Alright, I should of worded it better but whats done is done whatever. Poor wording and a little lack of thought on my part. I am not here to quibble about the substance. You wish to accuse me of not spending time learning but going off of my own limitations. You my good sir have know idea what I have and have not done or what my limitations are. Your intent may be good but completely wrong aproach IMO.
I forgave you already. The fact is that words mean something, and beyond the fact that you were indeed attacking substance, your compliance with the idea of finding heretics and burning them was completely off course and indicates further a lack of understanding of what is being said. I do indeed know that when you consistently fail to understand something that I have done, it is due to your current limitation.
And this is exactly how this post has been taken by many.
I would be no compliment for one to be considered in that group of âmanyâ which seem more to be basing their comments on familiar conditioning rather than an opening of their eyes yet.
I am telling you by reading the thread that is how it is being taken. I do not miss the importance of truth in my life or how importiant it should be in anyones life. No heresy is acceptable but their is a difference between heresy and heterodox teachings. No we should not refrain from telling the truth. It would be much easier in life if all did that, but that does not mean that they need to be hit over the head with a iron mace with it.
Thanks, but really donât need you to tell me how itâs being taken. I see ignorance enough to know when itâs there. You do lack a deep appreciation for the truth being conveyed. Itâs evident in your words. Itâs a bit arrogant also to try to explain the difference between heresy and heterodox teachings. If you would listen and learn, you would benefit yourself and could benefit those who come in contact with you as well. Depending on the area under discussion, some departures from standard beliefs are not wrong. That was obviously not what I was talking about. The issues I am talking about with concern are beliefs and faith systems that are not reconcilable with Catholic Doctrines, not simple rites or practices that are acceptable and not at odds with Christâs doctrines. When Godâs doctrines are being discussed, to depart from them (especially to conflict with them as found in all Protestantism) is not a matter of acceptable deviation from the standard. To say that doctrine which conflicts with Catholicism is just heterodox, is to be extremely ignorant of Christ and to be indiscriminate. Protestantism is not simply heterodox, but Protestantism is only able to be founded because of heresy, and often multiple heresies. The ignorant will say for instance that Protestantism is simply a valid departure from standard belief system, when this is far from true.
Another false accusation is to equate what Iâve done with hitting someone âover the head with and iron mace.â You still just donât get it.
Did what they do have a partial truth. Their teachings not all heretical but heterodox. This is a truth.
Did anyone say all their teachings are heretical, or was that just something you assumed and then defended but was not in dispute? First, I have to ask again if you understand what this thread is about? Did you read the very first post, and attempt to understand it? It is expressly about the errors in doctrine, which can be measured by comparing oneâs ecclesial communityâs doctrines/beliefs with those of the standard which are Christâs doctrines/teachings in His Catholic Church. If you study Protestantism, youâll see the Protestant revolt took some truths taken from Catholicism (which had taught the truth of Christ for 1,500 years at that point in time, and has continued to this day, and will teach the fullness of revealed truth of Christ until the end of time), but the heretical men protested Godâs one Church and started their faith systems based on some heresy along with some of this Catholic faith retained. Protestantism was never created by Christ, and was never intended by Christ. First and foremost, a split of doctrines/beliefs among those who love Christ it is in direct opposition to Christ made for us to be one. Protestantism starts by offending Christ.
Do you understand the difference between heretical teachings and heterodox. To help clairify
heterodox
Adjective
different from established or accepted doctrines or beliefs [hetero- + Greek doxa opinion]
her¡e¡sy (hr-s)
n. pl. her¡e¡sies
1.
a. An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.
b. Adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine.
Just a very slight difference.
Please try some measure of humility, to see what is being done and learn, rather than assuming incorrectly and error where one does not existâŚ
Ok now that I have blown a little steam we seem to agree they have a partial truth. Agreement. yaaaay. Yada yada yada more on my persieved personal limitations. I have just stated how it sounds my good Christian Brother. Sorry if I have derailed the thread a little. My biggest issue honestly was with how brash the openening op came out. I donât think such a big hammer was needed.
Congratulations on finally getting there to agree with partial truth issue, which if you read the first post, will see I have it clearly written, because itâs what I have long believed. However, the partial truth is not acceptable, even more so when weâre talking about God as we are here. Itâs sad that following Christ and advocating for Him is considered brash. Society has arrogantly rejected Him, and accepted all kinds of false faith systems as valid heterodoxy. A hammer wasnât used here, but the plain truth. To those on the wrong side, it may seem like a hammer. If someoneâs house was on fire, would you do what you had to in order to wake them up and save their life, or gently pat their shoulder and when they didnât respond, just let them sleep and let them die in the fire?