# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Why do some people worship the church more than Jesus?

## Kevin007

Just curious... discuss.....

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Who does this?    Megachurches seem to, but I've only been to one on one occasion, so I'm not sure.

----------


## Nang

> Just curious... discuss.....


II Timothy 3:1-9

----------


## fr33

I've noticed this with most people that take part in organized religion. It's the trap of tribalist conformity. Throughout history most people who were religious did this.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I've noticed this with most people that take part in organized religion. It's the trap of tribalist conformity. Throughout history most people who were religious did this.


Have an example?  I didn't find this in my comparative religion studies.  It's normally fringey and profit-oriented type movements that do this.

----------


## fr33

> Have an example?  I didn't find this in my comparative religion studies.  It's normally fringey and profit-oriented type movements that do this.


Are you serious? Discrimination based upon religion and church has been done so many times over that I just can't take you seriously here. I'm going to bed now but can provide plenty of examples.

Just as an easy anecdotal source of mine in a small town is how these Church of Christ and First Baptist move from one church to another multiple times over the years due to gossip and grudges. It happens all the time.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Are you serious? Discrimination based upon religion and church has been done so many times over that I just can't take you seriously here. I'm going to bed now but can provide plenty of examples.
> 
> Just as an easy anecdotal source of mine in a small town is how these Church of Christ and First Baptist move from one church to another multiple times over the years due to gossip and grudges. It happens all the time.


So?  You have not established norms here.  You've cited fringey/extreme congregations in an attempt to reason from parts to whole. (and failed)

----------


## fr33

> So?  You have not established norms here.  You've cited fringey/extreme congregations in an attempt to reason from parts to whole. (and failed)


Spanish missionaries and conquistadors. Were they acting like Jesus when they bashed infants against rocks and murdered adults? Did Jesus prescribe such infidels with that treatment? The Vatican was on their side when it happened.

----------


## acptulsa

Because Jesus didn't leave us any loopholes.  If you want into heaven, you have to get your heart right and learn how to be generous, or heaven won't be heaven with you in it.  Churches, on the other hand, are all about loopholes.  Just agree with Calvin, and you're in--no matter how big an $#@! you are.

----------


## fr33

_To the illustrious, Herr Adolf Hitler, Führer and Chancellor of the German Reich!

Here at the beginning of our pontificate we wish to assure you that we remain devoted to the spiritual welfare of the German people entrusted to your leadership. For them we implore God the Almighty to grant them that true felicity which springs from religion.

We recall with great pleasure the many years we spent in Germany as Apostolic Nuncio, when we did all in our power to establish harmonious relations between Church and State. Now that the responsibilities of our pastoral function have increased our opportunities, how much more ardently do we pray to reach that goal.

May the prosperity of the German people and their progress in every domain come, with God's help, to fruition!

Given this day, 6th March 1939, in Rome at St. Peter's in the first year of our pontificate.

Pope Pius XII_

----------


## eduardo89

I've never worshipped the Church, I have only ever worshipped God. So I have no idea what you mean by the OP.

----------


## Terry1

> I've never worshipped the Church, I have only ever worshipped God. So I have no idea what you mean by the OP.


Fact is that none of the Catholics or Eastern Orthodox should have to keep defending themselves against these ignorant attacks on their church or practices.  This is just plain old ignorance on the part of the OP, Nang and the other judgmental pissants for Jesus who fallaciously believe that what they're doing is justified in the eyes of God.

How long have we had to endure these same people attacking the Catholic church while they believe such heresies like God is the author/cause of evil, sin and death and that a book with written words has the capability of being perfect and inerrant.  Then there's that age old lie that they've already been chosen by God because they've presumed upon God that He's already chosen them in this life and predestined them to glory through their own version of justification and righteousness.  I could keep going, but we know how confused these obsessive judgmental people are.

Then Nag has the male anatomy to lay claim to the title of "classy and delightful"---LOL  I'm done being nice--they don't deserve nice--even Jesus said at one point in Mark 9:19, "how long must I put up with you".   There's absolutely no excuse for their ignorance while claiming to be the holy servants of God they like to believe they are.  The brethren don't do this to other brethren--it's forbidden and condemned by God Himself.  So, this is my strong rebuke to these wannabe smart ass pissants for Jesus.  I have lost all patience with them.

----------


## RJB

> I've never worshipped the Church, I have only ever worshipped God. So I have no idea what you mean by the OP.


Yeah.  That is a weird Original Post.

----------


## Terry1

This is a really ignorant thread by the OP.  I could ask Kevin007 the same thing.  He pushes his church doctrine just the same as anyone else, which in such a case--we could all accuse each other of the very same thing just because they subscribe to a particular church doctrine, which is ignorant.  

All this thread is about is attacking the Catholic church once again by these dumb judgmental protestants.  Not all protestants are dumb, just these judgmental ones who think they're God.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Some folks just tend to be institution junkies. You know the type. They most often just confuse the vessel with the content.

----------


## Terry1

> Some folks just tend to be institution junkies. You know the type. They most often just confuse the vessel with the content.


Exactly.  They don't think anyone can be a child of God if they're subscribed to church they don't agree with, which is totally ignorant.  Gods children are everywhere in all Christian denominations doing the Lords work.  I have little patience with judgmental dipshits for Jesus.

----------


## otherone

> I've noticed this with most people that take part in organized religion. It's the trap of tribalist conformity. Throughout history most people who were religious did this.


I believe "identity" to be better than "conformity".  Conformity is passive, whereas most folk desperately need to be part of a tribe.
Lol...and here we are back to politics again....

----------


## donnay

> This is a really ignorant thread by the OP.  I could ask Kevin007 the same thing.  He pushes his church doctrine just the same as anyone else, which in such a case--we could all accuse each other of the very same thing just because they subscribe to a particular church doctrine, which is ignorant.  
> 
> All this thread is about is attacking the Catholic church once again by these dumb judgmental protestants.  Not all protestants are dumb, just these judgmental ones who think they're God.


It's not up to us to judge--but to use discernment.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 - Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
    Phil. 1:9-11 And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ-- to the glory and praise of God.
    Proverbs 15:14  The discerning heart seeks knowledge, but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.
    Proverbs 17:24  A discerning man keeps wisdom in view, but a fool's eyes wander to the ends of the earth.
    Proverbs 18:15  The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge; the ears of the wise seek it out.
    Proverbs 28:7  He who keeps the law is a discerning son, but a companion of gluttons disgraces his father
    Proverbs 3:21  My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight;

----------


## Terry1

> I believe "identity" to be better than "conformity".  Conformity is passive, whereas most folk desperately need to be part of a tribe.
> Lol...and here we are back to politics again....


They used to call them "heretic hunters".  These were those who held themselves in high regard and condemned everyone else who didn't walk lock-step according to their belief.  They weren't real Christians, they were judgmental fakes and condemned by God Himself.

----------


## Terry1

> It's not up to us to judge--but to use discernment.
> 
> 1 Thessalonians 5:21 - Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
>     Phil. 1:9-11 And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ-- to the glory and praise of God.
>     Proverbs 15:14  The discerning heart seeks knowledge, but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.
>     Proverbs 17:24  A discerning man keeps wisdom in view, but a fool's eyes wander to the ends of the earth.
>     Proverbs 18:15  The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge; the ears of the wise seek it out.
>     Proverbs 28:7  He who keeps the law is a discerning son, but a companion of gluttons disgraces his father
>     Proverbs 3:21  My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight;


I know all that donnay--I have simply lost patience with these jerks for Jesus--sorry.  I guess I'll have get on my knees and ask God to forgive for that, but at some point--enough is enough and I've had it with them.

----------


## otherone

> They used to call them "heretic hunters".  These were those who held themselves in high regard and condemned everyone else who didn't walk lock-step according to their belief.  They weren't real Christians, they were judgmental fakes and condemned by God Himself.


You are describing this:



My point is most folk hammer themselves

----------


## donnay

> I know all that donnay--I have simply lost patience with these jerks for Jesus--sorry.  I guess I'll have get on my knees and ask God to forgive for that, but at some point--enough is enough and I've had it with them.


That wasn't directed at you...sorry if that is what it sounded like.  It was directed at the threads (like this) that start off being judgmental.

----------


## eduardo89

> Spanish missionaries and conquistadors. Were they acting like Jesus when they bashed infants against rocks and murdered adults? Did Jesus prescribe such infidels with that treatment? The Vatican was on their side when it happened.


When did missionaries bash infants heads against rocks?

----------


## fisharmor

> They used to call them "heretic hunters".  These were those who held themselves in high regard and condemned everyone else who didn't walk lock-step according to their belief.  They weren't real Christians, they were judgmental fakes and condemned by God Himself.


But we need to realize that the protestant ethos doesn't seem to have another argument in its favor.
If it did, then its adherents would focus on that.

Consider liberty.  Its defenders are ready to not only rebuke, but to explain why liberty is a true and better option.  Liberals and neocons and communists and social conservatives - all the rest, really - generally only know how to put down the other groups, and often a tecnicality is the only substantial difference.

I see the same in Christendom.  Two groups that build up, and myriad that destroy.

----------


## Terry1

> That wasn't directed at you...sorry if that is what it sounded like.  It was directed at the threads (like this) that start off being judgmental.



Not to worry dear sister--it's all good.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Church is so boring.

----------


## eduardo89

> Church is so boring.


I disagree, there is nothing more exciting that worshipping God, especially when He fully and really present!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Church is so boring.


Find a better church.   I was bored in my last church.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I disagree, there is nothing more exciting that worshipping God, especially when He fully and really present!


 qft!

----------


## VIDEODROME

I will say that Sermons or Homilies can actually be interesting.  Is there such a thing a church that just has candid discussions and skips all the Hymns and Congregation Responses to the Priest/Minister readings?  

The minister at the local Unitarian Universalist church is really nice and does good Homilies.  I'm just not into the Hymn singing stuff.  Part of the problem is church is in the morning and choir style singing just makes me wish I'd stayed home and slept in.  

Maybe I should bring my MP3 player to mass.  Then when the Choir singing comes up I'll put in my ear buds and be jammin to Daft Punk.

----------


## fisharmor

> I will say that Sermons or Homilies can actually be interesting.  Is there such a thing a church that just has candid discussions and skips all the Hymns and Congregation Responses to the Priest/Minister readings?  
> 
> The minister at the local Unitarian Universalist church is really nice and does good Homilies.  I'm just not into the Hymn singing stuff.  Part of the problem is church is in the morning and choir style singing just makes me wish I'd stayed home and slept in.  
> 
> Maybe I should bring my MP3 player to mass.  Then when the Choir singing comes up I'll put in my ear buds and be jammin to Daft Punk.


Bearing in mind, first of all, that there is absolutely nothing wrong and substantial amounts of right with Daft Punk....

Hymns are not meant to be performed.  There's a reason why older church bodies have choirs in the _back_ of the church, outside of the congregation's field of view - and even more reason why many churches don't have any choir at all, or if so, strictly as a means to have the hymns actually sung as opposed to being croaked.

Church isn't a concert, and if there is a concert, it's not church.
If the "hymns" are Eric Cartman style boy band music with "lover" changed to "Jesus" (one of the best episodes of that show IMO) then it's also not church.
There _are_ places where there's enough going on in an hour and a half to engage you mentally the whole time.  They just happen to be "throwbacks" that nobody pays any attention to, because most people are too busy throwing ancient wisdom in the garbage to notice there might be something there.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I will say that Sermons or Homilies can actually be interesting.  Is there such a thing a church that just has candid discussions and skips all the Hymns and Congregation Responses to the Priest/Minister readings?  
> 
> The minister at the local Unitarian Universalist church is really nice and does good Homilies.  I'm just not into the Hymn singing stuff.  Part of the problem is church is in the morning and choir style singing just makes me wish I'd stayed home and slept in.  
> 
> Maybe I should bring my MP3 player to mass.  Then when the Choir singing comes up I'll put in my ear buds and be jammin to Daft Punk.


The purpose of song in a traditional church is worship.  It is sung prayer, and traditionally considered extremely important as a tool of worship, prayer, and focused thoughtfulness.  If you want to skip that, most churches offer bible study groups.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Hmmm....   What if church was really more like a TED Talk?

----------


## eduardo89

> Bearing in mind, first of all, that there is absolutely nothing wrong and substantial amounts of right with Daft Punk....
> 
> Hymns are not meant to be performed.  There's a reason why older church bodies have choirs in the _back_ of the church, outside of the congregation's field of view - and even more reason why many churches don't have any choir at all, or if so, strictly as a means to have the hymns actually sung as opposed to being croaked.
> 
> Church isn't a concert, and if there is a concert, it's not church.
> If the "hymns" are Eric Cartman style boy band music with "lover" changed to "Jesus" (one of the best episodes of that show IMO) then it's also not church.
> There _are_ places where there's enough going on in an hour and a half to engage you mentally the whole time.  They just happen to be "throwbacks" that nobody pays any attention to, because most people are too busy throwing ancient wisdom in the garbage to notice there might be something there.


+rep

----------


## RJB

> Hymns are not meant to be performed.  There's a reason why older church bodies have choirs in the _back_ of the church, outside of the congregation's field of view - and even more reason why many churches don't have any choir at all, or if so, strictly as a means to have the hymns actually sung as opposed to being croaked.


That's kind of a pet peeve of mine: a choir at the front as if that is supposed to be our focus.  An even bigger pet peeve is when the congregation applauds.  My wife always smirks at me when we're at a church and that happens because she knows what I'm thinking.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Bearing in mind, first of all, that there is absolutely nothing wrong and substantial amounts of right with Daft Punk....
> 
> Hymns are not meant to be performed.  There's a reason why older church bodies have choirs in the _back_ of the church, outside of the congregation's field of view - and even more reason why many churches don't have any choir at all, or if so, strictly as a means to have the hymns actually sung as opposed to being croaked.
> 
> Church isn't a concert, and if there is a concert, it's not church.
> If the "hymns" are Eric Cartman style boy band music with "lover" changed to "Jesus" (one of the best episodes of that show IMO) then it's also not church.
> There _are_ places where there's enough going on in an hour and a half to engage you mentally the whole time.  They just happen to be "throwbacks" that nobody pays any attention to, because most people are too busy throwing ancient wisdom in the garbage to notice there might be something there.


Excellent post.   The choir loft in my parish is in the back on the second floor.  The parishoners cannot see it at all. (which is a quite good thing, as the behind the scenes "sausage making" would be very distracting)  The clergy and chanters sing in front, but they are also not super "present".  They sing mostly from the side of the stage at the chanters' stand or in front of the priest's stand.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's kind of a pet peeve of mind is a choir at the front as if that is supposed to be our focus.  An even bigger pet peeve is when the congregation applauds.  My wife always smirks at me when we're at a church and that happens because she knows what I'm thinking.





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RJB again


   Sorry, bro

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Hmmm....   What if church was really more like a TED Talk?


Liturgy is quite like that, except the topic is some aspect of orthodoxy or scripture.

----------


## AFPVet

Don't go to a church... be the church. The church is in you... gathering with other "temples" is worship

----------


## Terry1

> That's kind of a pet peeve of mind is a choir at the front as if that is supposed to be our focus.  An even bigger pet peeve is when the congregation applauds.  My wife always smirks at me when we're at a church and that happens because she knows what I'm thinking.


Years ago when I did attend a Baptist church, I was giving at that time over 700.00 a week to the church for the new Sunday school addition and bathrooms.  One of the deacons of that church was in charge of the money because he used to own a construction company, was the sheriff and a pastor.  So I just trusted he was doing the job and never questioned him until one day I got a phone call from him and his wife.  They wanted me to come over to their house and didn't say why at the time.

I got over there and noticed they had a brand new beautiful deck on the back of their home, a large new swimming pool and were remodeling their kitchen--LOL  They sat me down in their living room and confessed to me that they had borrowed/stolen all of the money that I'd been giving to the church for months.  Well--I was wondering why it was taking him so long to build that addition--lol.

Anyway, I told them that I gave that money to God and they really needed to seek his forgiveness and not mine.  He did finally finish the addition on the church and paid most of the money back to the church too.  

Then later on I found out the only reason that they actually confessed was because their daughter who attended the same church threatened them that she'd tell me if they didn't.  

I can say that all of my experiences with the church of four walls weren't bad, but if you think that people are any different who attend church than those who don't--you'd be wrong.  The only difference there is that some just go to church and some don't.

I guess some people just like to give themselves noble titles like preacher, teacher, deacon, or whatever because then they feel more validated in whatever they say or do right or wrong good or bad.  It never changes who they are inside and what's really in their hearts though.  That's why I never wanted to be considered anything other than a believer and a seeker of truth.

----------


## RJB

I think you missed the point of my post.  I was only commenting that I personally don't think the choir should be the center of attention in a church.  I made no judgment of those who attend or don't. 




