S
someotherguy
Guest
Anti-Roman Catholicsm would be more accurate.However, I do think that some of your thoughts really are ultimately anti-Catholic in nature.
Can I still be on your ignore list?
Anti-Roman Catholicsm would be more accurate.However, I do think that some of your thoughts really are ultimately anti-Catholic in nature.
I cannot see how ‘we share a common history’ seeings you broke away from the Church and started a series of sects which you distorted Scripture to call Churches around 500 years ago!That’s right, but I’m not the one who claimed to be 2,000 years old.
Actually, I can. That is, unless you’re going to deny that we share a common history.
No, I’m not going to walk away from Christ to become a Roman Catholic.
First of all, they are churches.I cannot see how ‘we share a common history’ seeings you broke away from the Church and started a series of sects which you distorted Scripture to call Churches around 500 years ago!
Too many.How many Catholics are there?
Three seperate names for the one God. All joined together into one name. Sounds kinda trinitarian, eh?GodAllahYHWH
Ok so ‘some other guy’ says 'there is a seperate Catholic Church in every country, each detached from the others. So how many countries are there in the world?First of all, they are churches.
Second, how can you admit that we were a part of the same church and then turn around and deny it?
Too many.
Lilyflower said:How many Catholics are there?someotherguy:![]()
Too many.
That’s what I noticed too. I had to go to other threads to find some of the Biblical passages, which I didn’t actually find. I did find something about Youtube videos which were never actually posted as far as I can tell.Unfortunately, THIS is the thread on which you accuse “us” of ignoring your scriptural citations – which are absent.
I think it is because Protestant thought is plagued with an "us’ vs 'them. view. Although I believe that view at extaordinary times is usefull it has to be tempered with reason that rules over the emotions that accompany those times.I want to know why it is that Protestants can come onto this forum and post sectarian material such as that posted by ‘some other guy’ when if I did the same towards Protestants, I would be banned?
Actually I admire some other guys attempts to re-define the rules of written English. I used to teach Literacy. I can attest to the error in his belief that English permits the use of an adjective to qualify an adjective. An adjective precedes a noun not another adjective. Therefore ‘Roman Catholic’ is not grammatically correct. It could only be, if ‘Catholic’ was a noun which it is not, it is another adjective. ‘Church’ is the noun .Anti-Roman Catholicsm would be more accurate.
Can I still be on your ignore list?
Interesting that the “infallible church” would allow so many of their churches to have a grammatical mistake on their signs.So sorry some other guy but the Church simply cannot be ‘Roman Catholic’, the rules of English grammar do not permit it.![]()
Yeah, that was wierd. A lot of people were insisting that I post videos on YouTube.That’s what I noticed too. I had to go to other threads to find some of the Biblical passages, which I didn’t actually find. I did find something about Youtube videos which were never actually posted as far as I can tell.
I think they were, and I think I’ve seen them, unless there was more than one group of Protestants shouting into megaphones and disrupting the proceedings at the Pope’s Mass.Yeah, that was wierd. A lot of people were insisting that I post videos on YouTube.
I saw those, too. The style of ‘debate’ seems familiar. I wouldn’t be surprised if someotherguy was involved with them.I think they were, and I think I’ve seen them, unless there was more than one group of Protestants shouting into megaphones and disrupting the proceedings at the Pope’s Mass.
You got yourself pretty beat up there, if that was you; hope you’re okay!
How old were you when you left the Catholic Church?Interesting that the “infallible church” would allow so many of their churches to have a grammatical mistake on their signs.
That wasn’t me. We wouldn’t use megaphones and we would not interrupt. We weren’t there to protest. We were there to share the Gospel.I think they were, and I think I’ve seen them, unless there was more than one group of Protestants shouting into megaphones and disrupting the proceedings at the Pope’s Mass.
You got yourself pretty beat up there, if that was you; hope you’re okay!
Nope. Not if they involved megaphones and disruption.I saw those, too. The style of ‘debate’ seems familiar. I wouldn’t be surprised if someotherguy was involved with them.
Coals to Newcastle, anyone?That wasn’t me. We wouldn’t use megaphones and we would not interrupt. We weren’t there to protest. We were there to share the Gospel.
What a contridiction!I’m not going to walk away from Christ to become a Roman Catholic
Not you, then?Nope. Not if they involved megaphones and disruption.