Z
- Status
A
Allweather
Guest
This is the Zerinus/Mormon/cult tactic: to be constantly reinventing the wheel. All of these various issues have been perfectly dealt with by the True Church, the one that Jesus established upon the Apostles. The cultists are bent on attacking that Church, the authority of it, the teachings of it, in order to bolster their own ridiculous claims.
This isn’t really about interpretations of Scripture. Those have already been done by proper authorities, and have 2k+ years of Tradition backing them up. No, this is about a failure to submit to the Authority of Jesus. Cultists would spend their breathing time on Earth a heckuva lot more productively if they’d submit, accept, and obey; be humble, admit they don’t know how to invent the wheel after all, and try to learn what generations of Christians have already learned.
The TBMs are following an adulterous cult leader to their deaths, and in a very real sense are no better off than the dead of Jonestown, or Waco, or the next cult catastrophe to come. BTW it is interesting to me that the leaders of these other cults also practiced sexual deviancy among their flocks. Is this an accident? I don’t think so.
A
artist3189
Guest
This has never been the official doctrine of the Church, while it is true that SOME Fathers of the Church believed that children went to hell, but they weren’t sure. Also a understanding was possibly a limbo state, but again, they didn’t really know. The Scriptures aren’t clear on this, regardless of your quote above. The advantage of 2000 years of theology allows us to look at these issues and TRY to understand them. If they see things, not defined by Dogma, in a different light, this does not mean it has been watered down. Again, they really don’t know but have come to an understanding about an issue to the best of their ability with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Church ALLOWS itself to investigate these issues, unlike YOU zerinus, a blind, robotic, delusional person. Nan offers facts and you do your best to twist and turn. My feeling is you’re not genuine, you’re just a guy with too much time on his hands who likes messing with everyone here. I think something is up with you, you’re not really interested in understanding or explaining, you just like to watch everyone go round and round and round and get a good laugh from it. There is no purpose to your posts other than to be a fly in the ointment. That has to be it, no one can be that far gone. The Catholic Church has many warts, it’s a church of sinners for sure. We have centuries and centuries and centuries of history, some good, some ok, some bad, some really bad. It’s there for all to see. But what about you, do you have the COURAGE to challenge your faith, it’s roots, it’s beliefs from top to bottom, to questions it’s very foundations, do you have the COURAGE to speak out against it when you feel (if ever) it’s wrong?. What would happen to you if you did? Do you ever question anything? The mercies of Christ are extended unconditionally to children because of Christ’s atonement, as you state, but what about the Mother of God, the bearer of the Logos? Could not she have been preserved without sin for that very reason? Christ said Baptize ALL, zerinus, not some. He didn’t say, only adults because children don’t need it. You ASSUME too much, but much of what I’ve read from you is just that, assumption. Assumption that Joe Smith was anything other than a man who wanted to be a god, a charismatic cult leader with grandiose ambitions and a out of control libido. Assumption that anything Smith said was remotely true, regardless of the facts to the contrary. Assume away zerinus, but why anyone would spend anymore time sparring with you is beyond me. I don’t think you’re the real deal.
A
Allweather
Guest
Zerinus isn’t here to investigate Catholicism, he’s here to promote Mormonism. Unfortunately, he’s not really up to the task, and I am amazed that his elders haven’t pulled him off the project yet.Assume away zerinus, but why anyone would spend anymore time sparring with you is beyond me. I don’t think you’re the real deal.
Still, as St. Paul wrote, and I paraphrase, whether through good intent or ill, the Gospel is being preached. The mental disconnect that a person must have in order to believe in a cult magician like Joseph Smith is clearly apparent in the ramblings of our brother, Zerinus.
He’s full of big words (though many are misspelled and poorly strung together) that almost sound like good arguments, but can’t stand in the light of day. I wonder if he’s a student at BYU. That would explain some things.
