfully so if it were to become known to them and they were so enabled.
You are gonna sit there with a straight face and tell me that this does not amount to praying through? Kissing and PROSTRATING YOURSELF before an earthly object (my God man, I can barely bring myself to type that) as a help to reaching the prototype is not praying through it?[/quote]
Yep, I am going to tell you that. We do not pray through them. We show our respects and honor great people of the Church. And we do use earthly items in our observances, because well, we have earthly bodies and senses. Man builds statues to remember, recall, and honor their respected. Forget statues and relics, if I was wrong not one family would feel the want to own a camera, even. Protestants wouldn’t clutch the bible to them while praying. Yes, the bible is an earthly object, yet protestants in their meditations will often kneel with it firmly grasped in hand, even kissing it. Do they pray through the bible? The physical earthly book before them? Do protestants despise Passion Plays, the nativity scene during Christmas, the fish/Jesus Icon?
I’ll play the game, too. I will refuse to accept what is told to me about the private inner thought of the protestant, by the protestant. I will instead claim that they believe they are praying THROUGH the bible, a physical object, to God. I, yes I, will determine the inner thoughts of the Protestant. There, now we both claim psychic powers. It’s an unfair advantage the protestant makes use of, but I intend to borrow it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If they’re not the same thing, as you just said, then they’re not the same thing…
Here’s some of our ‘hyper-dulia.’ “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”
Among women, all women, she is blessed. Hyper-dulia. That’s Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist.
Tirib:
I would have hoped you had more respect for me than this. There is no way you are gonna have me believe that this is the extent of hyper-dulia? Why have a theology and term for it JUST FOR HER if that’s all it meant. Any second grader can read that in the gospels. How therefore pray tell are whole volumes written as we’ve seen right here, propounding sophisticated mariological systems of belief? Here comes more semantic double talk.[/quote]
How are untold volumes written on Adam Smith? Lincoln? Washington? Does the protestant object? But, whole volumes can’t be written about the most blessed of all women? I don’t even understand the line of thinking. Does the American evangelical raise up the founding fathers, and other Americans figures, as people to be honored and respected in word and image, while arguing that the blessed of all women is nothing more that a passing moment in history? Yikes.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, if one of our founding fathers is dead (of course), and was a christian, we can’t honor him with a statue? We can’t reflect on it?
Tirib:
Please see above!! I will not prostrate myself before or kiss a graven bust of George Whitfield in the hope that he will make extra special supplication before the throne of Grace on my behalf. He, like Mary (who was indeed an exceedingly godly and blessed woman) would severely rebuke me to my face and rightfully and thankfully so if it were to become known to them and they were so enabled.
[/quote]
Sorry, but we believe the Church is made up of the earthy and the heavenly congregation. We have no problem asking our church members to pray for us.
Katz, to me this is a big deal. To raise Mary up to be the same as God is not ok. Mary is human and has sin. She needs a savior as much as all of us. Jesus is the only human who was without sin. Do I think that people can come to Jesus through the Catholic Church? Yes I do.[/quote]
I hope sir you quip, as what you have said is extreme heretics to do in the Catholic Church. One that will get you excommunicated for disobeying the first commandment. Please tell me you do not believe the Catholic Church adores or latria of St. Mary.
Mary was human, that does not mean she is with sin, after all Gabriel claimed she was Full of Grace, or was he just lying to her and flattering her in an attempt to persuade her to be G-d’s Mother.
Yes, she needs a savior, how would being sinless be equivalent to her not needing a savior. I do not remember the Bible saying Jesus is the only person without Sin. The Catholic Church is the only way as long as you believe in the Bible.[/quote]
First, your last sentence. Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one shall come unto the Father except through me.” The Catholic Church does not save you, only the blood of Jesus Christ.
[/quote]
Stop twisting my words. I never said the Church saves you, the Holy Ghost does which is in the Catholic Church. However, only the Catholic Church has corporal authority to give the Blood and Body of Jesus Christ, as well as authority to absolve sins.
[quote]
Second, the idea of Mary being without sin says that she is righteous in her own being, so she does not need a Savior so being equal with Jesus.[/quote]
No it does not say anything about her being righteous in her own being. Were Adam and Eve righteous in their own being, they were born without sin? Where they righteous because they walked with G-d, until they distance themselves from G-d by disobeying Him?
[quote]
This is what this doctrine tells us of Mary having no Sin.[/quote]
The doctrine does not do that, you are taking doctrine that you have never read and assuming it says something. Maybe you should read the doctrine, understand the logic behind it because your assumptions are far off and not close to being correct.
[quote]
If Mary has sin then she needs Grace to be saved.[/quote]
Yes, we never denied this? What does this claim try to prove, she was full of grace, because the Lord is with her.
If anything it proves she was without sin and blemish since she was full of grace, there was no lack of grace inside her. The Lord was with her, are you saying G-d cannot do this or something?
That G-d cannot wipe Original Sin away? I am sure you reject the teachings of baptism as well.
We are saved by more than faith, we are saved by works as well.
