Cough me up ONE scripture passage . .

[Corpus_Cristi]

Shibboleth:

Through Batism infants are blessed with Grace - through that Grace comes the gifts of faith and works.

What about old people? Are “little ones” referring to those who are grown and don’t have the mental capacity for faith? And how do you interpret those last two verses to be such to support salvation without faith, standing in the face of salvation by faith alone? Do you know why it’s called “the baptism of blood”? Because it’s by their DEATH that they are BAPTIZED, not that they accept Jesus as their personal savior. It’s a teaching of the Catholic church that was taken into protestant circles and used to explain the salvation of those without faith to believe. Even though you are right in believing in it, it isn’t in the Bible. You can take the references to God’s mercy into thought when discussing this matter, but where is it a teaching? It’s not mentioned in the new testament at all, that gospel passage doesn’t count. That’s after the little children come to Jesus! Infants can’t come to him, neither can those who don’t have the mental capacity to comprehend, so how can they be BAPTIZED without BLOOD, as in BEFORE DEATH? Simple, by baptism in water. That’s the ordinary way of justification for anyone and everyone. Those who are making that choice on their own, that is, those above the age of reason, who CAN reason, make their own baptismal promises. Parents who baptize their infants make those for them, and they raise them in the faith and THEN, after years of CCD, they are received into full communion with the church by the sacrament of confirmation, meaning they confess to believe all that the church has proclaimed to be revealed by God, and then are sealed with the sign of the holy spirit to profess their faith and have the fullness of the holy spirit within them to pass the faith on to others. How can that be done for those who can’t do that? You still haven’t answered that scripturally.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Be careful to not make any mistakes about me, I do believe in the baptism of blood, but not for the reason that protestants do. A protestant couldn’t use the teachings of James to prove their point, because that would disprove salvation by faith alone, so then their whole theology comes tumbling down. I’m not trying to say I don’t believe in it, I want to see why protestants do when it’s not what they teach is in the Bible. It’s in the Bible, but the way they interpret the Bible, it can’t be, for them. What I’m saying is they contradict themselves if they try to use faulty scripture passages, and try to use James’ teachings about faith without works being dead, because they don’t believe James’ teaching the way we believe James’ teachings. So how do they get off preaching “salvation by faith alone”, and saying James didn’t really mean what he said, but then turning around saying James did mean what he said in the case of those who are mentally incapacitated, while butchering “salvation by faith alone”? It’s a destructive chain reaction.

 

[Shibboleth]

Remember for a Lutheran “Sola Scriptura” does not mean that everything needs to be in the Bible but simply that something cannot contradict or supersede the scriptures. No… the Bible does not talk about awareness of infants and the mentally retarded. The Bible does talk enough about the power and gifts of Baptism to give us a picture.

The Lutheran church has not attempted to answer it in any definitive way. In any event, we base our assurance of baptism’s **power on the promises attached to baptism ** in God’s Word and on the power of the Word itself, not on a person’s “awareness” of this power (otherwise we would have to deny saving faith to everyone who at any time was not “aware” of it, such as those who are sleeping, unconscious, severely retarded or mentally disabled, etc.).

1.) God’s command to baptize (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). There is not a single passage in Scripture which instructs us not to baptize for reasons of age, race, or gender. On the contrary, the divine commands to baptize in Scripture are all universal in nature. On the basis of these commands, the Christian church has baptized infants from the earliest days of its history. Since those baptized are also to be instructed in the Christian faith, (Matt. 28:20), the church baptizes infants only where there is the assurance that parents or spiritual guardians will nurture the faith of the one baptized through continued teaching of God’s Word.

2.) Our need for baptism (Psalm 51; 5; John 3:5-7; Acts 2:38; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:3-4). According to the Bible, all people–including infants–are sinful and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). King David confesses, “I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5). Like adults, infants die–sure proof that they too are under the curse of sin and death. According to the Bible, baptism (somewhat like Old Testament circumcision, administered to 8-day-old-babies–see Col. 2:11-12) is God’s gracious way of washing away our sins–even the sins of infants–without any help or cooperation on our part. It is a wonderful gift of a loving and gracious God.