A
artist3189
Guest
I don’t know, I think I smell a rat…something just doesn’t seem right about him.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Not a student at BYU but apparently a high-school LDS Seminary student. Z’s lack of real-world LDS experience (he doesn’t seem to be aware of anything before the mid-'90s, has not served a mission, never been to the temple, etc.) and the shallowness of what he believes to be LDS doctrine indicates his status as a child. His answers are textbook LDS seminary-lesson stuff. Active LDS high-schoolers usually attend early-morning seminary classes where they are indoctrinated with the kind of stuff Z likes to spout, especially the “you are all apostate” line. I wonder if his mother knows he spends so much time here.
A
Allweather
Guest
LOL, well, she can relax. At least he isn’t playing idiot war games, or wasting time at porn sites… well, except that thing about the polygamy… I myself wonder if his mom knows how passionately he feels about the harem.
Well, then, he’s pretty good for a high-schooler. He’s got his material down pat, and can stand in the wind pretty well. Hard headed. I like that in a religious nutcase, hardheadedness. I also like that he has spent so much time here and gotten so much good witness to the true faith. Someday, I believe and pray, those seeds are going to sprout strong trees with lush foliage and nourishing Catholic fruit.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Agreed!
BTW, have we been hacked again? I keep getting PHP access errors whn I try to post this evening! ARRRGGGGG!
God love you,
Paul
BTW, have we been hacked again? I keep getting PHP access errors whn I try to post this evening! ARRRGGGGG!
God love you,
Paul
N
Nan_S
Guest
Zerinus, where are you getting your Catholic theology anyway - Dante’s Inferno and the Nine Circles of Hell???
Whew!! Now that I’ve picked myself back up from the floor… sorry, it’s taken while for me to stop laughing…
Limbo is not, and never has been, a doctrine of the Catholic Church. Here’s what the Church really says about children who die without baptism:
Catechism of the Catholic Church 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
Really, Zerinus, you might, just might, consider investing in a copy of the Catechism. You can get it in any bookstore for about $10. That’s less than the price of a movie ticket and a popcorn.
Nan
Z
zerinus
Guest
That is a recent innovation. It has not always been the doctrine. Otherwise, why baptize infants anyway? Too bad they didn’t do away with the rite of infant baptism altogether. Baptism is a necessary rite of the gospel; and its purpose is for repentance unto the remission of sins, as the following verses testify:Zerinus, where are you getting your Catholic theology anyway - Dante’s Inferno and the Nine Circles of Hell???
Whew!! Now that I’ve picked myself back up from the floor… sorry, it’s taken while for me to stop laughing…
Limbo is not, and never has been, a doctrine of the Catholic Church. Here’s what the Church really says about children who die without baptism:
Catechism of the Catholic Church 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
Really, Zerinus, you might, just might, consider investing in a copy of the Catechism. You can get it in any bookstore for about $10. That’s less than the price of a movie ticket and a popcorn.
Nan
Matthew 3:
5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judæa, and all the region round about Jordan,
6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
Mark 1:
4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judæa, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
Luke 3:
3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins
7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, . . .
8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, . . .
Acts 19:
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, . . .
1 Corinthians 6:
11 And such {i.e. sinners} were some of you: but ye are washed {i.e. in baptism}, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified . . .
Infants can neither repent, nor have they done anything to be repented of. They can neither “confess,” nor do they know what it is they have to “confess,” nor how to “bring forth fruits meet for repnatance”. They are not accountable beings for their actions.
Baptism is a rite of salvation. You baptize people in order to save them. When you baptize an infant, you are making a statement. You are saying that this child requires this rite in order to be saved, and otherwise it can’t be. You don’t baptize someone if he does not require it for his/her salvation. It is like giving chemotherapy to somebody who is perfectly healthy. You don’t. It is a treatment you give to someone who is dying of cancer; and you give it to him in order to save his life. Baptism is like chemotherapy for somebody who is spiritually dying. You do it to save his spiritual life. But if he is spiritually healthy, you don’t give it to him. When you baptize an infant, you do it to save his life. You are saying that without it he cannot be saved.