> Years ago when I did attend a Baptist church, I was giving at that time over 700.00 a week to the church for the new Sunday school addition and bathrooms.  One of the deacons of that church was in charge of the money because he used to own a construction company, was the sheriff and a pastor.  So I just trusted he was doing the job and never questioned him until one day I got a phone call from him and his wife.  They wanted me to come over to their house and didn't say why at the time.
> 
> I got over there and noticed they had a brand new beautiful deck on the back of their home, a large new swimming pool and were remodeling their kitchen--LOL  They sat me down in their living room and confessed to me that they had borrowed/stolen all of the money that I'd been giving to the church for months.  Well--I was wondering why it was taking him so long to build that addition--lol.
> 
> Anyway, I told them that I gave that money to God and they really needed to seek his forgiveness and not mine.  He did finally finish the addition on the church and paid most of the money back to the church too.  
> 
> Then later on I found out the only reason that they actually confessed was because their daughter who attended the same church threatened them that she'd tell me if they didn't.  
> 
> I can say that all of my experiences with the church of four walls weren't bad, *but if you think that people are any different who attend church than those who don't--you'd be wrong.  The only difference there is that some just go to church and some don't*.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Don't go to a church... be the church. The church is in you... gathering with other "temples" is worship


False.  I'd like to see some evidence of your claim.  Religion-particularly the Christian religion-is by its nature a social activity.  Perhaps you are thinking of Deism?

----------


## William Tell

> Religion-particularly the Christian religion-is by its nature a social activity.


Not for me.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Years ago when I did attend a Baptist church, I was giving at that time over 700.00 a week to the church for the new Sunday school addition and bathrooms.  One of the deacons of that church was in charge of the money because he used to own a construction company, was the sheriff and a pastor.  So I just trusted he was doing the job and never questioned him until one day I got a phone call from him and his wife.  They wanted me to come over to their house and didn't say why at the time.
> 
> I got over there and noticed they had a brand new beautiful deck on the back of their home, a large new swimming pool and were remodeling their kitchen--LOL  They sat me down in their living room and confessed to me that they had borrowed/stolen all of the money that I'd been giving to the church for months.  Well--I was wondering why it was taking him so long to build that addition--lol.
> 
> Anyway, I told them that I gave that money to God and they really needed to seek his forgiveness and not mine.  He did finally finish the addition on the church and paid most of the money back to the church too.  
> 
> Then later on I found out the only reason that they actually confessed was because their daughter who attended the same church threatened them that she'd tell me if they didn't.  
> *
> I can say that all of my experiences with the church of four walls weren't bad, but if you think that people are any different who attend church than those who don't--you'd be wrong.  The only difference there is that some just go to church and some don't.*
> ...


Depends on how you worship.  



> For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.


  (this is why an Orthodox priest will begin his sermon with "Christ is in our midst", and the parish responds "he is and ever shall be")

In the third world, people have to worship in "house churches" and other secret places because the government actively persecutes and murders Christians.

You could never attend services and still be considered a Christian, I suppose, but you would miss out on the richness and fullness of the faith.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Not for me.


Well, it's more of a philosophy than a religion, it seems.  Anthropology and sociology have always considered religion a social institution because by yourself you don't really need a religion.  Do tell me more though, if you don't mind.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Are you serious? Discrimination based upon religion and church has been done so many times over that I just can't take you seriously here. I'm going to bed now but can provide plenty of examples.
> 
> Just as an easy anecdotal source of mine in a small town is how these Church of Christ and First Baptist move from one church to another multiple times over the years due to gossip and grudges. It happens all the time.


That actually disproves your point. The actual church was irrelevant here, thus moving in between them easily. If you believe a church is God's one and only true and living church, you don't just leave it because someone pisses you off in it.

----------


## AFPVet

> False.  I'd like to see some evidence of your claim.  Religion-particularly the Christian religion-is by its nature a social activity.  Perhaps you are thinking of Deism?


You are thinking of the "where two or more gather in my name...", yes, but the CHURCH (holy spirit) is inside of you. Yes... you should gather, but remember to "lose religion", and be spiritual (of Christ).

----------


## William Tell

> Well, it's more of a philosophy than a religion, it seems.  Anthropology and sociology have always considered religion a social institution because by yourself you don't really need a religion.  Do tell me more though, if you don't mind.


I'm a Christian, I have read the Bible a number of times. And I have yet to find a church that I agree with. Preachers treat the Bible like Politicians treat the Constitution, in my opinion. I have nothing against churches on principle, or those who attend. I may attend a church again someday.

----------


## Dr.3D

> False.  I'd like to see some evidence of your claim.  Religion-particularly the Christian religion-is by its nature a social activity.  Perhaps you are thinking of Deism?


Matthew 18:20   It only takes two or three.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> This is a really ignorant thread by the OP.  I could ask Kevin007 the same thing.  He pushes his church doctrine just the same as anyone else, which in such a case--we could all accuse each other of the very same thing just because they subscribe to a particular church doctrine, which is ignorant.  
> 
> All this thread is about is attacking the Catholic church once again by these dumb judgmental protestants.  Not all protestants are dumb, just these judgmental ones who think they're God.


Where exactly did the OP mention the Catholic Church?

----------


## The Rebel Poet

"When the brazen serpent became a fetish in Israel, and the people burned incense to it, the good king Hezekiah contemptuously called it a piece of brass, and broke it in pieces. And since 'the church' has become an idol and an enemy to Christianity, it becomes a duty to expose the falseness of its pretensions. *The position accorded to it in the religion of Christendom is itself a mark of the apostasy*." -Sir Robert Anderson

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> I'm a Christian, I have read the Bible a number of times. And I have yet to find a church that I agree with.


 I wonder why? To be fair, there will never be any group you agree with 100%, because both you and they will be wrong once in a while.


> Preachers treat the Bible like Politicians treat the Constitution, in my opinion.


 Exactly right.


> I have nothing against churches on principle, or those who attend.


 Yeah, there is no reason to blame the victims.


> I may attend a church again someday.


Cf. Proverbs 26:11.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Matthew 18:20   It only takes two or three.


That proves my point and doesn't support his.  2 or 3 is still a social activity group.  See earlier in the thread where I used the same scripture.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> "When the brazen serpent became a fetish in Israel, and the people burned incense to it, the good king Hezekiah contemptuously called it a piece of brass, and broke it in pieces. And since 'the church' has become an idol and an enemy to Christianity, it becomes a duty to expose the falseness of its pretensions. *The position accorded to it in the religion of Christendom is itself a mark of the apostasy*." -Sir Robert Anderson


Congratulations.  You've quoted someone who doesn't understand the Church or Christianity.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> It's normally fringey and profit-oriented type movements that do this.


You mean like Churches? I'm pretty sure the non-profit-oriented churches are the fringey ones.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Have an example?  I didn't find this in my comparative religion studies.  It's normally fringey and profit-oriented type movements that do this.


This is why I started the thread about the Salvation Army.  I wondered if they're Fringey and Profit-Oriented even if they operate as a Non-Profit.

----------


## Terry1

> Depends on how you worship.  
>   (this is why an Orthodox priest will begin his sermon with "Christ is in our midst", and the parish responds "he is and ever shall be")
> 
> In the third world, people have to worship in "house churches" and other secret places because the government actively persecutes and murders Christians.
> 
> You could never attend services and still be considered a Christian, I suppose, but you would miss out on the richness and fullness of the faith.


What I admire about the EOC is their consistency and organization.  I've always admired that consistency that tells you when you walk into an EOC, you know what to expect, you know how you should be dressed in a respectful manner.  You know that God is there amongst the people.  When I was speaking to the priest, I told him that going to the EOC seemed to be likened to going to McDonald's---you know you can always order the Big Mac and that it will always be there.

Personally, that's the kind of service I enjoy--normal, respectful and well behaved people who wear their Sunday best in respect for God, the church and everything associated with it.  I'm not saying that the jean and T shirt worshipers aren't just as Godly, but I prefer to honor the Lord at church wearing something nice that I wouldn't wear unless I was going somewhere special.

I'm sort of a retro loving person and I really miss the days of white gloves, pretty hats with the shoes and handbag to match. LOL

----------


## Terry1

> This is why I started the thread about the Salvation Army.  I wondered if they're Fringey and Profit-Oriented even if they operate as a Non-Profit.


I wouldn't say so.  The Salvation Army has done many good things for God and country over their long history.  I think they're to be commended for that and for hanging in there through the worst of times this country's had to endure too.

----------


## moostraks

> What I admire about the EOC is their consistency and organization.  I've always admired that consistency that tells you when you walk into an EOC, you know what to expect, you know how you should be dressed in a respectful manner.  You know that God is there amongst the people.  When I was speaking to the priest, I told him that going to the EOC seemed to be likened to going to McDonald's---you know you can always order the Big Mac and that it will always be there.
> 
> Personally, that's the kind of service I enjoy--normal, respectful and well behaved people who wear their Sunday best in respect for God, the church and everything associated with it.  I'm not saying that the jean and T shirt worshipers aren't just as Godly, but I prefer to honor the Lord at church wearing something nice that I wouldn't wear unless I was going somewhere special.
> 
> I'm sort of a retro loving person and I really miss the days of white gloves, pretty hats with the shoes and handbag to match. LOL


And I am the exact opposite with churches. My days of going to a church where people dress to impress are long gone. If what you wear during the week is disrespectful for church well I feel He is watching then too. We are very conservative clothes wise here and it is all modest wear. But I will not be different in my attire for church. I think it is from too many hypocrites in Southern churches I attended who thought you had God when you went to church on Sunday. 

I also don't think I would feel comfortable with the type of monotonous services my spouse says he suffered through when he was in church. I miss my old non-denominational church because of its spontaneity and enthusiasm for worship. You never knew how long the service would last and there we as plenty of singing. (Everyone was part of the choir)

----------


## Terry1

> And I am the exact opposite with churches. My days of going to a church where people dress to impress are long gone. If what you wear during the week is disrespectful for church well I feel He is watching then too. We are very conservative clothes wise here and it is all modest wear. But I will not be different in my attire for church. I think it is from too many hypocrites in Southern churches I attended who thought you had God when you went to church on Sunday. 
> 
> I also don't think I would feel comfortable with the type of monotonous services my spouse says he suffered through when he was in church. I miss my old non-denominational church because of its spontaneity and enthusiasm for worship. You never knew how long the service would last and there we as plenty of singing. (Everyone was part of the choir)


I guess it's just a matter of whatever one prefers.  I'm sort of old fashioned about a lot of things.  I really loved my grandmothers style of living.  My sister always makes fun of the way I decorate the house and calls it "granny chic"--LOL  I just like the old way of doing things I guess.  Same as going to church all dressed up.  Some like to do that and some don't, it really makes no difference to our Lord either way, but personally--my own conviction is that it's a form of respect for the Lord, the day, the church and all associated with it.  

Many years ago when I attended church, some dressed up and some came in their every day jeans too--no one thought anything of it really.  I guess that's the way it should be.  It's just a personal thing with me.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Where exactly did the OP mention the Catholic Church?


He didn't.  That's what's so interesting about reading this thread.   It's fun to see how many folks will think, "Is he talking about me?"

----------


## donnay

> You are thinking of the "where two or more gather in my name...", yes, but the CHURCH (holy spirit) is inside of you. Yes... you should gather, but remember to "lose religion", and be spiritual (of Christ).


I wholehearted agree.  Most religions have been infiltrated by minions of Satan.

----------


## donnay

> Matthew 18:20   It only takes two or three.


Bible study--chapter by chapter and verse by verse.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I wholehearted agree.  Most religions have been infiltrated by minions of Satan.


It is interesting to note, how in the 1500 years prior to Christ, how much corruption happened to the worship of God because of tradition added by those who  considered themselves religious teachers (scribes & pharisees).   It is also interesting to note, how this may have happened just as much in the 2000 years after Christ.

----------


## Beorn

> I wholehearted agree.  Most religions have been infiltrated by minions of Satan.


Or... The church was a whore and will be a whore until Jesus returns.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Why do some people worship the church more than Jesus?


Because it's much easier than doing what Jesus told them to do.

----------


## Beorn

> Or... The church was a whore and will be a whore until Jesus returns.


The reason why I prefer my response to the question stated in the O.P. is because it is inclusive of me and my own local church. Whereas the O.P. presumes that the problem with the church is "with some people." The problem with the church is ALL OF THE PEOPLE. The saving grace of the church is the faithful bridegroom, Jesus Christ.

----------


## Kevin007

it is interesting that all the orthodox and catholic are in here trying to defend themselves why is that? are protestants not part of the church?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> it is interesting that all the orthodox and catholic are in here trying to defend themselves why is that? are protestants not part of the church?


 Perhaps because more orthodox and catholics are church worshipers and have more historical baggage to carry.

----------


## Dr.3D

> The reason why I prefer my response to the question stated in the O.P. is because it is inclusive of me and my own local church. Whereas the O.P. presumes that the problem with the church is "with some people." The problem with the church is ALL OF THE PEOPLE. The saving grace of the church is the faithful bridegroom, Jesus Christ.


Will He say, "your sins have been forgiven, go and sin no more."

----------


## Terry1

> it is interesting that all the orthodox and catholic are in here trying to defend themselves why is that? are protestants not part of the church?



Personally, it was an assumption on my part and a safe bet that I was right because you've done nothing but obsess over the Catholic church since you got here telling Catholics to "come out of the harlot".

----------


## Terry1

> Perhaps because more orthodox and catholics are church worshipers and have more historical baggage to carry.


Could you explain why you think that the Catholics or anyone who believes their church doctrine and passes that off as *their version of truth* would be called "worshipers of their church"?  Don't protestants and other denominations do the very same thing?  They believe their church and doctrine is correct too, so how can anyone point the finger at anyone else?

----------


## eduardo89

> it is interesting that all the orthodox and catholic are in here trying to defend themselves why is that? are protestants not part of the church?


Yes, Protestants are part of the Church by virtue of their baptism. However, they have put themselves into a state of imperfect communion with the Church which puts their souls in grave jeopardy.

----------


## eduardo89

> He didn't.  That's what's so interesting about reading this thread.   It's fun to see how many folks will think, "Is he talking about me?"


Just going off the OP's posting history, in which he has been extremely anti-Catholic and anti-Orthodox.

----------


## Beorn

> Will He say, "your sins have been forgiven, go and sin no more."


I don't understand how your question correlates to my post.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I don't understand how your question correlates to my post.


John 8:11

----------


## heavenlyboy34

n/m

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Or... The church was a whore and will be a whore until Jesus returns.


 Come on, this is just foolish. (unless you refer to schismatics who claim to give out salvation in exchange FRNs and other scammers...then I'd agree)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes, *Protestants are part of the Church by virtue of their baptism.* However, they have put themselves into a state of imperfect communion with the Church which puts their souls in grave jeopardy.


Interesting way to look at it.  I consider them Christians by virtue of their baptism.  The nature of their (communion) sacrament, IMO, prevents them from being part of the Church.  The Orthodox require Chrismation to take part in the Eucharist.  I believe the RCC requires something similar.  IDR what it's called, though.

----------


## Terry1

> Come on, this is just foolish. (unless you refer to schismatics who claim to give out salvation in exchange FRNs and other scammers...then I'd agree)


I agree, because the "whore" or "harlot" in the bible always---always refers to Jerusalem from the Old testament all the way to Revelation and how they can't get that right is beyond me because I have posted literally massive scripture to confirm that, yet this lie keeps being told by people who refuse to look at what the scriptures are saying--even when I posted them in large bold script. I find it amazing myself.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What I admire about the EOC is their consistency and organization.  I've always admired that consistency that tells you when you walk into an EOC, you know what to expect, you know how you should be dressed in a respectful manner.  You know that God is there amongst the people.  When I was speaking to the priest, I told him that going to the EOC seemed to be likened to going to McDonald's---you know you can always order the Big Mac and that it will always be there.
> 
> Personally, that's the kind of service I enjoy--normal, respectful and well behaved people who wear their Sunday best in respect for God, the church and everything associated with it.  I'm not saying that the jean and T shirt worshipers aren't just as Godly, but I prefer to honor the Lord at church wearing something nice that I wouldn't wear unless I was going somewhere special.
> 
> I'm sort of a retro loving person and I really miss the days of white gloves, pretty hats with the shoes and handbag to match. LOL





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Terry1 again.





> I agree, because the "whore" or "harlot" in the bible always---always refers to Jerusalem from the Old testament all the way to Revelation and how they can't get that right is beyond me because I have posted literally massive scripture to confirm that, yet this lie keeps being told by people who refuse to look at what the scriptures are saying--even when I posted them in large bold script. I find it amazing myself.