3.) God’s promises and power (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; John 3:5-7; Titus 3:5-6; Galatians 3:26-27; Romans 6:1-4; Colossians 2;11-12; Ephesians 5:25-26; 1 Corinthians 12:13). **Those churches which deny baptism to infants usually do so because they have a wrong understanding of baptism. They see baptism as something we do (e.g., a public profession of faith, etc.) rather than seeing it as something that God does for us and in us. None of the passages listed above, nor any passage in Scripture, describes baptism as “our work” or as “our public confession of faith.” Instead, these passages describe baptism as a gracious and powerful work of God through which He miraculously (though through very “ordinary” means) washes away our sins by applying to us the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection (Acts 2:38:39; Acts 22:16), ** gives us a new birth in which we “cooperate” just as little as we did in our first birth (John 3:5-7), clothes us in Christ’s righteousness (Gal. 3:26-27), gives us the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5-6), saves us (1 Peter 3:21), buries us and raises us up with Christ as new creatures (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12), makes us holy in God’s sight (Eph. 5: 25-26) and incorporates us into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). All of this, according to the Bible, happens in baptism, and all of it is God’s doing, not ours. The promises and power of baptism are extended to all in Scripture–including infants-and are available to all. Parents and sponsors then have the privilege and responsibility of nurturing the baptized child in God’s love and in His Word so that he or she may know and continue to enjoy the wonderful blessings of baptism throughout his or her life.

Hope this helps…

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Shibboleth:

Remember for a Lutheran “Sola Scriptura” does not mean that everything needs to be in the Bible but simply that something cannot contradict or supersede the scriptures. No… the Bible does not talk about awareness of infants and the mentally retarded. The Bible does talk enough about the power and gifts of Baptism to give us a picture.

The Lutheran church has not attempted to answer it in any definitive way. In any event, we base our assurance of baptism’s **power on the promises attached to baptism ** in God’s Word and on the power of the Word itself, not on a person’s “awareness” of this power (otherwise we would have to deny saving faith to everyone who at any time was not “aware” of it, such as those who are sleeping, unconscious, severely retarded or mentally disabled, etc.).

Hope this helps…

Yes, that does help, for Lutheranism. For say, a Baptist or a mainline Evangelical or Fundamentalist protestant, sola scriptura means that everything that is in the Bible is interpreted in a fundamental way and that nothing outside of the Bible can be believed. For them, they contradict themselves if they believe in the baptism of blood. How can they believe in the baptism of blood when they don’t believe in grace given through baptism. Let’s look at what they believe. They believe in salvation by faith alone, and most, believe that one SHOULDN’T be baptized because it’s a work, and those that do don’t believe it has any significance whatsoever to the salvation of the person being baptized. When somone comes to them with the teaching of James on faith and works, they try to “counter-act” it with Paul’s teaching, but they aren’t even talking about the same things. Paul’s talking about the works of the Jewish Law, but James is talking about acting out your faith through the sacraments and through the good deeds that the Lord asked us to do in the gospels. They say that James didn’t mean what he said and they interpret it to mean something completely outrageously untrue. But when they profess belief in the baptism of blood, or they may call it something else from church to church, or they may not call it anything at all, but anyway, when they say they believe this, it contradicts their interpretation of scripture. They say that God has no grandchildren and that everyone has to come for themselves. But how can they believe this when not only some infants die, but people with mental handicaps die without believing, without being able to believe. To believe such a thing, they have to go outside of the Bible to profess this as teaching. Lutherans have views that are a little bit closer to Catholicism, but evangelical/fundamentalist protestants don’t. That’s the difference. Lutherans have a better understanding of baptism. They have a destructive chain reaction.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Reformed Rob:

My pastor is all about showing how the Magesterium is all messed up and has even given a lecture on showing that infallible teachings have contradicted themselves.

I sincerely apologize for saying this. Not that what I said was not indeed a fact, but rather that I perhaps said it in a non-gracious way. Of course, is there a nice way to say it?

A better way of saying it would perhaps be:

My pastor does not have a solid understanding of the Church’s teaching on Infallibility and the inherent necessity of it (as Catholic’s claim) to have an authorative teaching Church. So he reads the common arguments against the Papacy, such as:

Honorius I, and Gregory I, you know the claims there.

So he looks up something from Council of Ephesus: Cyril’s recommended anathemas

1. If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel os God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God, let him be anathema.
2. If anyone does not confess that the word from God the Father has been united by hypostasis with the flesh and is one Christ with his own flesh, and therefore God and man together, let him be anathema.