You don’t baptize infants in order to “bring them to Christ”. That is not its purpose. Jesus never baptized infants in order to “bring them to him”. He only took them in his arms, laid hands on them, and blessed them. That is how you can “bring them to Christ,” if that is what you want to do, by following the example of Jesus. You don’t baptize them unto repentance for the remission of sins.
In the primitive church infants were not baptized. That false sacrament became popular after the apostasy had gotten its hold. In those days baptism was performed exclusively by immersion; and if you immerse an infant most likely you will kill him. An infant doesn’t know how to hold its breath while being immersed in water. He will try to breathe, and fill his lungs with water, and end up being dead!
zerinus
A
Allweather
Guest
Aha! So, in the primitive Church, they didn’t baptize infants, but they DID practice polygamy. Interesting. Then when the Church went apostate, according to the burning heart testimony of Zerinus and other True Blue Mormons, they started baptizing infants, and stopped practicing polygamy. Notice how Mormons are so lovey-seeming towards infants, but don’t appear to care very much for their women, except as they can be gathered into herds for the pleasure of men.
Zerinus, if you were in submission to proper authority, you wouldn’t have all these Protestant notions about baptism. When you talk about baptism, you sound like a typical, run-of-the-mill baptist. But oh, no, there’s no connection between Mormonism and Protestantism, is there?
C
christianley
Guest
Zerinius might want to read this:
issuesetc.org/resource/journals/kastens.htm
Infant baptism seems to have been the norm from early in Christian history. Polycarp was born in 69 A.D. and was baptized as an infant. That’s a pretty early testament to infant baptism if you ask me.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Thank you for providing excellent documentation for the heretical theology of Catholic infant baptism!
I don’t suppose you realize that by providing that link you have pulled the rug from under your own feet, and Nan’s feet, and the catechism of the Catholic Church’s feet. That would be too much to expect from you!
zerinus
Z
zerinus
Guest
Okay Nan. I have finished laughing now. I have just managed to pick myself up from the floor where I have been kicking & screaming with laughter for the past hour to type this post. I bet you didn’t laugh as much as I did!christianley;1844020:
Infant baptism seems to have been the norm from early in Christian history. Polycarp was born in 69 A.D. and was baptized as an infant. That’s a pretty early testament to infant baptism if you ask me.Thank you for providing excellent documentation for the heretical theology of Catholic infant baptism!
I don’t suppose you realize that by providing that link you have pulled the rug from under your own feet, and Nan’s feet, and the catechism of the Catholic Church’s feet. That would be too much to expect from you!
zerinus
zerinus
A
artist3189
Guest
See what I mean everyone, there is something very strange going on here. A link that shoots Zernius full of holes, without all the rhetoric that he tries to employ and he thinks it ‘pulls the rug’ from underneath Nan et al. St. Polycarp KNEW St. John the Apostle, personally. Heretical? Apostate? Look in the mirror Zerinus. Again, I point out, you use Eisegesis (look it up Z) to try to make a point. The very quotes you use, (from a source YOU HAVE STATED is tainted), was deemed Canonical by the Church you so despise and yet you use this as proof of, something, what I’m not sure. The same Church that gives those words TO YOU as the Word of God also testifies to Holy Tradition which of course you then deny and scream APOSTATE, yet you are so free to grab quotes from a Bible handed to you by that APOSTATE church. Very odd indeed. Somehow you think you ‘have us’ with these quotes, but what you can’t grasp or fathom is the totality of the Catholic Church thru the ages, it’s AUTHORITY, the same AUTHORITY that gave you those words you feel free to grasp at when it suits you. You have such a small view, limited by the tunnel vision imposed on you by your LDS handlers. If you deny the fact that the Catholic Church has authority through the Holy Spirit to define practices based on Apostolic tradition passed along from the Apostolic age until now, if you deny that authority, then what’s the point of these posts, just trying to PROVEThank you for providing excellent documentation for the heretical theology of Catholic infant baptism!