> I agree, because the "whore" or "harlot" in the bible always---always refers to Jerusalem from the Old testament all the way to Revelation and how they can't get that right is beyond me because I have posted literally massive scripture to confirm that, yet this lie keeps being told by people who refuse to look at what the scriptures are saying--even when I posted them in large bold script. I find it amazing myself.




:/ ~hugs~

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Could you explain why you think that the Catholics or anyone who believes their church doctrine and passes that off as *their version of truth* would be called "worshipers of their church"? Don't protestants and other denominations do the very same thing? They believe their church and doctrine is correct too, so how can anyone point the finger at anyone else?


 Nope, sorry. That answer is far above my pay grade. I was just really lucky to manage to get the post out.

----------


## Beorn

> John 8:11


I knew what you were referencing. I was asking how that correlates to my statement. Soooo?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nope, sorry. That answer is far above my pay grade. I was just really lucky to manage to get the post out.


I nominate you to be troll of the afternoon.

----------


## Beorn

> I agree, because the "whore" or "harlot" in the bible always---always refers to Jerusalem from the Old testament all the way to Revelation and how they can't get that right is beyond me because *I have posted literally massive scripture to confirm that, yet this lie keeps being told by people who refuse to look at what the scriptures are saying*--even when I posted them in large bold script. I find it amazing myself.



I've never had this conversation with you so I don't know why you insist on being so presumptive and contemptuous.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I nominate you to be troll of the afternoon.


I accept that nomination. And if elected, I promise to ..... demand an immediate recount.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I knew what you were referencing. I was asking how that correlates to my statement. Soooo?


I thought you were talking about the adultery of the Church and how only the return of Jesus was going to fix it.

If I was wrong in my thinking, then forget I said anything at all.

----------


## Terry1

> Nope, sorry. That answer is far above my pay grade. I was just really lucky to manage to get the post out.


At least you're honest--I can really respect that a lot better than anything else.

----------


## Terry1

> I've never had this conversation with you so I don't know why you insist on being so presumptive and contemptuous.


Seriously? I thought I replied to HB there.

----------


## eduardo89

> Interesting way to look at it.  I consider them Christians by virtue of their baptism.  The nature of their (communion) sacrament, IMO, prevents them from being part of the Church.  The Orthodox require Chrismation to take part in the Eucharist.  I believe the RCC requires something similar.  IDR what it's called, though.


The rite of induction into the Church is baptism. It is through baptism that we are born again in Christ. Since there is only one baptism and there is only one Church, all baptised are members of the Church. 

That Protestants chose to sever the perfect communion we have at the time of baptism with the Church is another matter...

----------


## Beorn

> Seriously? I thought I replied to HB there.


Seriously? He was responding to my remarks.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The rite of induction into the Church is baptism. It is through baptism that we are born again in Christ. Since there is only one baptism and there is only one Church, all baptised are members of the Church. 
> 
> That Protestants chose to sever the perfect communion we have at the time of baptism with the Church is another matter...


Agreed.

----------


## Terry1

> Seriously? He was responding to my remarks.


And I was agreeing with HB's reply when I responded to *him*.

----------


## Beorn

> And I was agreeing with HB's reply when I responded to *him*.


If you didn't read my comment and/or didn't intend for your comment to apply to me just say so. 

Surely, if you have any ability to think beyond your own perspective you could understand how I could perceive your comments the way I did.

----------


## Brett85

> Fact is that none of the Catholics or Eastern Orthodox should have to keep defending themselves against these ignorant attacks on their church or practices.  This is just plain old ignorance on the part of the OP, Nang and the other judgmental pissants for Jesus who fallaciously believe that what they're doing is justified in the eyes of God.


What about all of the attacks on Protestants, people claiming that Protestants believe in "false," "innovative," and "heretical" doctrines?  How is that any different from what Kevin did in this thread?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What about all of the attacks on Protestants, people claiming that Protestants believe in "false," "innovative," and "heretical" doctrines?  How is that any different from what Kevin did in this thread?


That wouldn't even have become an issue if certain Protestants hadn't started fights in so many threads.  Protestants do have a number of innovative beliefs, though, so I don't see how that can be an insult.   Being innovative is kind of the point of becoming Protestant.

----------


## otherone

> Being innovative is kind of the point of becoming Protestant.


and here I thought it was the birth control...

----------


## Terry1

> If you didn't read my comment and/or didn't intend for your comment to apply to me just say so. 
> 
> Surely, if you have any ability to think beyond your own perspective you could understand how I could perceive your comments the way I did.


wut?

----------


## Beorn

> wut?


This is the way the conversation went:




> Or... The church was a whore and will be a whore until Jesus returns.



You guys don't even realize how haughty and obnoxious you can be. You're just as bad as any cage-stage Calvinist. 

Either of you could have engaged me. Either of you could have tried to have a sensible conversation about this, but HB is merely dismissive of my statement calling it foolish and you make statements claiming that "they" (which I presumed to include me) are spreading lies instead of listening to your scriptural wisdom.

----------


## otherone

> Either of you could have engaged me. Either of you could have tried to have a sensible conversation about this, but HB is merely dismissive of my statement calling it foolish and you make statements claiming that "they" (which I presumed to include me) are spreading lies instead of listening to your scriptural wisdom.


For realsies?  You call their church a WHORE , and you expect them to respect your opinion by debating you?  If I call you a $#@!head, will you debate me on it?

----------


## Nang

> For realsies?  You call their church a WHORE , and you expect them to respect your opinion by debating you?  If I call you a $#@!head, will you debate me on it?


You post like a $#@!head . . . want to debate it?

----------


## VIDEODROME

He has a bear on his head.

----------


## Dr.3D

> You post like a $#@!head . . . want to debate it?


LOL

----------


## Beorn

> For realsies?  You call their church a WHORE , and you expect them to respect your opinion by debating you?  If I call you a $#@!head, will you debate me on it?

----------


## Paulbot99

This is why I stay out of the religion forum most of the time.

Taht said, it's better than some history forums I've been to. So filled with statists ready with logical fallacies.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> and here I thought it was the birth control...

----------


## Kevin007

> Yes, Protestants are part of the Church by virtue of their baptism. However, they have put themselves into a state of imperfect communion with the Church which *puts their souls in grave jeopard*y.


how so? If you have accepted Jesus as your personal Savior your soul is very secure.

----------


## Terry1

> You post like a $#@!head . . . want to debate it?


Mrs. Hanky has spoken--hidey ho!  Got any more streaks you'd like to leave behind?

----------


## Terry1

> This is the way the conversation went:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys don't even realize how haughty and obnoxious you can be. You're just as bad as any cage-stage Calvinist. 
> 
> Either of you could have engaged me. Either of you could have tried to have a sensible conversation about this, but HB is merely dismissive of my statement calling it foolish and you make statements claiming that "they" (which I presumed to include me) are spreading lies instead of listening to your scriptural wisdom.


wut?

----------


## Terry1

> He has a bear on his head.


We know what bears are famous for too.

----------


## fr33

> That actually disproves your point. The actual church was irrelevant here, thus moving in between them easily. If you believe a church is God's one and only true and living church, you don't just leave it because someone pisses you off in it.


No, it means they are more concerned with going to church than following christ. Church to them is just how they socialize and act holy.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This is the way the conversation went:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys don't even realize how haughty and obnoxious you can be. You're just as bad as any cage-stage Calvinist. 
> 
> Either of you could have engaged me. Either of you could have tried to have a sensible conversation about this, but HB is merely dismissive of my statement calling it foolish and you make statements claiming that "they" (which I presumed to include me) are spreading lies instead of listening to your scriptural wisdom.


Post something intelligent in a mature way, and people will engage you.  You choose to be an abrasive fool, so I treat you accordingly.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No, it means they are more concerned with going to church than following christ. Church to them is just how they socialize and act holy.


The same lie that Sola and FF, etc have been telling for many moons.  It's been disproven a number of times.  I ask that you withdraw your false statement above and quit telling such lies.  I encourage you to attend the free bible studies offered at most Orthodox churches or at least read some peer-reviewed history if you're seriously interested in this topic.  Then we can discuss the merits/demerits of your claims and opinions.

----------


## fr33

> The same lie that Sola and FF, etc have been telling for many moons.  It's been disproven a number of times.  I ask that you withdraw your false statement above and quit telling such lies.  I encourage you to attend the free bible studies offered at most Orthodox churches or at least read some peer-reviewed history if you're seriously interested in this topic.  Then we can discuss the merits/demerits of your claims and opinions.


No it's not a lie and it's not what those 2 say. Apparently because at your orthodox church where people act nice towards each other;the examples I gave don't exist (according to you) of how people make enemies and switch back and forth from Church of Christ and First Baptist. We're both giving anecdotal evidence so I could just as easily call you a liar.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No it's not a lie and it's not what those 2 say. Apparently because at your orthodox church where people act nice towards each other;the examples I gave don't exist (according to you) of how people make enemies and switch back and forth from Church of Christ and First Baptist. We're both giving anecdotal evidence so I could just as easily call you a liar.


I offered no anecdotal evidence.  I asked _you_ for evidence.  The burden of proof is on you-the positive claimant.  Now, as the kids say, "put up or shut up". (IOW, prove your claim or admit you're wrong)

----------


## fr33

> I offered no anecdotal evidence.  I asked _you_ for evidence.  The burden of proof is on you-the positive claimant.  Now, as the kids say, "put up or shut up". (IOW, prove your claim or admit you're wrong)


Ok, let me go break out the iphone video and interview my neighbors and ask them why they've changed churches over 4 times in their life. (and let me commit social suicide by doing so). Many of them have told me why. I doubt they will do so on video. But you say I'm lying.

Then I say you are lying. I require you to do the same. Prove your individual orthodox church members are so jesus like.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Ok, let me go break out the iphone video and interview my neighbors and ask them why they've changed churches over 4 times in their life. (and let me commit social suicide by doing so). Many of them have told me why. I doubt they will do so on video. But you say I'm lying.
> 
> Then I say you are lying. I require you to do the same. *Prove your individual orthodox church members are so jesus like*.


What constitutes "proof" to you WRT to this?  (I never even made this claim, btw.  It is simply a fact that all Christians are called to endeavor to follow Christ's example and commandments in the Gospels and Epistles.)

----------


## malkusm

> The rite of induction into the Church is baptism. It is through baptism that we are born again in Christ. Since there is only one baptism and there is only one Church, all baptised are members of the Church.





> Yes, Protestants are part of the Church by virtue of their baptism. However, they have put themselves into a state of imperfect communion with the Church which puts their souls in grave jeopardy.


I just don't understand how a righteous God would use a physical/earthly ceremony as his criteria for whether or not your heart, mind, and soul are worthy of inclusion into his kingdom....much less would a righteous God use the hundreds of years of your denomination's history to condemn you.

The OP has started a "blank canvas" thread about people being more beholden to the physical/earthly manifestations of God, as opposed to living their lives according to the teachings of God. And, lo and behold, this thread has spawned Catholics sparring with Protestants.

I don't have a substantial interest in how you choose to express and affirm your faith. I don't know why so many people feel the need to take an interest in the way I express/affirm mine.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *I just don't understand how a righteous God would use a physical/earthly ceremony as his criteria for whether or not your heart, mind, and soul are worthy of inclusion into his kingdom*....much less would a righteous God use the hundreds of years of your denomination's history to condemn you.
> 
> The OP has started a "blank canvas" thread about people being more beholden to the physical/earthly manifestations of God, as opposed to living their lives according to the teachings of God. And, lo and behold, this thread has spawned Catholics sparring with Protestants.
> 
> I don't have a substantial interest in how you choose to express and affirm your faith. I don't know why so many people feel the need to take an interest in the way I express/affirm mine.


He does this because He wants us to be in Communion with Him voluntarily.  The Eucharist is, to the Orthodox and Catholics, the literal body and blood of Christ.  To partake in this Communion is srs bizness (as the kids say) traditionally.  Sorry to cut this short, but I gtg.  We'll chat more later if you're interested. ~hugs~

----------


## malkusm

> He does this because He wants us to be in Communion with Him voluntarily.  The Eucharist is, to the Orthodox and Catholics, the literal body and blood of Christ.  To partake in this Communion is srs bizness (as the kids say) traditionally.  Sorry to cut this short, but I gtg.  We'll chat more later if you're interested. ~hugs~


I understand, but surely God (being the judge of the totality of your life and sins) can figure out whether or not your heart and intentions were pure without the need for you to signal it through a ceremony?

Would it be possible to privately affirm one's faith without doing so through the church as a representative body?

----------


## Beorn

> Post something intelligent in a mature way, and people will engage you.  You choose to be an abrasive fool, so I treat you accordingly.


Please. You and Terry are both tribalists. This is not about objective intelligence and maturity.

----------


## eduardo89

> He does this because He wants us to be in Communion with Him voluntarily.  The Eucharist is, to the Orthodox and Catholics, the literal body and blood of Christ.  To partake in this Communion is srs bizness (as the kids say) traditionally.  Sorry to cut this short, but I gtg.  We'll chat more later if you're interested. ~hugs~


+rep

----------


## Kevin007

http://carm.org/transubstantiation


absolute $#@! eduardo? really? why not disprove any point from the article- attack the source? go ahead and disprove anything in that article.

----------


## Kevin007

The biblical doctrine of the incarnation states that the Word which was God and  was with God (John 1:1), became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14).  This "became  flesh" involves what is known as the hypostatic Union.   This is the teaching  that in the one person of Christ are two natures:  divine and human. That is, Jesus  is both God and man at the same time,  and He will forever be God and man.
 Furthermore, by definition,  for Jesus to be human, He must be located in one place.   This is the  nature of being human.  A human male does not have the ability  to be  omnipresent. He can only be in one place at one time.  To say that Jesus   in His physical form is in more than one place at a time is to deny  the incarnation.   That is, it denies that Jesus is completely and  totally a man--since a man can  only be it one place at one time.   Therefore, to say that the bread and wine  become the body and blood of  Christ is to violate the doctrine of the incarnation  by stating that  Christ is physically present all over the planet as the mass is   celebrated. This is a serious problem and a serious denial of the true  and absolute  incarnation of the Word of God as a man.

----------


## Kevin007

*First--there is no indication that the words were meant to be literal* Nowhere  in scripture do we find this teaching.   We see scriptures  refer to  the elements as the body and blood, but we also see *Jesus clearly  stating  that the words He was speaking were spiritual words* when  talking about eating  his flesh and drinking his blood:  "It  is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken  to you are spirit and are life." (John 6:63).  He did not say they were  literal words; that is, He did not say that they were His actual body and blood.

 But, a Catholic might object and say that Jesus clearly said, "This is My blood . . . " and "This is my body . . . " This is true, but Jesus  frequently spoke in spiritual terms:  "I am the  bread of life," (John 6:48); "I am the  door," (John 10:7,9); "I am the resurrection  and the life," (John 11:25); "I am the true vine," (John 15:1), etc.  In the context  of John 6, Jesus is telling His disciples that they must eat His body and blood  (John 6:53).  He clearly  says He was speaking in spiritual terms, " . . . the words  that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." (John 6:63).


http://carm.org/transubstantiation

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The biblical doctrine of the incarnation states that the Word which was God and  was with God (John 1:1), became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14).  This "became  flesh" involves what is known as the hypostatic Union.   This is the teaching  that in the one person of Christ are two natures:  divine and human. That is, Jesus  is both God and man at the same time,  and He will forever be God and man.
>  Furthermore, by definition,  for Jesus to be human, He must be located in one place.   This is the  nature of being human.*  A human male does not have the ability  to be  omnipresent. He can only be in one place at one time.  To say that Jesus   in His physical form is in more than one place at a time is to deny  the incarnation.   That is, it denies that Jesus is completely and  totally a man--since a man can  only be it one place at one time.   Therefore, to say that the bread and wine  become the body and blood of  Christ is to violate the doctrine of the incarnation  by stating that  Christ is physically present all over the planet as the mass is   celebrated. This is a serious problem and a serious denial of the true  and absolute  incarnation of the Word of God as a man.*


You err because of your misunderstanding of the nature of Christ. He is fully man and fully God.  This is not in conflict with Jesus' being the Word in Flesh at all.




> *We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth**, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man.* And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end.And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.




Any questions?

----------


## RJB

> Any questions?


No, just the same false accusations the Romans and Pharisees leveled against the early Christians.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Please. *You and Terry are both tribalists.* This is not about objective intelligence and maturity.


A common MSM buzzword that's used in so many ways it's lost usefulness.  What do you mean by "tribalist"?  And why does someone else's being "tribalist" prevent you from being mature and intelligent?

----------


## Terry1

> Please. You and Terry are both tribalists. This is not about objective intelligence and maturity.


