Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcwitness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alex337 said:
I’m sorry you’re logic was bad, but that’s just how it was.

I use exaggeration to show the silliness of your standpoint. Such as you not thinking an opinion formed by human understanding can have value, an idea you came to via human understanding.
Click to expand...
It depends on the matter of the opinion. If it’s a matter of faith, it is the Spirit from above which gives supernatural understanding.
 
rcwitness said:
40.png
Alex337:
I’m sorry you’re logic was bad, but that’s just how it was.

I use exaggeration to show the silliness of your standpoint. Such as you not thinking an opinion formed by human understanding can have value, an idea you came to via human understanding.
Click to expand...
It depends on the matter of the opinion. If it’s a matter of faith, it is the Spirit from above which gives supernatural understanding.
Click to expand...
Ah, still more exceptions. You really need to flipflop less, or become a politician.

So as mine is a matter of faith and is informed by God my opinion is valid. Or is it only your opinion and people you agree with?
 
Sorry if you interpreted me that way, but you have a tendency to see what is not there. I have given several examples of an unlawful marriage. The NAB footnote offers an explanation where incestual marriages were being accepted by Rabbis in cases of converts.
 
Heh, dude, I’ve been showing this thread to the English staffroom. Your logic is atrocious. Perhaps it would help if you kept a note with all the ideas you state so you can stop contradicting yourself?
 
Alex337 said:
40.png
rcwitness:
40.png
Alex337:
I’m sorry you’re logic was bad, but that’s just how it was.

I use exaggeration to show the silliness of your standpoint. Such as you not thinking an opinion formed by human understanding can have value, an idea you came to via human understanding.
Click to expand...
It depends on the matter of the opinion. If it’s a matter of faith, it is the Spirit from above which gives supernatural understanding.
Click to expand...
Ah, still more exceptions. You really need to flipflop less, or become a politician.

So as mine is a matter of faith and is informed by God my opinion is valid. Or is it only your opinion and people you agree with?
Click to expand...
Your’s directly contradicts the faith. I asked why does St Paul say a Christian couple are bound for life, even if they separate. You claimed St Paul to be writing 1 Corinthians and Romans with error (fallibly).

All of Christianity professes the Scriptures to be divinely inspired and free from moral errors. The Koine Greek manuscripts are declared to be inerrant in faith and morals.
 
rcwitness said:
40.png
Alex337:
40.png
rcwitness:
40.png
Alex337:
I’m sorry you’re logic was bad, but that’s just how it was.

I use exaggeration to show the silliness of your standpoint. Such as you not thinking an opinion formed by human understanding can have value, an idea you came to via human understanding.
Click to expand...
It depends on the matter of the opinion. If it’s a matter of faith, it is the Spirit from above which gives supernatural understanding.
Click to expand...
Ah, still more exceptions. You really need to flipflop less, or become a politician.

So as mine is a matter of faith and is informed by God my opinion is valid. Or is it only your opinion and people you agree with?
Click to expand...
Your’s directly contradicts the faith. I asked why does St Paul say a Christian couple are bound for life, even if they separate. You claimed St Paul to be writing 1 Corinthians and Romans with error (fallibly).

All of Christianity professes the Scriptures to be divinely inspired and free from moral errors. The Koine Greek manuscripts are declared to be inerrant in faith and morals.
Click to expand...
Correction, it contradicts your faith.

Again, do you believe all translations to be concurrently true and unflawed? If not, you agree with me.
 
You are a broken record with this. I’ve been clear and precise answering. No more.
 
rcwitness said:
You are a broken record with this. I’ve been clear and precise answering. No more.
Click to expand...
Correction; you have failed to acknowledge that if you agree that translations can be erroneous then you agree with me. Because that has been the crux of the problem you seem to have with me; that I don’t think all Bibles are free of error.
 
I didn’t say “all Bibles are free from erors”. I actually said the opposite.

You make your conclusions on misunderstandings.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
I didn’t say “all Bibles are free from erors”. I actually said the opposite.

You make your conclusions on misunderstandings.
Click to expand...
Again; you have failed to acknowledge that if you agree that translations can be erroneous then you agree with me. Because that has been the crux of the problem you seem to have with me; that I don’t think all Bibles are free of error.
 
This is the last time I’m gonna say this.

You have professed something much worse than recognizing that “some translations contain errors”

When I asked about St Paul’s Teaching in Scripture (not in any particular translation), namely Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7, you dismissed the question by saying “Paul was fallible”

By that logic, Scripture has extremely little value. There would be no use in quoting or using Scripture at all!
 
Last edited:
:roll_eyes: far out. This is a long and circular point. This is simple;
  • translations are fallible
  • not everyone agrees with your interpretation (just look at the myriad of protestant beliefs who disagree with you on divorce; are they all not Christian? )
  • many sects even disagree with which books belong in the Bible (Are all sects who have fewer books than the Catholics not Christian because they didn’t believe those books belonged?)
  • you have said that I am Christian because I was baptised, then I wasn’t, then I was, then I wasn’t again because you didn’t want to apologise for being rude :roll_eyes:
In the end your (ill formed and worse worded) opinion doesn’t matter. Quakers are a recognised Christian sect and even the Catholic priest who I spoke with this afternoon (I wanted to let him know I was leaving) agrees I’m still Christian. I think he knows more about this than you.
 
Shame on that priest.

Though I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and consider you manipulated the conversation.

If you return to the Christian faith, you would not be re-Baptized
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
Shame on that priest.

Though I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and consider you manipulated the conversation.

If you return to the Christian faith, you would not be re-Baptized
Click to expand...
Ah, you know better than the clergy and the priest who has known me and the local Quakers for over a decade. I doubt that. You should likely consider how prideful that sounds.
 
Then you should be able to provide a Church document that substantiated this claim.

I have heard priests say things directly against the Catholic faith before. I’ve been told by practicing homosexuals that they have found liberal parishes who accept their lifestyle and receive Communion!
 
rcwitness said:
Then you should be able to provide a Church document that substantiated this claim.

I have heard priests say things directly against the Catholic faith before. I’ve been told by practicing homosexuals that they have found liberal parishes who accept their lifestyle and receive Communion!
Click to expand...
The Catholic church has never, to my knowledge, claimed that Quakers aren’t Christian. The priests aren’t moneys to dance for you.
 
What makes a denomination a valid Christian community must include valid Baptism.

Does the Quaker sect Baptize?
 
I’d go with following Jesus being the important bit. But then you know more than priests, so who knows. :roll_eyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top