[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You’re gonna be heartbroken Chris when you find out that it’s your arrogant church that has the private interpretations. Oh wait, you already said “I will always take the side of the Church of man’s private interpretation.” Looky there, the Spirit is working on you in spite that exalted free will of yours. I hope you don’t always take that side though Chris. I am at the Lord’s feet on your behalf and no matter what else is goin on in your life, you can count on that. I’m on God’s side before I’m even on your side… [/quote]
It was a spelling mistake and I corrected it before you posted, even left a note that I did.
It would seem that the Catholic Church is arrogant because we have firm belief (and it is in fact a truth) that we have a monopoly on truth when it comes faith and morals. That is why people detest the Church, from ethical relativist to your average christian 16 year old girl that wouldn’t know the difference between the statements ‘Jesus human nature died on the cross’ and ‘G-d died when Jesus was crucified.’
I have dealt with both, and even though it is a lame duck when it comes to a litmus test by itself, it is nevertheless a litmus test that when basically the whole world hates you, that your obviously doing something right. That’s why R. Kelly spoke my motto, “Haters gonna hate,” he spoke more of a truth than he knew.
The miracles, and the martyrs, and the deepness, and the creeds, and the wholeness of the Catholic Church speaks too much to ignore. Either it’s all a shame or the Catholic Church is the faith, and the true faith at that without a doubt.
I do not say this to be triumphant, because without the grace of G-d, I would have done none of what I have done in my life. I can see the hand of G-d directing me towards him, I can see that when I fell into sin his crucible to push me to purity. To end up here and to continue to be driven deeper into the Catholic faith, that speaks volumes, because if anyone could prove one doctrine of the Catholic faith wrong…they would have no doubt that I would leave the Catholic Church at once and go worship at their church.
That is a life long vow that I have taken, given to anyone, at any time. All it takes is one doctrine, even the most simplest and most undeveloped doctrine of the Catholic Church. One doctrine wrong of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church is a shame, the Bride that I hold dear will never see my eyes lay on her again.
I have no doubt that my entire life will never see that day, I could go on a crusade and visit every heretic, schismatic, atheist, intellectual, and peasant and never find a single person to prove a single doctrine wrong. [/quote]
The human capacity for confirmatory bias is boundless. You can see this easily in other faiths, for example the Mormon capacity to rationalize the Book of Abraham being proven a fraud when the Rosetta Stone was discovered and we learned how to translate Egyptian. But by its very nature, you are blind to the influence of confirmatory bias on your own beliefs.
No doubt, you believe that you are 100% objective, and that not a single Catholic doctrine has been proven wrong. So do Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Calvanists. They’re equally convinced that they are objective, and you are the one being misled.[/quote]
The Book of Abraham has never been proven to be a fraud, though the critics sure believe that to be the case.
I know you won’t read these links and will simply explain them away as LDS apologist attempts to save face, but here they are anyway:
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/disproved.htm
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Papyri/Long_article
http://www.boap.org/LDS/BOAP/SecondEd/Draft-copy/AppendixV-JS-Commentary-on-BOA.pdf[/quote]
Thanks for proving my point about confirmatory bias allowing people to believe literally anything 
I disagree though; after looking at evidence for and against the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, it was obvious to me that it is fraudulent. None of the links you provided mention the blatant plagiarism of the Small Sensen text into Facsimile No. 2, by the way, and in fact I have never found an apologist able to answer this.