And he reads in Vatican II: (Decl. of the Relations of the Church to non-Christian religions)

“Likewiise other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in it’s own manner, by proposing “ways”, comprising teachings, rules on life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life…”

And he says that since, on Rome’s own terms, these are both infallible, but they contradict eachother, therefore the Roman Catholic church has contradictory Infallible teachings, and it is unintelligible, and therefore a false church.

So there, I for apologize for any hurt, but those arguments against Catholicism are out there, and quite strong.

But that’s enough of that, this is a thread on Sola Scriptura.

 

[homer]

Reformed Rob:

So he looks up something from Council of Ephesus: Cyril’s recommended anathemas

1. If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel os God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God, let him be anathema.
2. If anyone does not confess that the word from God the Father has been united by hypostasis with the flesh and is one Christ with his own flesh, and therefore God and man together, let him be anathema.

And he reads in Vatican II: (Decl. of the Relations of the Church to non-Christian religions)

“Likewiise other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in it’s own manner, by proposing “ways”, comprising teachings, rules on life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life…”

And he says that since, on Rome’s own terms, these are both infallible, but they contradict eachother, therefore the Roman Catholic church has contradictory Infallible teachings, and it is unintelligible, and therefore a false church.

This is 100% correct. And this is only one example of the many contradictions in the Catechism itself. But after all, these are the consequences of giving infallible full authority to sinner human beings and their traditions rather than giving it to God and his Word, the Bible.

 

[TheTruth]

Catholic4aReasn:

Can you give a few examples that your pastor has given on how infallible teachings have contradicted themselves?

Ya know, it’s interesting. I’ve never belonged to a parish that even suggested offering a lecture on why any particular Protestant denomination is all “messed up”. The fact that Protestant churches do this about Catholicism is astounding!!

In Christ,
Nancy

Hmmmm…seems this thread for example shown how catholics try to show how protestantism is ‘messed up’.

I love how it’s OK coming from catholics, but when someone shines a light back at the catholics it’s somehow persecutorial…

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

TheTruth:

Hmmmm…seems this thread for example shown how catholics try to show how protestantism is ‘messed up’.

I love how it’s OK coming from catholics, but when someone shines a light back at the catholics it’s somehow persecutorial…

Um, Nancy asked for proof of infallible teachings contradicting themselves. I assume that you read my post and learned what an infallible teaching was, and then went and did your homework, and then learned that they didn’t, so you don’t have an argument. If not, what are you waiting for, she asked for an argument of infallible teachings of the church contradicting themselves. You didn’t give even one, you just tried to make yourself look like a victim. Well, here’s something for the next time you go to a place where Catholics are discussing their faith thinking “I’m going to convert someone!”: we know our faith well enough to not be steered off by sympathy, or by some false teaching that’s shoved down our throats. Though I’m not saying we don’t have sympathy for you, we desire that all, Catholic or not, who come into this forum know the truth, and if not, learn it.

 

[homer]

This is one of the many contradictions in the “infallible” catechism. I posted it in a previous thread some time ago but here you go!

This is an example of how the Catholic Church can contradicted itself and the Bible at the same time.

1- Catholic Catechism, par. 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? [Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21: PL 3, 1169; De unit.: PL 4, 509-536.] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. [LG 14; cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5.]

2- Catholic Catechism, par. 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. ‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.’ [LG 16; cf. NA 3.]

3- John 3:18 Whoever believes in him [Jesus] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Acts 4:11-12 [11] He is “the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone [cornerstone of a building].” [12] Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.

**John 5:22-23 [22] Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, [23] that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.
**