I'm a "tribalist"???  You mean like this?  Yeah--here's me and ed.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *First--there is no indication that the words were meant to be literal*
> 
>  Nowhere  in scripture do we find this teaching.   We see scriptures  refer to  the elements as the body and blood, but we also see *Jesus clearly  stating  that the words He was speaking were spiritual words* when  talking about eating  his flesh and drinking his blood:  "It  is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken  to you are spirit and are life." (John 6:63).  He did not say they were  literal words; that is, He did not say that they were His actual body and blood.
> 
>  But, a Catholic might object and say that Jesus clearly said, "This is My blood . . . " and "This is my body . . . " This is true, but Jesus  frequently spoke in spiritual terms:  "I am the  bread of life," (John 6:48); "I am the  door," (John 10:7,9); "I am the resurrection  and the life," (John 11:25); "I am the true vine," (John 15:1), etc.  In the context  of John 6, Jesus is telling His disciples that they must eat His body and blood  (John 6:53).  He clearly  says He was speaking in spiritual terms, " . . . the words  that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." (John 6:63).
> 
> 
> http://carm.org/transubstantiation


There's ample reason to believe those words are literal.  Most importantly, Jesus himself said it.  FYI, "transubstatiation" was made up out of whole cloth by 16th century reformers to justify their beleifs _post hoc_.  We have no reason whatsoever to believe this unbiblical and un-Christian teaching.

----------


## Terry1

> *First--there is no indication that the words were meant to be literal* Nowhere  in scripture do we find this teaching.   We see scriptures  refer to  the elements as the body and blood, but we also see *Jesus clearly  stating  that the words He was speaking were spiritual words* when  talking about eating  his flesh and drinking his blood:  "It  is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken  to you are spirit and are life." (John 6:63).  He did not say they were  literal words; that is, He did not say that they were His actual body and blood.
> 
>  But, a Catholic might object and say that Jesus clearly said, "This is My blood . . . " and "This is my body . . . " This is true, but Jesus  frequently spoke in spiritual terms:  "I am the  bread of life," (John 6:48); "I am the  door," (John 10:7,9); "I am the resurrection  and the life," (John 11:25); "I am the true vine," (John 15:1), etc.  In the context  of John 6, Jesus is telling His disciples that they must eat His body and blood  (John 6:53).  He clearly  says He was speaking in spiritual terms, " . . . the words  that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." (John 6:63).
> 
> 
> http://carm.org/transubstantiation


But you're not debating this same scripture with Catholics only, there's a lot of non Catholic and protestants that do interpret John 15: 5 and Hebrews 6:4 correctly as well.  You're interpretation is wrong.  That doesn't mean you're not saved--it just means that you're seeing scripture more darkly through the glass than the majority of Christianity.

----------


## Terry1

> No, it means they are more concerned with going to church than following christ. Church to them is just how they socialize and act holy.


Seriously???  Do you actually believe that because one brethren may believe in attending their church regularly to worship the Lord and respect that which also upholds the word of God are "worshiping their church" for doing so??

That is the most laughable lie being told out there.  You have no idea why anyone does anything unless you're a mind reader. lol

----------


## Kevin007

> But you're not debating this same scripture with Catholics only, there's a lot of non Catholic and protestants that do interpret John 15: 5 and Hebrews 6:4 correctly as well.  You're interpretation is wrong.  That doesn't mean you're not saved--it just means that you're seeing scripture more darkly through the glass than the majority of Christianity.


how is my interpretation wrong?


Considering He Himself gave it to the disciples, its a good bet it was _literally_ bread and wine. The eucharist is not biblical.

----------


## Kevin007

> There's ample reason to believe those words are literal.  Most importantly, Jesus himself said it.  FYI, "transubstatiation" was made up out of whole cloth by 16th century reformers to justify their beleifs _post hoc_.  We have no reason whatsoever to believe this unbiblical and un-Christian teaching.


Did the Apostles at the Last Supper actually eat the body and blood of Christ, or was it just bread and wine? It is finished." Those words mean anything to you?


Why would Jesus prescribe a physical remedy to our spiritual condition??   Is Jesus' power limited to the physical realm, in that we need to  physically consume Him for our spiritual condition?  It makes zero sense  as a literal commandment.  

*Jesus provided physical manna for the Israelites in the physical desert to sustain them physically.* 

This was to demonstrate/prophesy that........

*Jesus provided His ________  Self in our spiritual wasteland to sustain us spiritually.*

What form do you suppose would fit the equation here?  *Physical* or *Spiritual* nourishment?

It's not that tricky to see the parallel. 

But instead, you prefer to create a broken parallel, in saying that  Jesus provided Himself physically to attend to our spiritual  destitution.

----------


## Kevin007

Mark 7:13
making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.


We are not to "live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD" (Deut 8:3).

 We have one really good example of what happens when Jesus turns one  thing into another in scripture. He turned water into wine. When He did  this it looked like wine, tasted like wine, everyone knew it was wine.  With transubstantiation you do not have this. For all practical intents  and purposes, to every scientific look, that bread is still bread, and  that wine is still wine, not flesh and blood. We have a good basis;  water to wine, to show that this is not how this type of miracle works.  Why does the blood not taste like blood?

----------


## Kevin007

> There's ample reason to believe those words are literal.  Most importantly, Jesus himself said it.  FYI, "transubstatiation" was made up out of whole cloth by 16th century reformers to justify their beleifs _post hoc_.  We have no reason whatsoever to believe this unbiblical and un-Christian teaching.



*What did all the Catholics do for the first 1200 years* of their Church history that didn't have the Eucharist? How could their first Pope "Peter" have been so unclear about such an important thing as the Eucharist that it would take 1200+ years before the RCC would figure it out?

----------


## Kevin007

> You err because of your misunderstanding of the nature of Christ. He is fully man and fully God.  This is not in conflict with Jesus' being the Word in Flesh at all.
> 
> 
> Any questions?



Everything in the RCC is physical to feed a spiritual.  Baptism as an infant to awaken the spirit and cleanse us from sin. The eucharist  as a physical transubstantiation to feed our soul and "save" our  spirit. Confirmation by a bishop physically placing his hands on you.  Even purgatory is made up -  we can physically go through the fires of  purgatory to burn off any remaining sins we might have.

----------


## Kevin007

> But you're not debating this same scripture with Catholics only, there's a lot of non Catholic and protestants that do interpret John 15: 5 and Hebrews 6:4 correctly as well.  You're interpretation is wrong.  That doesn't mean you're not saved--it just means that you're seeing scripture more darkly through the glass than the majority of Christianity.


I grew up Catholic; I remember the biggest question I had was if I take the Eucharist,  how long does it last in my body? Does Christ then leave my body after a  week, a month, a year? Do you know this question because no one was  ever able to answer it for me.

If Christ does leave, doesn't that contradict what he said? I will never leave thee nor forsake thee?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Did the Apostles at the Last Supper actually eat the body and blood of Christ, or was it just bread and wine? It is finished." Those words mean anything to you?


It was the literal body and blood of Christ.  The "how" of this is the mystery.  All we know is that it "is".




> Why would Jesus prescribe a physical remedy to our spiritual condition??   Is Jesus' power limited to the physical realm, in that we need to  physically consume Him for our spiritual condition?  It makes zero sense  as a literal commandment.


According to Jesus, 


> This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do as oft as you drink it, in remembrance of me.


  Thanks to Christ God's death on the cross, we no longer have to sacrifice lambs as the Israelites did, as in Leviticus 1.  This is another way Christ fulfills Old Testament scriptures (compare Leviticus 1 and Hebrews 9:15-28)



> *Jesus provided physical manna for the Israelites in the physical desert to sustain them physically.* 
> 
> This was to demonstrate/prophesy that........
> 
> *Jesus provided His ________  Self in our spiritual wasteland to sustain us spiritually.*
> 
> What form do you suppose would fit the equation here?  *Physical* or *Spiritual* nourishment?
> 
> It's not that tricky to see the parallel.


See previous answer.




> But instead, you prefer to create a broken parallel, in saying that  Jesus provided Himself physically to attend to our spiritual  destitution.


As you can see from the evidence I have provided, there is no broken parallel.  Matthew's Gospel is all about parallels-it is in the Jewish style, using Jewish literary conventions like chiism to demonstrate how Christ fulfills Messianic prophesy.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I grew up Catholic; I remember the biggest question I had was if I take the Eucharist,  how long does it last in my body? Does Christ then leave my body after a  week, a month, a year? Do you know this question because no one was  ever able to answer it for me.
> *
> If Christ does leave, doesn't that contradict what he said? I will never leave thee nor forsake thee?*


You're thinking of Genesis 28:15.  This is not Christ speaking, but the first person of God (the Father) to Jacob.  In the New Covenant, the promise is similar, but different.  Through his blood and body, we are in communion with Him.  He is the sacrificial lamb, so that all mankind can take part in the cleansing power of His work.  (Another example of why OSAS is an epic failure of modern thought)

----------


## Terry1

> how is my interpretation wrong?
> 
> 
> Considering He Himself gave it to the disciples, its a good bet it was _literally_ bread and wine. The eucharist is not biblical.


This is all a matter of your perception of what the bread and wine symbolize.   The word of God says *24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me*

Jesus is saying that the bread *IS* is His body and to *eat it* in remembrance of Him.  Yes, through faith and belief--what we are doing is literally taking Jesus into our own bodies in remembrance of Him.  Then Jesus tells us not do this "unworthily"--meaning not to take the bread and wine without realizing what they mean and stand for because if one does this-- *29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.*

That's a serious charge by the Lord Himself.  Because if you to eat the bread and drink the wine not discerning the that you are literally taking Jesus into your own body--then what they are doing is attempting to place the blood and body of Christ into an unfit vessel and bringing damnation upon themselves in doing so.

There's a good reason that the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox take this much more seriously than some protestants do and I agree with their practice and interpretation of that scripture.

I will say also that even though I don't agree with some of the protestants on their interpretation of the Holy Communion, I do believe what the Apostle Paul said--that whatever we do in honor and respect for the Lord--God knows their hearts and is able to make them stand either way.  So debating this with the Catholics has no justification IMO.  You are just far too hung up on the Catholic church and accuse them wrongly of many things they are not guilty of.

----------


## acptulsa

> Seriously???  Do you actually believe that because one brethren may believe in attending their church regularly to worship the Lord and respect that which also upholds the word of God are "worshiping their church" for doing so??
> 
> That is the most laughable lie being told out there.  You have no idea why anyone does anything unless you're a mind reader. lol


I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, so I don't know how to respond to it.  But I have met the kind of people fr33 is talking about there.  They do exist.

----------


## Terry1

> I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, so I don't know how to respond to it.  But I have met the kind of people fr33 is talking about there.  They do exist.


They may very well exist, but how can anyone accuse someone of this unless they can read their minds and know their hearts.  It's simply a hateful accusation that has no basis unless one believes that they are God and knows the hearts of others.

We can discuss doctrinal differences, but to accuse someone of worshiping their church more than the Lord is unfounded and impossible to know about anyone unless they come right out and tell you that they love the church more than God, which I haven't seen anyone do--have you?

----------


## acptulsa

> We can discuss doctrinal differences, but to accuse someone of worshiping their church more than the Lord is unfounded and impossible to know about anyone unless they come right out and tell you that they love the church more than God, which I haven't seen anyone do--have you?


Yes and no.  I've certainly heard people say things in all honesty which leave no other possible interpretation.  At least one of which you have interacted with yourself, right on these pages (but I'll say no more because he's a little too banned to come attempt to deny it).

----------


## Terry1

> Yes and no.  I've certainly heard people say things in all honesty which leave no other possible interpretation.  At least one of which you have interacted with yourself, right on these pages (but I'll say no more because he's a little too banned to come attempt to deny it).


Do you actually believe that someone would point to a building of wood, rocks and stone and say "that is God"?  The Bible says that Jesus is the Rock.  Are rocks God?  Are stones His believers?  No--they are not.  They are symbols used to portray who the Head is of the body of Christ's believers.  He is the Rock and we are the stones.  Jesus is the "corner stone" of the church, meaning, that very rock that upholds the entire body and church of Christ.  So then we are considered the church of God and He that which upholds that same body.  It's all symbolic and relative to whatever one's frame of reference is.  This is all truly irrelevant in light of the fact that no matter how anyone perceives God--that what they do, they do in worship to Him and Him alone.  God does not judge us by how we perceive Him, but by how we worship and obey Him through faith and the Holy Spirit.

We can't sit here and condemn each other because we have different perceptions of Gods existence and in what.  What is important is that we understand that He is God--that Jesus is Lord and savior and worship Him as such.  Neither can we assume that just because people may subscribe to a particular church or doctrine that they are not saved.  God judges the hearts of men individually based upon what He knows resides in their hearts.  No one can sit in judgment of another and say because they attend this church or that one that they are not saved or believers.

There's a good reason that the word tells us we are all parts of the same body and called for different purposes in Christ.  God can not accomplish the task of using us unless we are spread out amongst the world in different places.  God is not only in one church or one particular denomination--His children are scattered about in all of them doing His work to win souls for Christ.

We all won't see doctrines the same and there's a reason for that too.  Because we all have different functions doing different things within the body of Christ to fulfill the word of God.  We can't say that people should all believe exactly the same way, if we did--the body of Christ could not accomplish the work that needs to be done in all places and people and not just those who believe exactly the same as we do.

----------


## acptulsa

Look, I'm not trying to start an argument.  I didn't even start this thread.  And I'm really not trying to judge, though I can't help but judge just enough to decide that such people are false prophets and I have no intention of following them.  I'm just saying I've met people who prefer their church's dogma to the words of the very God said church purports to honor and glorify.

And you have too.

----------


## Terry1

> Look, I'm not trying to start an argument.  I didn't even start this thread.  And I'm really not trying to judge, though I can't help but judge just enough to decide that such people are false prophets and I have no intention of following them.  I'm just saying I've met people who prefer their church's dogma to the words of the very God said church purports to honor and glorify.
> 
> And you have too.


I agree that there is a right way and a wrong to believe that impacts how we perceive others as either saved or not, but still I know that we are left with the word of God that tells us this is why we can't judge another, and that's because we don't know where God is leading them or how or what His purpose is for them in this life.  

I will discuss doctrine and interpretation when I feel something is so far off the mark that it actually places the soul in danger of grieving the Holy Spirit, but what I won't do is accuse someone of not being saved.  Even if I know that what they're currently subscribing to eliminates that possibility in my own mind--still I'm left with not knowing their hearts or Gods purpose for them now or in the future.

----------


## Nang

> You're thinking of Genesis 28:15.  This is not Christ speaking, but the first person of God (the Father) to Jacob.  In the New Covenant, the promise is similar, but different.  Through his blood and body, we are in communion with Him.  He is the sacrificial lamb, so that all mankind can take part in the cleansing power of His work.  (Another example of why OSAS is an epic failure of modern thought)


This is pure superstition.

We come into union with Jesus Christ by the legal rendering of imputation of pardon, issued by God, and the powerful regeneration (resurrection to new life) performed by God the Holy Spirit.

IOW's all communion between God and men is established by His power, grace; through the gift of faith to believe in the righteousness of Jesus Christ . . . alone.

----------


## Nang

> Look, I'm not trying to start an argument.  I didn't even start this thread.  And I'm really not trying to judge, though I can't help but judge just enough to decide that such people are false prophets and I have no intention of following them.  I'm just saying I've met people who prefer their church's dogma to the words of the very God said church purports to honor and glorify.
> 
> And you have too.


Trusting in the proverbial writings of dead saints, while rejecting the perfection and power of the written word of God, is to worship the human church institution, rather than trusting in the gospel message (the Holy Scriptures and promises of everlasting life revealed therein).

----------


## acptulsa

> We come into union with Jesus Christ by the legal rendering of imputation of...


No, we don't.  No.

We come into union with Jesus Christ by letting Him into our hearts.  No lawyer, legislator or Pharisee can do it for us.

----------


## Nang

> No, we don't.  No.
> 
> We come into union with Jesus Christ by letting Him into our hearts.  No lawyer, legislator or Pharisee can do it for us.



Jesus Christ did this for us on the cross.

His sacrificial and substitutional death, was the forensic basis for the forgiveness (Justification) of our sins.

We have no power to justify ourselves before God.

Because our hearts must first be changed, and only God Himself can change them.  Ezekiel 11:19-20

----------


## acptulsa

> His sacrificial and substitutional death, was the forensic basis for the forgiveness (Justification) of our sins.
> 
> We have no power to justify ourselves before God.





> 1fo·ren·sic adjective \fə-ˈren(t)-sik, -ˈren-zik\
> : relating to the use of scientific knowledge or methods in solving crimes
> 
> : relating to, used in, or suitable to a court of law
> 
> 
> Full Definition of FORENSIC
> 
> 1
> ...