I do not care that you are denying that Mary was favored by G-d or not, I am more flustered that you seem to be saying G-d cannot do something. She is human, that does not mean that G-d let her be born into slavery like the rest of us, especially since she was to raise our Messiah, and then bow down before Him in worship or latria. She is the new Eve, and her son is the new Adam, both again born without Sin, but this time they did not sin as they were all their days with the Lord. However, if Mary left the presence of the Lord, she would then be in sin, but she was never without the Lord.
[quote]
The Bible states that Jesus is the lamb who was slain. In the Old Testament an Unblemished Lamb was used to attone for sin. Unblemished means with out sin. Sin is the blemish on all humans.[/quote]
Yes, but you forget that just because Jesus was an unblemished lamb did not mean that much (many unblemished lambs were slain but that did not save anyone), but because he was the Perfect Unblemished Lamb, did it mean something.
God-Man, God who came down and sacrificed His own begotten son, for those that he adopted, both giving Oath to make himself the last slain sacrifice for all and enduring torture for his loved brothers and sister to die and raise on the third day.
Jesus is not just some unblemished lamb, unblemished lambs do not do much without other factors. [/quote]
The Bible itself shows that All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. “All have sinned.” This includes Mary. She can not be sinless. Can God do these things if he wants to yes, but what would the purpose be of Mary being sinless. This was not a teaching of the early church and as you said was not brought about until 1865.[/quote]
There is oral tradition. And like I said, maybe read the doctrine so you understand. I sent you a link that explains the doctrine in short.
That is like saying that Abraham is merely a vessel which G-d brought a covenant to the world. Mary was more than a vessel, she is G-d’s mother, love thy neighbor! People are not merely anything, I am sure Jesus would really appreciate someone saying his mother was merely a vessel for his use. She deserves respect, she is not worshiped with the Godhead, if someone does or says they are, that is blasphemy and violation of the first commandment. In past, it would punished by penance of bread and water for years on end, as it should be because worshiping Mary as we worship the Godhead is far from okay.
There is no proof Mary died, physical or otherwise. I believe there is another person in the Bible that was taken up to Heaven without dying a physical death.
[quote]
We are not saved by our works, it is by our works that people can see our faith.
I hope I am not twisting your words again. That is not my intentions.[/quote]
No, we are not saved by anything but Jesus. You have to have a relationship with Jesus, and the only way to have a relationship with Jesus is by having faith and doing works.[/quote]
I hope you are right that Mary is not to be worshipped. I have heard a rummor going around that the Vatican is actually thinking about giving Mary the title of Diety. Hypothetical, if the Pope was to come out and make this a doctine of the Roman Catholic Church what would you say about it?[/quote]
It is not true, that has been a rumor documented for quite sometime.
I’d kill him myself for blaspheme (kidding, those Swiss guys are pretty tough to get around), it would not be accepted as infallible because it does not go with Tradition. That is part of the infallibility, not everything the Pope says is infallible.
Basically the jist is that if he is not
in council, and
making declaration that go along with tradition, then it is not infallible.
As well Bishops are infallible if they are teaching from doctrine in a prepared state (doesn’t include off comments).
This is like we would not consider the Pope infallible on the issue of Jesus if he said Jesus was merely a moral teacher. He would clearly be committing blaspheme and probably be put into the looney bin for saying such things.[/quote]
So Mary has been thought to have no sin since her birth by the Church? I think the Pope that added this doctrine is incorrect and was outside of tradition.
The part about Mary getting the title of diety, all it takes is a little time and after a while the entire Roman Catholic Chruch will consider it as tradition. Yes there might be some backlash at the start, but it will be accepted after time. The same thing with Mary being without sin. The Protestant churches denounced this as heresy, but over time the Roman Catholic Chruch accepted it as doctrine and tradition.
I am glad you follow the Pope and what he says. I see why you all say what you do, but you refuse to see how we feel about the subject. We put forth the most authoritative source on the subject, The Bible, and you say your oral tradition and doctrine superceeds The Bible. I personally have an issue with this and many others on this website.[/quote]
So the Roman Church is going back to it’s polytheistic roots step by step
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
<<< Trib, I have a lot I’d like to say to all that - as much as I respect you, I personally think you’re misunderstanding a great deal. For example, its simply a historical fact that the Church and doctrine were in existence before the Gospels were written, and certainly before the Holy Bible was assembled. Where do you think the Gospels and Bible came from? However, I really don’t want to fan the flames any more. I prolly already have. LOL.
Let me instead say this: the book I mentioned is not speculative theology; it is a fascinating account of what is not only strongly pre-figured via Old Testament typology (which I’d think you’d really like; it’s really quite beautiful & amazing), but finds its roots in the very first moments of the Church, and is given passionate expression by the very early Church Fathers.
“What He bestowed on Mary in the Flesh, He has bestowed on the Church in the Spirit: Mary gave birth to the One, and the Church gives birth to the Many, who through the One become one.” ~ St. Augustine. >>>[/quote]
And I respect you guys too, I do, as tough as that may be to believe in light of what I’ve said. This is exactly why I put this off and the thing that Sloth had greatly feared has come upon us. I’ve read all this. I know about the catholic interpretations concerning Mary and OT types. I know about the early church, especially guys like Irenaeus. I know about Augustine and his Mary friendly statements. So have untold millions of other believers.