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Homer, they haven’t contradicted themselves, you haven’t interpreted what is written the right way. You twist meanings to make the Catechism and the Bible say things that they don’t mean. We have scripture that states that one must be born of “water and spirit”, that baptism now “saves us”, and that baptism isn’t the “washing of dirt from our bodies”, meaning that it isn’t just some symbol that cleans the dirt off of our bodies when we are washed in the waters of baptism, but it washes away our personal sins, and moreover, our original sin. Do the scriptures that state that you must “believe on his name” and such contradict the scriptures that talk about baptism? No, they don’t. Read the Catechism and the church teaches how they DON’T contradict themselves. This is why the stool that is the Church stands on not one, not two, but three legs that make a firm foundation: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magesterial Teaching. Sacred Tradition is what Christ handed to the apostles to be handed down to others as the faith, and to be carried on through ordination and apostolic succession. Sacred Scripture is the church’s written tradition. Even though there were many more things that were written down than what we have in the Bible, the Church went through those and they decided which were DIVINELY INSPIRED. Now, DON’T confuse DIVINELY INSPIRED with TRUE or, HISTORICAL FACT. Something can be written down about Christianity by a Christian that IS true, that doesn’t make it DIVINELY INSPIRED though. Someone could write something down and it COULD be divinely inspired, yet not be true in the literal sense. Someone could have written a fictional story that is used to explain a certain moral and it could be divinely inspired, but it might not be literally true, meaning, what happens in the story doesn’t have to be history or an actual event. We actually have those things, they’re called FABLES, I’m sure you’ve heard some. There is a book in the old testament that I do know of, Judith, that isn’t historically true, but was chosen as DIVINELY INSPIRED by the church. The third leg is Magesterial Teaching. The Magesterium is given the authority, responsibility, and guidance by the holy spirit to lead and shepherd the church WITH Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. If we didn’t have the magesterium, even with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, we could go our own way with it. If we didn’t have the magesterium, something could come up in the future, or even in the next month that might have to do with some new type of birth control or fertilization and we wouldn’t have the guidance to know if it was morally sound, and not all of us would agree. We’d all argue about it and not get anywhere. The church wouldn’t be together without the magesterium. If we didn’t have Sacred Scripture, we could take Sacred Tradition and change it as easily as one could change the color of their hair. We wouldn’t have any mortar in our cement. Without Sacred Tradition, we wouldn’t have grounds on the way to interpret scripture, and we would be missing many truths about the faith. Now, you’d probably respond to this saying “well you say that the early church didn’t have a Bible, where was Sacred Scripture?” Now, we didn’t say they didn’t have a Sacred Scripture. They didn’t have a Bible in the sense of the Bible we have today, and they didn’t have a new testament. The however, did have the old testament and they had the writings that the early church fathers that were at that time, newly written and read in the liturgy on Saturday, when the were allowed to worship with the Jews, and later, Sunday, when the Jews kicked them out and they had to celebrate the liturgy of the word and of the Eucharist together in one day, which is our modern mass. Had the Jews not kicked them out of the synogougues, we would probably still have the liturgy of the word on Saturday evening with the Jews.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

homer:

This is an example of how the Catholic Church can contradicted itself and the Bible at the same time.

1- Catholic Catechism, par. 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? [Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21: PL 3, 1169; De unit.: PL 4, 509-536.] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. [LG 14; cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5.]

2- Catholic Catechism, par. 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. ‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.’ [LG 16; cf. NA 3.]

Regarding the previous post, I don’t claim to be an expert on the Catholic Catechism (modern one), but I’m able to read the context of the passages in it that were quoted. Note also, I’m not trying to downplay the Scripture that was quoted by erasing it in this reply, but I did that to make my post shorter in length and highlight the essence of the discussion at this point.

For brevity’s sake, I will simply say, read paragraphs 830-848, and you will have a more complete understanding of what the CCC is saying in those 2 paragraphs (841 & 846)

It doesn’t seem to me that the Church is implying that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or even Protestants are saved, just because they believe in God, or gods. Rather, the Church recognizes the fact that mankind is cognizant of the fact of a higher “power” that we are responsible to serve and worship, and though it is perverted in non-Catholic faiths, it is nevertheless present.
True Atheists are the extreme minority here. Thus we celebrate National Atheists day on April 1 (Psalm 14:1). That’s a pun w/o historical signifance, no offense intended, only applying Scripture to our Calendar!

So, we read in CCC 845 “The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover it’s unity and salvation. … According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood”

It seems to me that the Catechism is explaining simply an aspect of how “those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.” CCC 839.

Is this more gentle than the Scriptures speak of non-believers, and how the Church Fathers speak of the necessity of being in the “one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”? Yes, but that’s something that I suppose Catholics just have to accept and live with. There are sufficiently enough people/groups to like in the Church that don’t get all off on the “Spirit of Vatican II” and that are still Catholic, but if I were Catholic, I’d seek advice from my priest (if he wasn’t a modernist) about how to handle those issues.