If we have no power to justify ourselves before God, then why do you seem to be obsessed with preparing yourself a legal case to present on the Judgement Day?

Don't get me wrong.  You have a right to do it, and it's none of my business why, believing as you do, you would be the least bit interested in a forensic anything.  It's just a mite curious to me, that's all.  I mean, pleading that, 'My Pharisee told me that...' on the Judgement Day is just as _forensic_ as pleading, 'Lord, when did I see Thee...' and we already know _that_ won't work.

----------


## Terry1

> Trusting in the proverbial writings of dead saints, while rejecting the perfection and power of the written word of God, is to worship the human church institution, rather than trusting in the gospel message (the Holy Scriptures and promises of everlasting life revealed therein).


Your church doctrine is wrong too and yet you place that above the "Holy Scriptures" truth.  Your church doctrine is based upon what the protestant pope himself John Calivn wrote and not Gods word.  What does that say about you then?  See how that works.

----------


## Nang

> If we have no power to justify ourselves before God, then why do you seem to be obsessed with preparing yourself a legal case to present on the Judgement Day?


Jesus Christ, as Mediator between God and men, prepared a legal case to work propitiation (satisfy Godly wrath) before God, in order to bring pardon for those the Father gave Him to redeem.  He will act as Advocate for those He legally represents, on Judgment Day.

First, He perfectly, and sinlessly kept all of the Law of God.  Secondly, He full performed all the Covenant Promises of God.  Thirdly, he paid the legal death sentence imposed upon us, by bearing our crimes in our stead.

It was the breaking of God's Law that caused sin to be imputed to all men, and it was Jesus Christ keeping all this same Law, that rectified the legal offense Adam had caused.  Sin, death, and the devil have been LEGALLY (forensically) dealt with by the Son of God.

That is why it is impossible to consider man could do any of this for himself through will power, because no man can be declared righteous by following the Law.  All sinners are totally incapable of functioning righteously under the Law, let alone able to overcome the legal death sentence imposed by God upon their souls.

Only the Savior, Jesus Christ, could do for us what we could not legally achieve for ourselves.

That is the Gospel of Grace.

----------


## Nang

> Your church doctrine is wrong too and yet you place that above the "Holy Scriptures" truth.  Your church doctrine is based upon what the protestant pope himself John Calivn wrote and not Gods word.  What does that say about you then?  See how that works.


You don't know what you are talking about. . .

My doctrine is Scriptural only.

Sola Scriptura!

----------


## Terry1

> You don't know what you are talking about. . .
> 
> My doctrine is Scriptural only.
> 
> Sola Scriptura!


Your doctrine is crapola written by a murdering despot whose ass was tossed out of so many places that the retards of Geneva were the only ones dumb enough to welcome him.

----------


## acptulsa

> Jesus Christ, as Mediator between God and men, prepared a legal case to work propitiation (satisfy Godly wrath) before God, in order to bring pardon for those the Father gave Him to redeem.  He will act as Advocate for those He legally represents, on Judgment Day.


According to His words in Matthew 25, Jesus won't be sitting at anyone's defense table.  He'll be presiding and doing the judging.

But hey.  If you've got someone there you'd rather listen to than Jesus Himself, more power to you.

----------


## Terry1

> According to His words in Matthew 25, Jesus won't be sitting at anyone's defense table.  He'll be presiding and doing the judging.
> 
> But hey.  If you've got someone there you'd rather listen to than Jesus Himself, more power to you.


Nang believes the scriptural interpretation of a fifteenth century murderous practicing lawyer over the majority of Christianity as a whole has believed since the Bible was written.  This is where the reformers fell prey to the devil of lies.

----------


## eduardo89

> You don't know what you are talking about. . .
> 
> My doctrine is Scriptural only.
> 
> Sola Scriptura!


No, your doctrine is what that fallible three-pound brain of yours interprets as being what Scripture says.

----------


## Nang

> According to His words in Matthew 25, Jesus won't be sitting at anyone's defense table.  He'll be presiding and doing the judging.
> 
> But hey.  If you've got someone there you'd rather listen to than Jesus Himself, more power to you.


I did not say otherwise.

On Judgment Day, Jesus Christ will exert divine authority as Judge, Mediator, Advocate, High Priest, King, Savior, etc. etc.

"Who shall bring a charge against God's elect?  It is God who justifies.  Who is he who condemns?  It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.  Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? . . ."  Romans 8:33-35

IOW's, if it is Christ who died for His own, and it Christ who resurrected from death for His own, and it is Christ who intercedes in heaven for His own, who can possibly condemn us?  No man can undo what Christ has done, is doing, and will do . . for those He foreknew and redeemed, are promised glory and everlasting life.  Romans 8:28-30

QED

----------


## acptulsa

> I did not say otherwise.


You said He would act as 'mediator' and 'work propitiation before God'.

Jesus didn't.

Would you be terribly offended if I took His word for it, even at the exclusion of your own?

----------


## Nang

> You said He would act as 'mediator' and 'work propitiation before God'.
> 
> Jesus didn't.
> 
> Would you be terribly offended if I took His word for it, even at the exclusion of your own?


Do you think Jesus Christ obeyed all the Law of God, because He had to?

Do you think Jesus Christ suffered the wrath of God, because the Father was angry with HIM?

Do you think Jesus Christ died, because of His own sins?

No to all the above.  Jesus obeyed, suffered, and died because He represented us in the office of Mediator between God and sinners.

Just as Adam was federal head of the entire human race; representing all his physical offspring, was the cause of sin and death being imputed to all men . . so Jesus Christ came into this world as federal head of all His spiritual seed; thereby providing the imputation of righteousness to their account.  *See Romans 5:12-21 and I Corinthians 15:42-58 to learn this spiritual principle and truth.
*

----------


## acptulsa

> . . so Jesus Christ came into this world as federal head of all His ...





> fed·er·al adjective \ˈfe-d(ə-)rəl\
> : of or relating to a form of government in which power is shared between a central government and individual states, provinces, etc.
> 
> : of or relating to the central government
> 
> : of, relating to, or loyal to the federal government during the American Civil War


What language are you speaking?

I'm not referring to Caesar, here.  I'm trying to talk of God.

Federal?  Sounds like something the pope would say, in an effort to get himself credit for a provincial portion of Godly power.  I'm not buying.

If you can't speak of God's love without talking about jurisdictions and adjudications and wrath, I don't care to speak with you about God's love at all.

----------


## Nang

> What language are you speaking?
> 
> I'm not referring to Caesar, here.  I'm trying to talk of God.
> 
> Federal?  Sounds like something the pope would say, in an effort to get himself credit for a provincial portion of Godly power.  I'm not buying.
> 
> If you can't speak of God's love without talking about jurisdictions and adjudications and wrath, I don't care to speak with you about God's love at all.




It is called "theological-speak."  

Which is acquired through theological study of Holy Scripture, which goes beyond just reading the dictionary.  

And revelation that Jesus Christ represented His people (church) bodily, as their federal head, is the greatest revelation of divine love known to mankind! * Ephesians 5:23-32*

What other display of God's love could possible exceed His love shown in the INCARNATION OF THE SON OF GOD?

----------


## acptulsa

> It is called "theological-speak."  
> 
> Which is acquired through theological study of Holy Scripture, which goes beyond just reading the dictionary.  
> 
> And revelation that Jesus Christ represented His people (church) bodily, as their federal head, is the greatest revelation of divine love known to mankind! * Ephesians 5:23-32*


The word 'federal' does not appear anywhere in the Book of Ephesians.  In fact, it doesn't appear anywhere in the King James Bible.  It couldn't; when that work appeared the word 'federal' had yet to be coined.  So how could this be Christianity's greatest revelation?  How could it be a divine revelation at all?

'Theological-speech' of that ilk is the stuff of Pharisees, and I refuse to take it any more seriously than Jesus did for a variety of reasons.  Sorry.

Not playing.  I'm willing to give what is federal to Washington.  For God I prefer to dig down deeper within me, and try to find something within myself far more worthy than _that._

----------


## Terry1

> The word 'federal' does not appear anywhere in the Book of Ephesians.  In fact, it doesn't appear anywhere in the King James Bible.  It couldn't; when that work appeared the word 'federal' had yet to be coined.  So how could this be Christianity's greatest revelation?  How could it be a divine revelation at all?
> 
> 'Theological-speech' of that ilk is the stuff of Pharisees, and I refuse to take it any more seriously than Jesus did for a variety of reasons.  Sorry.
> 
> Not playing.  I'm willing to give what is federal to Washington.  For God I prefer to dig down deeper within me, and try to find something within myself far more worthy than _that._


That's "Calvinist reformed speak"--LOL  Nang is so caught up in the Calvinist crap you need an interpreter to interpret her interpretation of Calvinism.

----------


## Nang

> The word 'federal' does not appear anywhere in the Book of Ephesians.  In fact, it doesn't appear anywhere in the King James Bible.  It couldn't; when that work appeared the word 'federal' had yet to be coined.  So how could this be Christianity's greatest revelation?  How could it be a divine revelation at all?
> 
> 'Theological-speech' of that ilk is the stuff of Pharisees, and I refuse to take it any more seriously than Jesus did for a variety of reasons.  Sorry.
> 
> Not playing.  I'm willing to give what is federal to Washington.  For God I prefer to dig down deeper within me, and try to find something within myself far more worthy than _that._


Christ is Head of His church.

Do you deny this?

If you agree with this, then you have just agreed with federal headship.

It is not any more complicated than that . . .

----------


## Terry1

> The word 'federal' does not appear anywhere in the Book of Ephesians.  In fact, it doesn't appear anywhere in the King James Bible.  It couldn't; when that work appeared the word 'federal' had yet to be coined.  So how could this be Christianity's greatest revelation?  How could it be a divine revelation at all?
> 
> 'Theological-speech' of that ilk is the stuff of Pharisees, and I refuse to take it any more seriously than Jesus did for a variety of reasons.  Sorry.
> 
> Not playing.  I'm willing to give what is federal to Washington.  For God I prefer to dig down deeper within me, and try to find something within myself far more worthy than _that._


"Federal Head" is a Calvinist term.  Here's wiki's definition here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology

"Covenant theology (also known as Covenantalism, *Federal theology, or Federalism) is a Calvinist conceptual overview and interpretive framework* for understanding the overall flow of the Bible. It uses the theological concept of covenant as an organizing principle for Christian theology."

----------


## eduardo89

//

----------


## Terry1

> Christ is Head of His church.
> 
> Do you deny this?
> 
> If you agree with this, then you have just agreed with federal headship.
> 
> It is not any more complicated than that . . .


It's convoluted crapola is what it is.  You need deprogramming.

----------


## acptulsa

> If you agree with this, then you have just agreed with federal headship.


Why, bless your pea pickin' li'l ol' heart.

Dear, If I agree with the statement that Jesus is head of His church this does not even guarantee that I agree 'headship' is a word in any known language on Earth.

I've actually heard former Secretary of State General Alexander Haig speak better English, and make more sense, than that.

----------


## Nang

> Why, bless your pea pickin' li'l ol' heart.
> 
> Dear, If I agree with the statement that Jesus is head of His church *this does not even guarantee that I agree 'headship' is a word in any known language on Earth.*


How sure are you about this?

----------


## Terry1

> How sure are you about this?


There's a difference between a brain and a diploma.

----------


## acptulsa

> How sure are you about this?


How sure am I that my faith is not dependent upon me recognizing the cute little compound words of 'theology-speak'?

100%, and I pity those who cannot say the same.

----------


## Nang

> How sure am I that my faith is not dependent upon me recognizing the cute little compound words of 'theology-speak'?


No . . . you said:




> If I agree with the statement that Jesus is head of His church *this does not even guarantee that I agree 'headship' is a word in any known language on Earth.*


*
*

You seemed to refuse the word "headship" in describing Christ as "Head" of His church.

"Headship" is a legitimate word in the English language.

I asked if you were sure "headship" was a word not known to any language.

----------


## acptulsa

> I asked if you were sure "headship" was a word not known to any language.


Better you should ask yourself if 'federal' is not a synonym for 'national', and whether it isn't heresy to imply that God is confined by national borders.

This childish use of language does God no harm, of course.  But it surely can put a crimp in a mere mortal human's understanding of God, if said human refuses to learn to rise above it.

Trying to put God's power in human terms is selling it short.  And to focus solely on the power is to ignore completely the glory.

----------


## Nang

> Better you should ask yourself if 'federal' is not a synonym for 'national', and whether it isn't heresy to imply that God is confined by national borders.
> 
> This childish use of language does God no harm, of course.  But it surely can put a crimp in a mere mortal human's understanding of God, if said human refuses to learn to rise above it.
> 
> Trying to put God's power in human terms is selling it short.  And to focus solely on the power is to ignore completely the glory.


Jesus Christ is Head of His church.  

This is not national; nor childish, but is biblical language that describes His office as federal head of His spiritual body.

I Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 4:15, 5:23

The comparison between Adam representing and heading the entire human race, and Jesus Christ representing and being head of His church, are revealed in Romans 5:12-21 and I Corinthians 15:42-49.

Read these portions of the Holy Scriptures if you are open and willing to learn and understand God and rise to His teachings.

----------


## acptulsa

> This is not national; nor childish, but is biblical language that describes His office as federal head of His spiritual body.


'Federal' is _not_ biblical language, and _does_ refer to the national by definition.  It has never had the slightest universal connotation since the word was coined.

As for childish, have you listened to the federal government lately?  Well, that's neither here nor there.  But it certainly ain't Godly.




> Read these portions of the Holy Scriptures if you are open and willing to learn and understand God and rise to His teachings.


And _my_ advice to _you_ is stop worrying about any ailments I might have and heal thyself.  For one of us might well have a mote in the eye, but the other could as easily be carrying around a log.

----------


## Terry1

> No . . . you said:
> 
> 
> [/B]
> 
> You seemed to refuse the word "headship" in describing Christ as "Head" of His church.
> 
> "Headship" is a legitimate word in the English language.
> 
> I asked if you were sure "headship" was a word not known to any language.


Because this is all Calvinist crap.  Just because something is partly true, doesn't mean it's something anyone should swallow hook, line and sinker.  This is how you got sucked into Calvin's lie as a whole as with anyone who allows themselves to be deceived by something that may be partly true then believe because part of it is true that the whole of it must be true also and this is how people are deceived into believing false doctrines.   

You've been indoctrinated into this Calvinism for so long that there's little hope for you IMO.  You trying to pass this off as truth is an affront to God and true body of Christ.  As often as you post this crap, it needs to be confronted and shouted down.  It's an affront to God and the body of Christ.

Let's talk about you believing that God is the first cause of evil, sin and death again--or that other belief you have that God is not at war with satan and the other belief you have that Adam is the author of sin.  Not to mention Isaiah 14:12 that you insisted was not talking about Lucifer/satan, but rather you concluded that scripture was talking about Adam--when clearly Isaiah refers to "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning"--yet you insisted it was talking about Adam.  I could keep on going after reading you these past months watching you post your tin foil hat Calvinist theology.

----------


## acptulsa

Well, you know.  The fact that she can equate 'federal' and 'universal', even though Washington is 3000 miles from Seattle and 93,000,000 miles from the sun, indicates she doesn't have a clear grasp of the 'big picture'.  But which of us does?

I propose he among us who has anything remotely like God's understanding of the 'big picture' cast the first stone.

----------


## Nang

> 'Federal' is _not_ biblical language, and _does_ refer to the national by definition.  It has never had the slightest universal connotation since the word was coined.
> 
> As for childish, have you listened to the federal government lately?  Well, that's neither here nor there.  But it certainly ain't Godly.


You are insisting on only a political definition of the word "federal."

If I used the word "representative" instead, would that help?  For "representative" has the same meaning as "Mediator" in the bible.

For legal purposes only, has the term "federal" been used by theologians, for it better fits the legal aspects of imputed sin and imputed righteousness.

When on a Religion forum, political definitions can be put aside, and theological terms can be learnt, if one is open and willing to learn.

----------


## acptulsa

> When on a Religion forum, political definitions can be put aside, and theological terms can be learnt, if one is open and willing to learn.


No, thank you.

Language enables understanding, but it also limits understanding because language has limitations.  And I've seldom come across language that does a better job of inhibiting understanding of the vastness of God's power and glory than the language you are using here.

----------


## Deborah K

> You are insisting on only a political definition of the word "federal."
> 
> If I used the word "representative" instead, would that help?  For "representative" has the same meaning as "Mediator" in the bible.
> 
> For legal purposes only, has the term "federal" been used by theologians, for it better fits the legal aspects of imputed sin and imputed righteousness.
> 
> When on a Religion forum, political definitions can be put aside, and theological terms can be learnt, if one is open and willing to learn.


Are _you_ open and willing to learn, Nang?  Or is that message just for the rest of us?