It’s not that we simply haven’t given roman catholicism a fair hearing whether intentionally or not and if we could just be put in possession of the right piece of information we’d see the light. At least in my case Rome is it’s own worst witness. The mountains of extra biblical superstition and the nearly comprehensive history of utterly grotesque and flagrant sin are 2 sides of the same coin. They together testify to the unholy nature of that church as an institution and her wholesale lack of spiritual power and authority in the earth. It is only by the unsearchable depths of the grace and mercy of God that any man joining himself to such a church can be saved in and in spite of her. AND hopefully eventually delivered out of her. Not through her if I may disagree with Dmaddox on that point.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I knew this was comin and I knew I’d be sorry when it was here. Maybe some more tomorrow guys.
@Ephrem, nah, fighting is the wrong to look at it. Same controversies different century.[/quote]
…well, at least you guys aren’t killing eachother over disagreements anymore, so that’s good…
[/quote]
Funny how the secular powers that be are still violent and bloody, eh? Even funnier is that the more Godless they are, the bloodier they are. Still funnier is that this was always true. Weird.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I knew this was comin and I knew I’d be sorry when it was here. Maybe some more tomorrow guys.
@Ephrem, nah, fighting is the wrong to look at it. Same controversies different century.[/quote]
…well, at least you guys aren’t killing eachother over disagreements anymore, so that’s good…
[/quote]
Funny how the secular powers that be are still violent and bloody, eh? Even funnier is that the more Godless they are, the bloodier they are. Still funnier is that this was always true. Weird.
I am really trying to understand where you all are coming from. As Protestants we think about what God did through Mary every Christmas. The Birth of Christ. The issue we as Protestants have is it seems like many Catholics take the Mary thing to the nth degree. When a picture of Mary shows up on a grilled cheese sandwhich (hyperbole but you know what I mean) people bow down to it. They may not be worshipping the grilled cheese sandwhich but there is definitely a portion of Catholics that think Mary is a supernatural being and she is reveling herself in the grilled cheese sandwhich. She is not supernatural in any since. She was a humble and poor virgin Hebrew girl. She was favored by God no doubt, but no supernatural powers were ever bestowed upon her. The Baby she was carrying was the supernatural being, but not her. It is very clear that supernatural powers were bestowed upon the apostles. If Mary would have received them do you not think that it would have been reported somewhere in the Bible? If she had these powers why would Jesus ask the favored apostle to take care of her. She would have been just fine. Why is Mary given so much power by the Catholic Church? I think at first the Catholic Church only wanted to honor Mary, but it has snowballed into something more than it should have been, as seen in the grilled cheese sandwhich, knot on a tree, crumple of paper, or pick you best Mary sighting. With these sightings the Catholic Church deems them as miracles and divine revelation. Why would God send Mary to talk to people. He has angels to be his messengers and in the Bible that is all he used was Angels.
The part about Mary getting the title of diety, all it takes is a little time and after a while the entire Roman Catholic Chruch will consider it as tradition. Yes there might be some backlash at the start, but it will be accepted after time. [/quote]
Lol. “I heard a rumor…oh, it’s not true? Well, ok, but it will be!”
Did you hear the one about how Catholics are building a secret army of robots to conquer the earth? Well, even if it’s not, given enough time it will be!
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I knew this was comin and I knew I’d be sorry when it was here. Maybe some more tomorrow guys.
@Ephrem, nah, fighting is the wrong to look at it. Same controversies different century.[/quote]
…well, at least you guys aren’t killing eachother over disagreements anymore, so that’s good…
[/quote]
Funny how the secular powers that be are still violent and bloody, eh? Even funnier is that the more Godless they are, the bloodier they are. Still funnier is that this was always true. Weird.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I knew this was comin and I knew I’d be sorry when it was here. Maybe some more tomorrow guys.
@Ephrem, nah, fighting is the wrong to look at it. Same controversies different century.[/quote]
…well, at least you guys aren’t killing eachother over disagreements anymore, so that’s good…
[/quote]
Funny how the secular powers that be are still violent and bloody, eh? Even funnier is that the more Godless they are, the bloodier they are. Still funnier is that this was always true. Weird.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I knew this was comin and I knew I’d be sorry when it was here. Maybe some more tomorrow guys.
@Ephrem, nah, fighting is the wrong to look at it. Same controversies different century.[/quote]
…well, at least you guys aren’t killing eachother over disagreements anymore, so that’s good…
[/quote]
Funny how the secular powers that be are still violent and bloody, eh? Even funnier is that the more Godless they are, the bloodier they are. Still funnier is that this was always true. Weird.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The mountains of extra biblical superstition and the nearly comprehensive history of utterly grotesque and flagrant sin are 2 sides of the same coin. They together testify to the unholy nature of that church as an institution and her wholesale lack of spiritual power and authority in the earth. [/quote]
Okay, is this the heart of your problem with the Church?