 

[TheTruth]

Corpus Cristi:

Um, Nancy asked for proof of infallible teachings contradicting themselves. I assume that you read my post and learned what an infallible teaching was, and then went and did your homework, and then learned that they didn’t, so you don’t have an argument. If not, what are you waiting for, she asked for an argument of infallible teachings of the church contradicting themselves. You didn’t give even one, you just tried to make yourself look like a victim. Well, here’s something for the next time you go to a place where Catholics are discussing their faith thinking “I’m going to convert someone!”: we know our faith well enough to not be steered off by sympathy, or by some false teaching that’s shoved down our throats. Though I’m not saying we don’t have sympathy for you, we desire that all, Catholic or not, who come into this forum know the truth, and if not, learn it.

First off, I’m not here to convert anyone (I’m not another religion, so I can’t convert you to something that isn’t)…I’m here to try to learn more about catholicism…

I will tell you this though, after being here for a while I have less respect for catholic teachings than I did when I got here…the average catholic on this board sharing their take on catholic teachings isn’t a great representative for your faith…many act contradictory to what they and others are saying…and there is a real lack of a full understanding as evidenced by the back and forth absolutism on the board. Lastly, many feel there is a vast anti-catholic conspiracy in the world…and they take anything that isn’t pro-catholic and make it anti-catholic…it’s paranoia at it’s finest.

I don’t need or want sympathy from you or anyone else…I don’t need it…and I’ve seen enough of the “truth” that is spread here to realize how mislead many here are.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Well excuse me, but if I walked into your church, would every single one profess the same faith in one voice and wear halos? The Catholic Church teaches the truth. We however can’t control what one believes for themself. If someone who claims to be Catholic doesn’t follow Catholic teaching, the most we can do is correct them. If they listen to us, fine. The ultimate punishment for apostacy (denying one’s faith), schism (refusing to be in communion with the Pope or those in communion with the Pope), or having a “burger king” faith (have it your way), is excommunication, but that can only be done by the bishop. or a priest if necessary. Then again, it’s only punishment. If they repent, then they’re fine. We give people the truth. Whether or not people display the truth isn’t our fault, so no, no one’s being misled here. Besides, which Catholics are you talking about that go against Catholic teaching that are here? I haven’t seen ANY. The only people here that I know of that don’t follow Catholic teaching are those who are trying to knock it (I’m not saying it’s you). Can you point these out, posts and names?

 

[TheTruth]

Well excuse me, but if I walked into your church, would every single one profess the same faith in one voice and wear halos?

No, I don’t embrace organized religion.

The Catholic Church teaches the truth.

The catholic church teaches catholic doctrines that you believe to be true…

We give people the truth.

You give people catholicism…

Whether or not people display the truth isn’t our fault, so no, no one’s being misled here. Besides, which Catholics are you talking about that go against Catholic teaching that are here? I haven’t seen ANY. The only people here that I know of that don’t follow Catholic teaching are those who are trying to knock it (I’m not saying it’s you). Can you point these out, posts and names?

I’m not big on publicly judging others or pointing out people by name…but try reading this thread for example forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=12307 seems a bit of name calling, and demeaning conversation…I’d certainly not be proud to have some of those folks be a representative of me…even though I might actually be stupid.

 

[Exporter]

THE TRUTH,

If you don’t believe there are Professional Anti-Catholics fervently whipping up the uninformed, read the Book by Karl Keating called Catholocism and Fundamentalism / The Attack on “Romanist” by “Bible Christians”. They are alive and well. They are seeking to ruin the souls of men, they try to lure Catholics away from Holy Mother Church. Karl Keating is a great Apologist.

The names of some of these men can be “Googled” and you can read about them. The God-Father of these Anti-Catholics is L. Boettner who just died. He earned his living by evangelizing across the nation spreading lies about the Catholic Church. His Book , “Catholocism”, provides these so-called Catholic experts with ignorant and hatefull phrases. Jimmy Lee Swaggart was a great Anti-Catholic in churches, on TV and the radio.

Google Tony Alamo and look on left of home page , click on “about Tony Alamo”. Look around you’ll find some of the garbage they spew out. Look up these names: Bill Jackson’s Ministry, Tony Alamo, Bart Brewer, John Foxx, Hal Lindsey and Emmit McLoughlin + Donald F. Maconaghie. There are dozens of other Anti-Catholics on the radio, Pastor Pete Peters of LaPorte, Colorado is rabid, I have heard him on shortwave radio at frequency 5.07 MHz from 9 to 10 PM CST.
The Truth, most likely your pastor has tracts or books written by these Professional Anti-Catholics.