----------


## Nang

> Are _you_ open and willing to learn, Nang?  Or is that message just for the rest of us?



What do you want to teach me, Deborah?

----------


## Nang

> No, thank you.
> 
> Language enables understanding, but it also limits understanding because language has limitations.  And I've seldom come across language that does a better job of inhibiting understanding of the vastness of God's power and glory than the language you are using here.


How does explaining the headship of Christ over His church, inhibit the vastness of God's power and glory?

----------


## acptulsa

> What do you want to teach me, Deborah?


Well, I'm not Deborah, but _I_ would sure admire showing you that God's love goes far, far beyond the legalities.

When the stars come out tonight, would you do me a favor and go take a good, long look at them?




> How does explaining the headship of Christ over His church, inhibit the vastness of God's power and glory?


For starters, you can never experience the vastness from within even the biggest sanctuary.  You have to go outside at night, and look up at what He created and what a vastness He inhabits to even _begin_ to understand that.

----------


## Deborah K

> What do you want to teach me, Deborah?


Answer the questions I posed to you, Nang.

----------


## Nang

> Well, I'm not Deborah, but _I_ would sure admire showing you that God's love goes far, far beyond the legalities.
> 
> When the stars come out tonight, would you do me a favor and go take a good, long look at them?



Legalities cannot be dismissed, without falling into the error of antinomianism . . but I will go out and look at the stars tonight, and thank God for His natural laws that keep them in their unique positions and formations.

----------


## acptulsa

> Legalities cannot be dismissed, without falling into the error of antinomianism . . but I will go out and look at the stars tonight, and thank God for His natural laws that keep them in their unique positions and formations.


It isn't about Him keeping them in order, Nang.  It also involves Him making their domain indescribably vast, yet inhabiting it all.  And it might have something to do with Him making them so beautiful as well.

----------


## Nang

> Answer the questions I posed to you, Nang.


I answered you with my question.

I am willing to learn . . I just wonder what it is you want to teach me.

Maybe, unity amongst diversity?  Or, diversity amongst unity?

I am open to the first, but the latter is an oxymoron.

----------


## Nang

> It isn't about Him keeping them in order, Nang.  It also involves Him making their domain indescribably vast, yet inhabiting it all.  And it might have something to do with Him making them so beautiful as well.


Agreed!  Praise God for His wonderful creation that manifests His eternal power and Godhead.

----------


## Deborah K

> I answered you with my question.
> 
> I am willing to learn . . I just wonder what it is you want to teach me.
> 
> Maybe, unity amongst diversity?  Or, diversity amongst unity?
> 
> I am open to the first, but the latter is an oxymoron.


I never claimed to want to teach you anything.  I only asked if you were willing to take your own suggestion.  I'm am heartened to read that you are.

----------


## malkusm

7 pages later, nobody has changed their mind. And mine is still of the opinion that none of this matters, that you are judged by your actions, intentions, and character, and not how you interpret scripture.

----------


## Terry1

> Well, you know.  The fact that she can equate 'federal' and 'universal', even though Washington is 3000 miles from Seattle and 93,000,000 miles from the sun, indicates she doesn't have a clear grasp of the 'big picture'.  But which of us does?
> 
> I propose he among us who has anything remotely like God's understanding of the 'big picture' cast the first stone.


Oh please--have you even been remotely aware of what this woman has accused most of since she bounced in here her first day calling people wicked evil trolls and she's not even affiliated with RPF in any way.  Freedomfanatic brought her here to back him and now we're stuck with her..LOL

----------


## Ronin Truth

Just a thought, it may be much easier to relate to a today church than to a two millennium old savior.

----------


## Deborah K

> 7 pages later, nobody has changed their mind. And mine is still of the opinion that none of this matters, that you are judged by your actions, intentions, and character, and not how you interpret scripture.



Some people enjoy arguing theology in much the same way as they do politics.  It becomes a problem when certain people take it upon themselves to proclaim that their brand of belief is superior over others, and they do it in such a way as to condemn and insult.  That's when the fur starts flying.  We don't accept it in the rest of the message board, and it needs to be rejected here as well.

----------


## Deborah K

> Just a thought, it may be much easier to relate to a today church than to a two millennium old savior.


Truth is timeless.

----------


## Nang

> Oh please--have you even been remotely aware of what this woman has accused most of since she bounced in here her first day calling people wicked evil trolls and she's not even affiliated with RPF in any way.  Freedomfanatic brought her here to back him and now we're stuck with her..LOL



FF asked me to visit RPF to observe and hopefully help rebut agrammatos' posts from Outside the Camp, since I have had past experience with them on my husband's and my website.

 FYI, FF never told me anything or said anything critical about any of the rest of you, and he certainly did not relate any need for my backup in general.  


I truly wish you did not get facts so wrong, so much of the time.  By taking things wrong, you are the cause a lot of trouble.

----------


## Nang

> Some people enjoy arguing theology in much the same way as they do politics.  It becomes a problem when certain people take it upon themselves to proclaim that their brand of belief is superior over others, and they do it in such a way as to condemn and insult.  That's when the fur starts flying.  We don't accept it in the rest of the message board, and it needs to be rejected here as well.


There are two sides to this specific complaint.

Namely, disagreement between what is theology and what is idolatry.

----------


## Terry1

> FF asked me to visit RPF to observe and hopefully help rebut agrammatos' posts from Outside the Camp, since I have had past experience with them on my husband's and my website.
> 
>  FYI, FF never told me anything or said anything critical about any of the rest of you, and he certainly did not relate any need for my backup in general.  
> 
> 
> I truly wish you did not get facts so wrong, so much of the time.  By taking things wrong, you are the cause a lot of trouble.


So then what's wrong about the facts I stated then, you just admitted you came here to back FF and that's all I said just the same.  Get your facts straight for once why don't you.

----------


## Deborah K

> There are two sides to this specific complaint.
> 
> Namely, disagreement between what is theology and what is idolatry.


It really doesn't matter how you choose to couch the argument.  It is the manner in which you choose to do it that becomes the problem.

----------


## Terry1

> There are two sides to this specific complaint.
> 
> Namely, disagreement between what is theology and what is idolatry.


Is idolatry holding a book equal to God?

----------


## Nang

> So then what's wrong about the facts I stated then, you just admitted you came here to back FF and that's all I said just the same.  Get your facts straight for once why don't you.


You have inferred that FF was doing battle here against the regulars, and I was "recruited" to do the same.  This is not true at all.

Perhaps FF _was_ doing battle, but I had no clue for he did not so complain or express need for any kind of back-up.  He simply thought I would be interested in the OtC efforts being made on this site.

My reasons for staying around here, since OtC has apparently disappeared, are my own, and have much more to do with your lying about and misrepresenting my Reformed beliefs, than anything else.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Truth is timeless.


+rep  ...which is why you-know-who has such hatred for the Truths handed down to us through the millenia by the Ancient Church.

----------


## Nang

> Is idolatry holding a book equal to God?



Idolatry is dismissing the Holy Scripures as one's authority in matters of faith and practice; replacing God's word with the words of men.

Here again you lie about my beliefs.  I do not idolize any bible.  However, I consider the Holy Scriptures that are written in bibles, to be the inerrant Words of God.

I study these words with reverence in my heart, toward their Author.  That is not idolatry.  That is the study of Theology, which is the study of God.

A person cannot study God or know God, apart from His revelation of Himself, which is found written down in bibles.

----------


## Deborah K

> Idolatry is dismissing the Holy Scripures as one's authority in matters of faith and practice; replacing God's word with the words of men.
> 
> *Here again you lie about my beliefs.  I do not idolize any bible.*  However, I consider the Holy Scriptures that are written in bibles, to be the inerrant Words of God.
> 
> I study these words with reverence in my heart, toward their Author.  That is not idolatry.  That is the study of Theology, which is the study of God.
> 
> A person cannot study God or know God, apart from His revelation of Himself, which is found written down in bibles.



Nang, can you at least understand _why_, when you and other Calvinists make the kinds of untrue claims that you make about Catholicism, etc., why it is that others get so offended?  Obviously, it bothers you when your beliefs are misinterpreted.  It's the same exact thing.  You came on these forums with preconceived notions about the religions of others.  Maybe what you need to learn, is that not everything you've been taught about other religions is true.

----------


## Nang

> Nang, can you at least understand _why_, when you and other Calvinists make the kinds of untrue claims that you make about Catholicism, etc., why it is that others get so offended?


First, I am not a Calvinist.  I am a Reformed Protestant.  I have not read everything John Calvin wrote, and I do not agree with all that I have read of John Calvin.  So please put that label to rest.

Second, I cannot answer for what others have said to Catholics, so don't ask me to do so.




> Obviously, it bothers you when your beliefs are misinterpreted.  It's the same exact thing.  You came on these forums with preconceived notions about the religions of others.  Maybe what you need to learn, is that not everything you've been taught about other religions is true.


What specifically have I posted toward Roman Catholics that is in error or that has misrepresented your beliefs?

Of course, I have preconceived church history under my belt, and that is why I am a Reformed Protestant.  I have studied and understand what the Reformation was all about.  There are differences between our beliefs, and I am willing to discuss those differences, as long as respondents do not distort my views, I will certainly not distort theirs.

If you think I have distorted your Roman Catholic beliefs, tell me specifically, and I will either correct myself or explain myself.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

The Calf Path
by S.W. Foss





> One day, through the primeval wood,
> A calf walked home, as good calves should;
> But made a trail all bent askew, 
> A crooked trail as all calves do.
> 
> Since then three hundred years have fled, 
> And, I infer, the calf is dead.
> But still he left behind his trail, 
> And thereby hangs my moral tale.
> ...

----------


## Deborah K

> First, I am not a Calvinist.  I am a Reformed Protestant.  I have not read everything John Calvin wrote, and I do not agree with all that I have read of John Calvin.  So please put that label to rest.
> 
> Second, I cannot answer for what others have said to Catholics, so don't ask me to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> What specifically have I posted toward Roman Catholics that is in error or that has misrepresented your beliefs?
> 
> Of course, I have preconceived church history under my belt, and that is why I am a Reformed Protestant.  I have studied and understand what the Reformation was all about.  There are differences between our beliefs, and I am willing to discuss those differences, as long as respondents do not distort my views, I will certainly not distort theirs.
> ...


Why do you think I am Roman Catholic?  Let's start there.

----------


## Beorn

> Nang, can you at least understand _why_, when you and other Calvinists make the kinds of untrue claims that you make about Catholicism, etc., why it is that others get so offended?  Obviously, it bothers you when your beliefs are misinterpreted.  It's the same exact thing.  You came on these forums with preconceived notions about the religions of others.  Maybe what you need to learn, is that not everything you've been taught about other religions is true.


Actually I was willing to give the EO/RCC folk more leeway when this thread started in regards to what I thought the OP was trying to get at, but my opinion of their representatives here has only lessened as each page has gone by and made me think that maybe the OP has a point.

----------


## Nang

> Why do you think I am Roman Catholic?  Let's start there.


Only you can answer that.  I have no idea, so you will have to start there.

----------


## Deborah K

> Actually I was willing to give the EO/RCC folk more leeway when this thread started in regards to what I thought the OP was trying to get at, but my opinion of their representatives here has only lessened as each page has gone by and made me think that maybe the OP has a point.


I can't imagine that anything TER has written would lesson your opinion of EO.  Others here can be snarky, no doubt , and even downright vicious.  I include myself among them.  But my point in the post that you responded to, is that Nang, while she is in denial of hurling insults and condemning people, has preconceived notions about the religions of others.  

I was willing, as I am with most newbies, to welcome her and give her the benefit of the doubt.  But right away, she went on the attack, and was downright rude to TER.  I've made no secret of my abiding respect and admiration for him, as he is someone who truly attempts to practice what he preaches.  There are many others here that I have grown very fond of over the many years, and it offends me to see them and their beliefs being maligned the way they have, and not just by Nang, but by the other two.

Take Erowe for example. He is contrary, but he never personally attacks anyone.  And this is the crux of the issue.  Nang likes to complain that she gets attacked, and so it isn't fair that we expect _her_ to stop doing it.  But, she fails to realize that her initiation of going on the attack caused the retaliation.  She, and her banned counterparts, were given a taste of their own medicine, Old Testament style.  They've caused an uproar, and now they are living with the consequences of it.

----------


## Deborah K

> Only you can answer that.  I have no idea, so you will have to start there.


You have no idea, yet you labeled me a Roman Catholic.  Nang, why is it so hard for you to see that you are guilty of the exact same things you accuse others of?  And please, I'm not interested in a tit-for-tat with you.  If you'd like to have an intellectually honest discussion about how to try to move forward in peace, then I'm happy to have it with you.

----------


## otherone

> Take Erowe for example. He is _contrary_,



Now see everyone....THIS is a Christian.   I would have used MUCH different language....

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Actually I was willing to give the EO/RCC folk more leeway when this thread started in regards to what I thought the OP was trying to get at, but my opinion of their representatives here has only lessened as each page has gone by and made me think that maybe the OP has a point.


You're entitled to your opinion, but why is it you feel this way?

----------


## eduardo89

> Second, I cannot answer for what others have said to Catholics, so don't ask me to do so.
> 
> What specifically have I posted toward Roman Catholics that is in error or that has misrepresented your beliefs?


That we worship Mary, that we hold Mary to be equal to Jesus, that we don't believe we are saved solely by grace, that we believe in works-salvation, that we put Holy Tradition over Scripture, that we commit idolatry...the list goes on...

----------


## Nang

> You have no idea, yet you labeled me a Roman Catholic.


I do not know you.  When did I ever label you as a Roman Catholic?  Perhaps in response to a Romanist apologetic and defense, on your part?

If I am guilty of something, please provide my guilty words.

You are the one keeping score, so let me know what it is . . .

----------


## eduardo89

> I do not know you.  When did I ever label you as a Roman Catholic?  Perhaps in response to a Romanist apologetic and defense, on your part?
> 
> If I am guilty of something, please provide my guilty words.
> 
> You are the one keeping score, so let me know what it is . . .


I've asked you this before, can you please not use the derogatory term 'Romanist' to refer to Catholics?

----------


## Nang

> That we worship Mary, that we hold Mary to be equal to Jesus, that we don't believe we are saved solely by grace, that we believe in works-salvation, that we put Holy Tradition over Scripture, that we commit idolatry...the list goes on...


Yep . . . good and accurate summary.

What is mysterious, is who are willing to admit being RCC and who want deny any inferences they ARE RCC.

All of you should establish your own poll and demand whether those who defend the RCC beliefs are actually RCC or not, for those of us who do not hold to the RCC view, are expected to know who all of you are by osmosis, guesses, or some other mystical means.

Make it easy.

Roman Catholics . . . post a poll and ask that those who hold to your faith, identify themselves . . 

So that we Reformers cannot be blamed for falsely identifying beliefs.

----------


## Nang

> I've asked you this before, can you please not use the derogatory term 'Romanist' to refer to Catholics?


You have?

Not that I recall?

Does that label bother you?

Why?

----------


## Terry1

> I can't imagine that anything TER has written would lesson your opinion of EO.  Others here can be snarky, no doubt , and even downright vicious.  I include myself among them.  But my point in the post that you responded to, is that Nang, while she is in denial of hurling insults and condemning people, has preconceived notions about the religions of others.  
> 
> I was willing, as I am with most newbies, to welcome her and give her the benefit of the doubt.  But right away, she went on the attack, and was downright rude to TER.  I've made no secret of my abiding respect and admiration for him, as he is someone who truly attempts to practice what he preaches.  There are many others here that I have grown very fond of over the many years, and it offends me to see them and their beliefs being maligned the way they have, and not just by Nang, but by the other two.
> 
> Take Erowe for example. He is contrary, but he never personally attacks anyone.  And this is the crux of the issue.  Nang likes to complain that she gets attacked, and so it isn't fair that we expect _her_ to stop doing it.  But, she fails to realize that her initiation of going on the attack caused the retaliation.  She, and her banned counterparts, were given a taste of their own medicine, Old Testament style.  They've caused an uproar, and now they are living with the consequences of it.



+reps!
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Deborah K again

----------


## eduardo89

> You have?
> 
> Not that I recall?
> 
> Does that label bother you?
> 
> Why?


Yes, the label bothers me because it is a derogatory term for Catholics. You well know that it is not a term of endearment or a term Catholics use for themselves, just like the label "Papist."

----------


## Deborah K

> I do not know you.  When did I ever label you as a Roman Catholic?  Perhaps in response to a Romanist apologetic and defense, on your part?
> 
> If I am guilty of something, please provide my guilty words.
> 
> You are the one keeping score, so let me know what it is . . .