I don’t suppose you realize that by providing that link you have pulled the rug from under your own feet, and Nan’s feet, and the catechism of the Catholic Church’s feet. That would be too much to expect from you!
zerinus
something based solely on a few quotes from the Bible, that you say is CORRUPTED anyway, I just don’t get it. The Church is not SOLA SCRIPTURA and you know it, so how do you suppose we are to react to you when you think you’ve got us now and pulled the rug out from under us, that means nothing to us. You are so limited in your understanding of the Church, it’s history, it’s real authority, as taught since Apostolic times, (in case you can’t count, that’s 2 millennium and still going) and yet, you gladly believe whole heartedly in the ramblings of one crazy kook from 150 years ago. Right, OK, right, sure. Now who’s laughing!!
C
christianley
Guest
Polycarp knew the apostles. He was baptized as an infant when the apostles were still alive. I think the case is closed unless you are asserting that the apostle John and other early apostles were apostates.Thank you for providing excellent documentation for the heretical theology of Catholic infant baptism!
I don’t suppose you realize that by providing that link you have pulled the rug from under your own feet, and Nan’s feet, and the catechism of the Catholic Church’s feet. That would be too much to expect from you!
zerinus
T
truthsilence
Guest
Besides which, Z’s Favorite ECF…
was one of those cited in the article he’s cracking up over.
Zerinus sure pics and chooses…whether its mormonism or his favorite greatest theologian doing the teaching. He believes what he wants to believe.
A
artist3189
Guest
And also Zerinus, go put in your Bible CD rom again, get your handlers in the room and do your search again on ‘baptism’ and show EXACTLY where it states, unequivocally that children are born without sin and do not NEED baptism, show me were it states this, you like using statements to prove a point. Show me. We don’t know, do we, but here’s what we do know, only one person, other than Adam, was born without sin, and we know it was the Second Adam. As scripture states, only one, so can we ASSUME that, well maybe children are also born without sin, are you sure, or do we positively understand that ONLY ONE was born without sin. We also know that the early church consisted of converts, so infant baptism would be rare, but soon after, as converts began to raise Christian families, it became more common. This is fact, read, study, find out, this is true history, not someone saying, ‘well Moroni told me this, or Moroni said that’. It’s the historically unbroken true devolvement of Christianity, but since you are not a ‘Christian’, why would any of that matter to you, so again I go back to, why do bother? You can’t use Christian theological arguments when your not even Christian. By what ‘authority’ or by what methods do YOU come up with your VIEW of what baptism is or isn’t. Your opinion, your ‘thoughts on the subject’, your handlers views? This is what YOU THINK, you sat around and thought about it a while and this is what you came up with so it must be true? To all my Catholic friends, I have a impression that this is Zernius’s method of operation, how it all goes down… one of us posts something, Zerinus prints it out, gets the brain trusts together, they pop in their CD Rom Bible, search the topic, cut and paste whatever lines they can find, type a few comments and that’s their great answer to the Catholic Church? Powerful witnesses of the absurd.
A
Allweather
Guest
Why am I not surprised at myself for picturing poor Zerinus thrashing about on his floor in hysterical laughter? Especially after drawing the conclusions he has apparently drawn about baptism, and the rug being pulled out from under the Catholic Church. Insanity might be a better description than mere hysterics. Or youth. If he’s actually a high-schooler as has been suggested recently, then maybe it’s just youthful insanity. Maybe he’ll grow out of it.Okay Nan. I have finished laughing now. I have just managed to pick myself up from the floor where I have been kicking & screaming with laughter for the past hour to type this post. I bet you didn’t laugh as much as I did!
zerinus
A
artist3189
Guest
- Status