 

[Exporter]

THE TRUTH,

If you are accusing some one here on this thread of being duplicitous or being guilty of misrepresenting yours or his case, BE A MAN…TELL US WHO IT IS.

---

**You wrote:**I’m not big on publicly judging others or pointing out people by name…but try reading this thread for example http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=12307 seems a bit of name calling, and demeaning conversation…I’d certainly not be proud to have some of those folks be a representative of me…even though I might actually be stupid.

**You will not be judging others…you will simply point out the “name-callers”, the liars and the ones who speak from both sides of their mouth. Be a hero.:clapping: **

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

TheTruth:

No, I don’t embrace organized religion. The catholic church teaches catholic doctrines that you believe to be true… You give people catholicism… I’m not big on publicly judging others or pointing out people by name…but try reading this thread for example forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=12307 seems a bit of name calling, and demeaning conversation…I’d certainly not be proud to have some of those folks be a representative of
me…even though I might actually be stupid.

You didn’t post all of my post to make it look like that’s all that I said. I said more than that. Also, the things that you said were simply your opinion. If you say the same to me, remind yourself, you’re in a Catholic forum. You didn’t give me a single name or post, but you said trash about this one. I don’t think you were really looking if you’re coming to this conclustion. You can’t see that in every post, or you’re probably only looking in this forum. Did you ever go to either of the TWO forums for apologetics, getting questions answered. I think the only one’s I’ve seen of you were in this one.

 

[TheTruth]

THE TRUTH,

If you are accusing some one here on this thread of being duplicitous or being guilty of misrepresenting yours or his case, BE A MAN…TELL US WHO IT IS.

**You wrote:**I’m not big on publicly judging others or pointing out people by name…but try reading this thread for example http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=12307 seems a bit of name calling, and demeaning conversation…I’d certainly not be proud to have some of those folks be a representative of me…even though I might actually be stupid.

**You will not be judging others…you will simply point out the “name-callers”, the liars and the ones who speak from both sides of their mouth. Be a hero.:clapping: **

I didn’t realize that pointing finders at others was a manly thing to do…If you can’t read those posts and see the mean spiritedness in several of them, then it wouldn’t do me any good to point them out to you…They are that obvious to me.

 

[TheTruth]

Corpus Cristi:

You didn’t post all of my post to make it look like that’s all that I said. I said more than that. Also, the things that you said were simply your opinion. If you say the same to me, remind yourself, you’re in a Catholic forum. You didn’t give me a single name or post, but you said trash about this one. I don’t think you were really looking if you’re coming to this conclustion. You can’t see that in every post, or you’re probably only looking in this forum. Did you ever go to either of the TWO forums for apologetics, getting questions answered. I think the only one’s I’ve seen of you were in this one.

I didn’t reply to every word of your post because of the 4000 word cap…I had to cut some stuff out…

Look, you can believe whatever you want, the things that I stated are my informed opinions based on study and independent facts. I’m very comfortable with the representations I make.

 

[TheTruth]

If you don’t believe there are Professional Anti-Catholics fervently whipping up the uninformed

I never said there weren’t…just like no one could deny that catholics are fervently whipping up the protestants…

They are alive and well. They are seeking to ruin the souls of men, they try to lure Catholics away from Holy Mother Church.

They are spreading what they believe is true just like the catholic church does…

Karl Keating is a great Apologists?

The names of some of these men can be “Googled” and you can read about them. The God-Father of these Anti-Catholics is L. Boettner who just died. He earned his living by evangelizing across the nation spreading lies about the Catholic Church. His Book , “Catholocism”, provides these so-called Catholic experts with ignorant and hatefull phrases. Jimmy Lee Swaggart was a great Anti-Catholic in churches, on TV and the radio.

Google Tony Alamo and look on left of home page , click on “about Tony Alamo”. Look around you’ll find some of the garbage they spew out. Look up these names: Bill Jackson’s Ministry, Tony Alamo, Bart Brewer, John Foxx, Hal Lindsey and Emmit McLoughlin + Donald F. Maconaghie. There are dozens of other Anti-Catholics on the radio, Pastor Pete Peters of LaPorte, Colorado is rabid, I have heard him on shortwave radio at frequency 5.07 MHz from 9 to 10 PM CST.

I’m not interested in learning about them…

most likely your pastor has tracts or books written by these Professional Anti-Catholics.

If you’d have read my entire post you’d realize that I don’t suscribe to organized religion, so I don’t have a pastor to have books like that…