> First, I am not a Calvinist.  I am a Reformed Protestant.  I have not read everything John Calvin wrote, and I do not agree with all that I have read of John Calvin.  So please put that label to rest.
> 
> Second, I cannot answer for what others have said to Catholics, so don't ask me to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> *What specifically have I posted toward Roman Catholics that is in error or that has misrepresented your beliefs?
> *
> Of course, I have preconceived church history under my belt, and that is why I am a Reformed Protestant.  I have studied and understand what the Reformation was all about.  There are differences between our beliefs, and I am willing to discuss those differences, as long as respondents do not distort my views, I will certainly not distort theirs.
> ...


I have no intention of getting into circular arguments with you.  But go ahead and come up with some reason why what you wrote isn't what you wrote.   Clearly, you have no intention of having an intellectually honest discussion.

----------


## eduardo89

> Yep . . . good and accurate summary.
> 
> What is mysterious, is who are willing to admit being RCC and who want deny any inferences they ARE RCC.


How is a person an RCC? I don't understand how it is possible for someone to be a Roman Catholic Church.

And who denies being a Catholic but is really a Catholic?




> All of you should establish your own poll and demand whether those who defend the RCC beliefs are actually RCC or not, for those of us who do not hold to the RCC view, are expected to know who all of you are by osmosis, guesses, or some other mystical means.
> 
> Make it easy.
> 
> Roman Catholics . . . post a poll and ask that those who hold to your faith, identify themselves . . 
> 
> So that we Reformers cannot be blamed for falsely identifying beliefs.


How about those that call themselves Catholic are Catholic, and those who say they are not Catholic are not Catholic? That's easier...

----------


## Deborah K

> Yep . . . good and accurate summary.
> 
> What is mysterious, is who are willing to admit being RCC and who want deny any inferences they ARE RCC.
> 
> All of you should establish your own poll and demand whether those who defend the RCC beliefs are actually RCC or not, for those of us who do not hold to the RCC view, are expected to know who all of you are by osmosis, guesses, or some other mystical means.
> 
> Make it easy.
> 
> Roman Catholics . . . post a poll and ask that those who hold to your faith, identify themselves . . 
> ...


You need a poll in order to determine whether you are falsely identifying beliefs???

----------


## Terry1

> I do not know you.  When did I ever label you as a Roman Catholic?  Perhaps in response to a Romanist apologetic and defense, on your part?
> 
> If I am guilty of something, please provide my guilty words.
> 
> You are the one keeping score, so let me know what it is . . .


If you want a list of your offences against the good members here---fork over some money, space costs.  You'd rather whine about this site and crap on it's members free of charge.  Bryan and the members here pay for this site.

You ran TER off nagging him to death every time he posted a thread.  TER is one of the most kind hearted, loving members here and all you did was accuse him of crap he wasn't guilty of and for that, I could forget I'm a Christian woman and say something I'd really regret later, but I won't do it.

----------


## Deborah K

> If you want a list of your offences against the good members here---fork over some money, space costs.  You'd rather whine about this site and crap on it's members free of charge.  Bryan and the members here pay for this site.
> 
> You ran TER off nagging him to death every time he posted a thread.  TER is one of the most kind hearted, loving members here and all you did was accuse him of crap he wasn't guilty of and for that, I could forget I'm a Christian woman and say something I'd really regret later, but I won't do it.


She ran him off???

----------


## Nang

> I have no intention of getting into circular arguments with you.  But go ahead and come up with some reason why what you wrote isn't what you wrote.   Clearly, you have no intention of having an intellectually honest discussion.


This is nuts . . . you want me to tell you why you are a Roman Catholic, when* I do not know you and have no idea if you are Roman Catholic or not,* but you accuse me of writing something to that effect, but you will not disclose the post that you makes you think so.

And you want to have an "intellectually honest discussion?"

Gads . . .

----------


## Terry1

> You have inferred that FF was doing battle here against the regulars, and I was "recruited" to do the same.  This is not true at all.
> 
> Perhaps FF _was_ doing battle, but I had no clue for he did not so complain or express need for any kind of back-up.  He simply thought I would be interested in the OtC efforts being made on this site.
> 
> My reasons for staying around here, since OtC has apparently disappeared, are my own, and have much more to do with your lying about and misrepresenting my Reformed beliefs, than anything else.


What specifically have I lied about--name the lie or lies.  You won't do it because you know everything I said has been true. lol

----------


## Terry1

> She ran him off???


He's hasn't been back since Nang attacked and hijacked every single thread he posted.    I hope he'll be back.

----------


## Deborah K

> This is nuts . . . you want me to tell you why you are a Roman Catholic, when I do not know you and have no idea if you are Roman Catholic or not, but you accuse me of writing something to that effect, but you will not disclose the post that you makes you think so.
> 
> And you want to have an "intellectually honest discussion?"
> 
> Gads . . .


Do you have reading comprehension problems???  I cited the very post you wrote.  Are you seriously denying that you wrongly assumed I was Roman Catholic?  Nang, why do you play games like this?  

This woman has problems, people.  I highly suggest everyone who is inclined to do so, ignore her.

----------


## Nang

> You ran TER off nagging him to death every time he posted a thread.


I received an apology from TER this very day for his last post on this site, which Bryan deleted.  

I accepted his apology, but I will not be blamed for "running him off."  TER flamed out. 

 Maybe you did not see what he posted and accused me of, before it was taken off this forum, but it was his words that he is ashamed of, not mine.

Your idol crumbled to the ground and exposed his true self . . . so be it.

Just ask Bryan to reveal to you what TER posted in his fall.

----------


## Nang

> Do you have reading comprehension problems???  I cited the very post you wrote.


When?  Where?

Repost, please . . .

My lastest post asked you this.

----------


## Deborah K

> When?  Where?
> 
> Repost, please . . .


Nang, scroll up.  I'm not doing your work for you.  You have got to be the rudest individual I've ever encountered in the religion forums.  You are no example of a Christian woman that I've ever known.  So, you managed to push TER to his brink.  Well, aren't you proud of yourself?  You came here for no other reason but to divide and create havoc, the devil's work.  Be gone.

----------


## Terry1

> First,* I am not a Calvinist.*  I am a Reformed Protestant.  I have not read everything John Calvin wrote, and I do not agree with all that I have read of John Calvin.  So please put that label to rest.
> 
> Second, I cannot answer for what others have said to Catholics, so don't ask me to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> What specifically have I posted toward Roman Catholics that is in error or that has misrepresented your beliefs?
> 
> Of course, I have preconceived church history under my belt, and that is why I am a Reformed Protestant.  I have studied and understand what the Reformation was all about.  There are differences between our beliefs, and I am willing to discuss those differences, as long as respondents do not distort my views, I will certainly not distort theirs.
> ...


Whew--you do lie a lot, you are a Calvinist, it's his doctrine almost word for word that you spew daily in here.

----------


## eduardo89

> This is nuts . . . you want me to tell you why you are a Roman Catholic, when* I do not know you and have no idea if you are Roman Catholic or not,* but you accuse me of writing something to that effect, but you will not disclose the post that you makes you think so.
> 
> And you want to have an "intellectually honest discussion?"
> 
> Gads . . .


You're joking/trolling, right??




> Originally Posted by Deborah K
> 
> 
> Nang, can you at least understand _why_, when you and other Calvinists make the kinds of untrue claims that you make about Catholicism, etc., why it is that others get so offended?
> 
> 
> First, I am not a Calvinist.  I am a Reformed Protestant.  I have not read everything John Calvin wrote, and I do not agree with all that I have read of John Calvin.  So please put that label to rest.
> 
> Second, I cannot answer for what others have said to Catholics, so don't ask me to do so.
> ...

----------


## Nang

> Nang, scroll up.


ok  scrolled up.  Do not see any post where I assumed you were RCC.  

All I see is you asking me why you are RCC.

----------


## eduardo89

> ok  scrolled up.  Do not see any post where I assumed you were RCC.  
> 
> All I see is you asking me why you are RCC.


This is what you replied to her:




> *If you think I have distorted your Roman Catholic beliefs*, tell me specifically, and I will either correct myself or explain myself.


Are you seriously blind or are you just playing stupid?

----------


## Terry1

> I received an apology from TER this very day for his last post on this site, which Bryan deleted.  
> 
> I accepted his apology, but I will not be blamed for "running him off."  TER flamed out. 
> 
>  Maybe you did not see what he posted and accused me of, before it was taken off this forum, but it was his words that he is ashamed of, not mine.
> 
> Your idol crumbled to the ground and exposed his true self . . . so be it.
> 
> Just ask Bryan to reveal to you what TER posted in his fall.


TER has more nobility, honor, love and respect in his little finger than you have in your entire wretched old body.  If you managed to nag him to the point where he spoke the undiluted truth to you--then you had it more than comin woman.  I have no respect for you whatsoever after what you've said and done to some of the most loved and respected members here on this site.

----------


## Nang

> You're joking/trolling, right??


So Deborah is not RCC.

Sorry Deborah for assuming that your criticism of my RCC criticisms must be your view, since you responded negatively against my objections to the RCC beliefs.

How is a person to know what another's faith is, when they act in defense of ANY criticism against the RCC view?

Rather than simply tell me you are not RCC, but wish to defend the RCC views, you go to these silly lengths to make me out to be false accusing you of holding to RCC views.

If you are so defensive of the RCC views, why would you attempt to crucify me for wrongly assuming that is your belief, also.

If you are not RCC, what the heck do you believe?

That is why I suggested a testimony poll, where such confusions might be avoided.

----------


## Nang

> TER has more nobility, honor, love and respect in his little finger than you have in your entire wretched old body.  If you managed to nag him to the point where he spoke the undiluted truth to you--then you had it more than comin woman.  I have no respect for you whatsoever after what you've said and done to some of the most loved and respected members here on this site.


You idolize TER, don't you?

You defend him, when I doubt you even read what he publicly posted against me.

If he had true honor and repentance in his heart for what he said against me, he would even still reveal it to you, to prevent you wrongly idolizing him as being perfect, noble, honorous, loving, and respectful.

But that is up to him as to open and honest he chooses to be . . .

----------


## VIDEODROME

Interesting.  I have been a little defensive of RCCs a few times because I was raised in that faith.  Now I'm more skeptical or Ignostic, but I still kind of sympathize with the RCCs if I think they're being portrayed in an unfair or inaccurate way.

----------


## eduardo89

> So Deborah is not RCC.


No one here is Roman Catholic Church. There are some Roman Catholics, though. Might even be some non-Roman Catholics hiding in our midst, I'd love to hear from them.

----------


## Nang

> No one here is the Roman Catholic Church.


Oh . .  I see.

Of course.

You Papists are [mod delete]

I understand . . .

----------


## Terry1

> So Deborah is not RCC.
> 
> Sorry Deborah for assuming that your criticism of my RCC criticisms must be your view, since you responded negatively against my objections to the RCC beliefs.
> 
> How is a person to know what another's faith is, when they act in defense of ANY criticism against the RCC view?
> 
> Rather than simply tell me you are not RCC, but wish to defend the RCC views, you go to these silly lengths to make me out to be false accusing you of holding to RCC views.
> 
> If you are so defensive of the RCC views, why would you attempt to crucify me for wrongly assuming that is your belief, also.
> ...


Because you stupidly accuse people who've never given you cause to accuse them.  You accused a non believer of breaking the second commandment too of all the ridiculous things.  You've never taken the time to get to know anyone on this site before you started hurling insults and accusations at them.  All you want is a soap box internet pulpit, so you run from forum to forum preaching your crap free of charge as if anyone would listen to a nasty cold-hearted, egomaniacle liar as yourself.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> This is nuts . . . you want me to tell you why you are a Roman Catholic, when* I do not know you and have no idea if you are Roman Catholic or not,* but you accuse me of writing something to that effect, but you will not disclose the post that you makes you think so.
> 
> And you want to have an "intellectually honest discussion?"
> 
> Gads . . .


I am not Catholic and have agreed with a lot of what you have said, but this is just ridiculous. When you said the phrase


> your Roman Catholic beliefs


 to Deborah K, what was that supposed to mean? Because the natural way to interpret that is you saying that her beliefs are Catholic and therefor she is a Catholic. Are you trolling, or just being facetious?

----------


## eduardo89

> Oh . .  I see.
> 
> Of course.
> 
> You Papists are [mod delete]
> 
> I understand . . .


I already asked you to not use the anti-Catholic slug 'Papist.'

And no, no Catholic here is ashamed of being Catholic. But you keep calling people "RCC" which stands for Roman Catholic Church. Just call us Catholics, please.

----------


## RJB

> That we worship Mary, that we hold Mary to be equal to Jesus, that we don't believe we are saved solely by grace, that we believe in works-salvation, that we put Holy Tradition over Scripture, that we commit idolatry...the list goes on...


Yeah, I don't believe any of that crap either.  Some people *NEED to lie to themselves* about what others believe for some insane reason to prop themselves up.

With the talk about polls, one of these "reformist" should do a poll asking if any Catholics believe such garbage.

I think some of you (with good intention) waste too much of your time with these people.  It's dawned on me FF, SF, et al. have no credibility on this forum.  When they start a thread packed with garbage about what others believe, call out the lies and LEAVE THE THREAD.  Why debates and argue.  It's been done 1000 times and no one in their right mind believes them.  I'm guessing (from my own failings) that TER left because he felt bad letting himself get dragged to their level.  Don't go there.  Call them out as liars and leave it at that.

Good night.

----------


## Terry1

> You idolize TER, don't you?
> 
> You defend him, when I doubt you even read what he publicly posted against me.
> 
> If he had true honor and repentance in his heart for what he said against me, he would even still reveal it to you, to prevent you wrongly idolizing him as being perfect, noble, honorous, loving, and respectful.
> 
> But that is up to him as to open and honest he chooses to be . . .


As if I would even care what anyone says about you after the way you've treated people and myself here?  You've got to be kidding---seriously--LOL

Personally I would have cheered TER on if he'd given it to you with both barrels, because you are one person that definitely needs to be told just where the bear $#@!s in the woods.  I won't dance with you hon.

----------


## Nang

> I already asked you to not use the anti-Catholic slug 'Papist.'
> 
> And no, no Catholic here is ashamed of being Catholic. But you keep calling people "RCC" which stands for Roman Catholic Church. Just call us Catholics, please.


Sorry, but all of you have earned the names [mod delete]

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> I already asked you to not use the anti-Catholic slug 'Papist.'


I have a question that is neither rhetorical nor sarcastic: what is anti-catholic about "Papist"? Wouldn't a Papist be one who believes in the Papacy i.e. the office of the Pope? Or is there something I don't understand about the word?

----------


## eduardo89

> Sorry, but all of you have earned the names [mod delete].


I already asked you kindly not to use those terms. I'm now reporting your posts, and I honestly hope you are banned. Whatever TER said to you, he was most probably right, even if it wasn't correct to say it to you in whatever offensive words he might have used.

----------


## Nang

> As if I would even care what anyone says about you after the way you've treated people and myself here?  You've got to be kidding---seriously--LOL
> 
> Personally I would have cheered TER on if he'd given it to you with both barrels, because you are one person that definitely needs to be told just where the bear $#@!s in the woods.  I won't dance with you hon.


He did give it to me with both barrels, but Bryan deleted it, and TER apologized.

I accepted his apology.

But I will not put up with any more of the same from any of you [mod delete]

----------


## VIDEODROME

Wow.  Classy.

----------


## eduardo89

> I have a question that is neither rhetorical nor sarcastic: what is anti-catholic about "Papist"? Wouldn't a Papist be one who believes in the Papacy i.e. the office of the Pope? Or is there something I don't understand about the word?


The word 'Papist' has been an anti-Catholic slur since the English Reformation. We do not like being called Papists because we are Catholic Christians. We worship Christ and are members of the One, Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church, we do not worship the Pope or blindly follow him.

----------


## Nang

> The word 'Papist' has been an anti-Catholic slur since the English Reformation. We do not like being called Papists because we are Catholic Christians. We worship Christ and are members of the One, Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church, we do not worship the Pope or blindly follow him.


Then why have him?  And venerate him?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Then why have him?  And venerate him?


Couldn't tell ya.  Maybe that's why I've drifted away.

----------


## Terry1

> Sorry, but all of you have earned the names "Romanists" and "Papists." 
> 
> Those are the names you are known by all the rest of catholic Christendom . . .


Oh--so now we're all "Romanists"---[mod delete]

----------


## Terry1

> He did give it to me with both barrels, but Bryan deleted it, and TER apologized.
> 
> I accepted his apology.
> 
> But I will not put up with any more of the same from any of you [mod delete].


[mod deleted]

----------


## eduardo89

> Then why have him?  And venerate him?


1)   It is clear in Scripture that Jesus chose Peter to lead the Apostles and that his leadership would have a unique role in the foundation of His Church and in preserving the Gospel He handed on to them. The men who have succeeded Peter as the bishop of the Church in Rome continue to exercise the same leadership over the universal (i.e., Catholic) Church, even from the earliest times.  For example, St. Clement (pope around the year 80 AD) exercised authority over the Church at Corinth, even though St. John the Apostle was still alive (cf. his Letter to the Corinthians).

The ministry of the pope guarantees the fidelity of the Church to Gospel that Jesus entrusted to the care of Peter and the Apostles.  It is how Jesus fulfills the promise to preserve the Church in His truth.

2) We do not venerate him.

----------


## Nang

> Couldn't tell ya.  Maybe that's why I've drifted away.


Good thing to drift away from . . .

----------


## Nang

> 1) Because Jesus established the Church with Peter as the earthly head. The Pope is Peter's successor as Bishop of Rome and earthly head of the Church.
> 
> 2) We do not venerate him.


I do not believe you.

----------


## eduardo89

> I do not believe you.


I don't care if you believe me or not. No matter what you believe about my faith, it does not change what the Church actually teaches and what I (and other Catholics) believe.

All I ask is that you quit using slurs against me and my fellow Catholic brothers and sister and quit lying about what we believe.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> So Deborah is not RCC.
> 
> Sorry Deborah for assuming that your criticism of my RCC criticisms must be your view, since you responded negatively against my objections to the RCC beliefs.
> 
> How is a person to know what another's faith is, when they act in defense of ANY criticism against the RCC view?
> 
> Rather than simply tell me you are not RCC, but wish to defend the RCC views, you go to these silly lengths to make me out to be false accusing you of holding to RCC views.
> 
> If you are so defensive of the RCC views, why would you attempt to crucify me for wrongly assuming that is your belief, also.
> ...


Don't change the subject. You lied when you claimed you never called her Catholic, MULTIPLE TIMES. Now you are trying to diffuse your trouble by blaming her.

----------


## fr33

> Seriously???  Do you actually believe that because one brethren may believe in attending their church regularly to worship the Lord and respect that which also upholds the word of God are "worshiping their church" for doing so??
> 
> That is the most laughable lie being told out there.  You have no idea why anyone does anything unless you're a mind reader. lol


No. That is not what I said. I said that I know people who have switched back and forth from 2 churches in their community explicitly because they held grudges against members of each church.

----------


## Nang

> Don't change the subject. You lied when you claimed you never called her Catholic, MULTIPLE TIMES. Now you are trying to diffuse your trouble by blaming her.



Don't blame me bro!  I did not intentionally lie.  Deborah has been defending those of the RCC faith and opposing my Protestant beliefs.

These people defend the Roman Catholics, and abuse Protestants, to the point one can only assume they are defending their *own* beliefs.

If they do not wish to own up to holding Romanist, Papist beliefs, they should just flatly say so.

How are others to know what they truly believe or not?

I am very happy to hear that Deborah is not Roman Catholic.  But I still do not know what faith she truly holds, or why she is so contrary to the Reformed faith.

And I will NEVER again accuse her of being Roman Catholic, since that brings her such great offense, which I can understand.

----------


## eduardo89

> And I will NEVER again accuse her of being Roman Catholic, since that brings her such great offense, which I can understand.


I didn't see her take offence...All she said was: 


> Why do you think I am Roman Catholic?  Let's start there.

----------


## VIDEODROME

1)  I agree with this from my experience. 

2)  It depends on what is meant by Venerate.  I did wind up seeing John Paul II during a tour in Colorado.  I was perplexed trying to understand his importance actually.  I was just a kid and thought a lot of supposedly other Christian kids at the convention were acting like $#@!s to.  I suppose in this case Karol Józef Wojtyła also carried respect as a survivor of WW2 as well.  

I dunno.  Maybe it's not so much that people want to worship the Pope, but he's like a Conduit to God for whatever reason.  That if you're near someone perceived as holy or closer to God, than you feel closer to God just by being near them?  Probably similar to why people want to go to places like Lourdes in France.  They don't worship Lourdes directly.  At least I don't think so.  

I'm kind of on the fence about #2 still, so it could be interesting to hear clarification from the Catholics.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> Don't blame me bro!  I did not intentionally lie.


That is really hard to believe, especially now that you are admitting that you called her catholic.



> Blah blah blah.


Stop changing the subject. I was not talking about her beliefs nor your representation of her beliefs, but your multi-time claim that you never called her Catholic. You can't pull a Romney and expect to get away with it.

----------


## Kevin007

> 1)*   It is clear in Scripture that Jesus chose Peter to lead the Apostles and that his leadership would have a unique role in the foundation of His Church and in preserving the Gospel He handed on to them.* The men who have succeeded Peter as the bishop of the Church in Rome continue to exercise the same leadership over the universal (i.e., Catholic) Church, even from the earliest times.  For example, St. Clement (pope around the year 80 AD) exercised authority over the Church at Corinth, even though St. John the Apostle was still alive (cf. his Letter to the Corinthians).
> 
> The ministry of the pope guarantees the fidelity of the Church to Gospel that Jesus entrusted to the care of Peter and the Apostles.  It is how Jesus fulfills the promise to preserve the Church in His truth.
> 
> 2) We do not venerate him.


no it is not clear. It is all a house of cards with you guys. If you assume wrong in the first place, everything else after is built on that false premise. Jesus was NOT calling Peter the rock or the church. Can you not understand this?

----------


## RJB

> Don't blame me bro!  I did not intentionally lie.  Deborah has been defending those of the RCC faith and opposing my Protestant beliefs.


Some things that she defended are believed by other Protestants and other things, she may disagree with the doctrine and wasn't defending the doctrine, but was rather calling you out for distorting the doctrine.

I was an atheist/agnostic for 15 years.  I was a Christian for about a year before becoming a Catholic.  The reason why I finally became a Catholic was my wonder at why people would lie about the Catholic doctrine so much.  I had to check it out deeper, and that is how God led me to his Church.  You, SF and FF may want to consider that your distortions of the Catholic faith is having the opposite of your intended effect in your "ministries," when you have other Protestants calling you out.

----------


## Kevin007

> Don't blame me bro!  I did not intentionally lie.  Deborah has been defending those of the RCC faith and opposing my Protestant beliefs.
> 
> These people defend the Roman Catholics, and abuse Protestants, to the point one can only assume they are defending their *own* beliefs.
> 
> If they do not wish to own up to holding Romanist, Papist beliefs, they should just flatly say so.
> 
> How are others to know what they truly believe or not?
> 
> I am very happy to hear that Deborah is not Roman Catholic.  But I still do not know what faith she truly holds, or why she is so contrary to the Reformed faith.
> ...



lol, so true.

----------


## eduardo89

> no it is not clear. It is all a house of cards with you guys. If you assume wrong in the first place, everything else after is built on that false premise. Jesus was NOT calling Peter the rock or the church. Can you not understand this?


Yes, your innovative interpretation 1500 years after the fact is the correct one. Christians for 1500 years were completely wrong on every fundamental point until Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and other 'Reformers" came around and corrected everyone.

----------


## Kevin007

> Some things that she defended are believed by other Protestants and other things, she may disagree with the doctrine and wasn't defending the doctrine, but was rather calling you out for distorting the doctrine.
> 
> I was an atheist/agnostic for 15 years.  I was a Christian for about a year before becoming a Catholic.  The reason why I finally became a Catholic was my wonder at *why people would lie about the Catholic doctrine so much*.  I had to check it out deeper, and that is how God led me to his Church.  You, SF and FF may want to consider that your distortions of the Catholic faith is having the opposite of your intended effect in your "ministries," when you have other Protestants calling you out.


it isn't a lie. You guys have hundreds of years of false and added teachings to start.

----------


## Kevin007

> Yes, your innovative interpretation 1500 years after the fact is the correct one. Christians for 1500 years were completely wrong on every fundamental point until Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and other 'Reformers" came around and corrected everyone.


you still haven't answered my question from the other day.

----------


## Kevin007

> *What did all the Catholics do for the first 1200 years* of their Church history that didn't have the Eucharist? How could their first Pope "Peter" have been so unclear about such an important thing as the Eucharist that it would take 1200+ years before the RCC would figure it out?


bump for eduardo....

----------


## eduardo89

> it isn't a lie. You guys have hundreds of years of false and added teachings to start.


You constantly lie about Catholicism. You claim we worship Mary. You claim we believe that we hold Holy Tradition over Holy Scripture. You claim we believe in works-salvation. You claim we reject salvation by grace alone. 

Why do you feel the need to distort and misrepresent what we believe? Why are you so threatened by the truth about Catholicism?



> you still haven't answered my question from the other day.


And you haven't answer at least a dozen questions I've posed you.

----------


## eduardo89

> *What did all the Catholics do for the first 1200 years* of their Church history that didn't have the Eucharist? How could their first Pope "Peter" have been so unclear about such an important thing as the Eucharist that it would take 1200+ years before the RCC would figure it out?


What are you talking about?

----------


## Kevin007

> *Yes, your innovative interpretation 1500 years* after the fact is the correct one. Christians for 1500 years were completely wrong on every fundamental point until Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and other 'Reformers" came around and corrected everyone.


no. The wrong interpretation is by the RCC. Plain as day. I would give you ample proof but you would just deny it because if Peter wasn't the "rock", there is no RCC., no sacraments (7 anyway), no purgatory, no eucharist, no Mary veneration, no rosary, no indulgences, no priests etc etc...

----------


## VIDEODROME

> You constantly lie about Catholicism. You claim we worship Mary. You claim we believe that we hold Holy Tradition over Holy Scripture. You claim we believe in works-salvation. You claim we reject salvation by grace alone. 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to distort and misrepresent what we believe? Why are you so threatened by the truth about Catholicism?


Doesn't that basically define Protestantism?  The very core of their beliefs emerged from attacking the beliefs of others.  That's basically what they're about.

----------


## eduardo89

> no. The wrong interpretation is by the RCC. Plain as day. I would give you ample proof but you would just deny it because if Peter wasn't the "rock", there is no RCC., no sacraments (7 anyway), no purgatory, no eucharist, no Mary veneration, no rosary, no indulgences, no priests etc etc...


Yes, Christians were wrong about everything for 1500 years

----------


## Nang

> Some things that she defended are believed by other Protestants and other things, she may disagree with the doctrine and wasn't defending the doctrine, but was rather calling you out for distorting the doctrine.
> 
> I was an atheist/agnostic for 15 years.  I was a Christian for about a year before becoming a Catholic.  The reason why I finally became a Catholic was my wonder at why people would lie about the Catholic doctrine so much.  I had to check it out deeper, and that is how God led me to his Church.  You, SF and FF may want to consider that your distortions of the Catholic faith is having the opposite of your intended effect in your "ministries," when you have other Protestants calling you out.


There is no need for Protestants to distort the Roman Catholic faith.  It is all a matter of history, and if the posters on this site are embarrassed to stand for the actual Romanist views, that is their problem, not ours.

We are not liars, nor distortioners of what that the Papists teach.

If they cannot own up to what the RCC actually stands for, then why do they find fault with us for pointing out things they want to deny?

It is nuts . .  they want to keep their idols while denying their idolatry.

Well, it might convince the innocent souls they try to lure into their false religion, but they cannot fool those who know the history of their false teachings and oppressions.

----------


## Nang

> Yes, Christians were wrong about everything for 1500 years



Your church is wrong . . . not the remnant of Christians who might be in her midst.

May God show such His mercy, and lead them out from under your double-speak and superstitions.

----------


## eduardo89

> There is no need for Protestants to distort the Roman Catholic faith.


It is you that constantly distorts and lies about what we believe. 




> We are not liars, nor distortioners of what that the Papists teach.


There you go again with the slurs. I honestly can't wait until you get banned.




> If they cannot own up to what the RCC actually stands for, then why do they find fault with us for pointing out things they want to deny?


What the hell are you talking about? We constantly correct you on what we believe and post exactly what our beliefs are. We 'own up' to everything we believe, *you*
are the one who denies accepting what we believe. You constantly claim we don't believe what we say we believe.

----------


## RJB

> it isn't a lie. You guys have hundreds of years of false and added teachings to start.


Then are you calling Eduardo, TER, myself and many others liars when I say I don't worship the pope, Mary, saints, statues, and the Church?  Are you calling us liars when we say Jesus Christ is the head of our Church.  *Either every single Catholic is lying or YOU are lying about what we believe.*

You "claim" you were raised Catholic, but it seems someone played a diabolical joke on you and replaced your Catechism with a bunch of Jack Chick comic books.

----------


## RJB

WHY PERSIST IN YOUR LIES!?!?!?  What good does it do for you to wallow in lies!?




> There is no need for Protestants to distort the Roman Catholic faith.  It is all a matter of history, and if the posters on this site are embarrassed to stand for the actual Romanist views, that is their problem, not ours.
> 
> We are not liars, nor distortioners of what that the Papists teach.
> 
> If they cannot own up to what the RCC actually stands for, then why do they find fault with us for pointing out things they want to deny?
> 
> It is nuts . .  they want to keep their idols while denying their idolatry.
> 
> Well, it might convince the innocent souls they try to lure into their false religion, but they cannot fool those who know the history of their false teachings and oppressions.

----------


## Nang

> It is you that constantly distorts and lies about what we believe. 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with the slurs. I honestly can't wait until you get banned.
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about? We constantly correct you on what we believe and post exactly what our beliefs are. We 'own up' to everything we believe, *you*
> are the one who denies accepting what we believe. You constantly claim we don't believe what we say we believe.


You are being dishonest about what you believe.

Why?

Because you know that you practice idolatry, but you will not turn away from it.  You love your idols, and attempt to pass yourselves off as being the catholic (universal) church of Christ . . . but you are Romanists and Papists and Mariologists to the core.

God is not mocked.

----------


## Kevin007

> What are you talking about?


The teaching of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as most Catholics suppose. It was a controversial topic for many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith (which means that it is essential to salvation according to Rome). The idea of a physical presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine Monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine. Even then, for almost another four centuries, theological war was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike, until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma.


Tertullian tells us that when this doctrine first began to be taught in the Middle Ages, that the priests took great care that no crumb should fall lest the body of Jesus be hurt, or even eaten by a mouse or a dog! There were quite serious discussions as to what should be done if a person were to vomit after receiving the sacrament. At the Council of Constance, it was argued that if a communicant spilled some of the blood on his beard, both beard and the man should be destroyed by burning!  (By the end of the eleventh century, lest someone should spill God's blood, some in the church began to hold back the cup from the people, and finally in 1415, the Council of Constance officially denied the cup to laymen. Although today, by decree of the Vatican, churches may now offer the cup optionally to communicants.)

----------


## Nang

> WHY PERSIST IN YOUR LIES!?!?!?  What good does it do for you to wallow in lies!?


I do not lie.

----------


## RJB

> I do not lie.


HAH!  I just caught you!

----------


## Nang

> HAH!  I just caught you!



I do not lie.

----------


## eduardo89

> You are being dishonest about what you believe.


Yes, you know what I believe much better than I do 




> Because you know that you practice idolatry, but you will not turn away from it.  You love your idols, and attempt to pass yourselves off as being the catholic (universal) church of Christ . . . but you are Romanists and Papists and Mariologists to the core.


There you go again with the 'Romanist' and 'Papist' slurs, even after I have asked you not to use those insulting and derogatory terms. I will keep reporting and -repping them until you stop (or are banned).




> God is not mocked.


No, but you sure make a mockery of yourself.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Their beliefs include what they believe about your belief. 

lol

----------


## eduardo89

> The teaching of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as most Catholics suppose. It was a controversial topic for many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith (which means that it is essential to salvation according to Rome). The idea of a physical presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine Monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine. Even then, for almost another four centuries, theological war was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike, until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma.


The word 'transubstantiation' did not appear until the Middle Ages, but that does not mean that the Eucharist has not been regarded as the Flesh and Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ since the beginning of Christianity. Go and read the Didache and the writings of the Church Fathers.





> Tertullian tells us that when this doctrine first began to be taught in the Middle Ages


Considering Tertullian lived in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, it would be a bit difficult for him to comment on what happened in the Middle Ages...which began about 400 years _after_ his death.

----------


## eduardo89

> At the Council of Constance, it was argued that if a communicant spilled some of the blood on his beard, both beard and the man should be destroyed by burning!


That is an outright lie.

----------


## RJB

> Considering Tertullian lived in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, it would be a bit difficult for him to comment on what happened in the Middle Ages...which began about 400 years _after_ his death.


  He credits the Church Fathers with time travel, and then he has the gall to accuse us of worshipping them

----------


## Bryan

Mod note- This forum is for "*Respectful* discussion of religious topics and their surrounding philosophies with the primary purpose of* peaceful social exchange and personal enrichment.*"

Too much of his thread falls way out of that, and is being closed.

----------

