pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Now when one looks at the appropriate parallelism, we see that one part of the line is reflecting the other. In other words, each part has to have the same meaning with the opposite object.

So for example, in some passages, the statement is reflecting on god’s nature and range-- which exactly what I’ve said above. If one part of the line is reflecting the other, then we are seeing a contrast between two states of being – which is expressed within the gamut of what God controls.

Now when we look towards the passages which talk about God creating evil, essentiall what we are seeing is the Jewish concept that God is sovereign and in control despit whatever calamisties befall us.

In other words, bad things happen – and the Israelites often attributed “bad things” toward the quality of being evil. Actually, many people still think this way today. However, in the Hebrew mind anyway, all things were basically attributable to God – or at least his sovereign control of the universe.

But, even saying this, does this mean that they believed that God was forcing people to do evil?

I know that you’ve presented passages that some translate as God appearing to do evil. However, some passages of Scripture seem to indicate that God was incapable of doing so – and that other things were going on.

For example, Habakuk 1:13 seems to indicate that God cannot tolerate evil – that his eyes are too pure to look upon evil

**Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; **
**you cannot tolerate wrong. **
Why then do you tolerate the treacherous?
Why are you silent while the wicked
swallow up those more righteous than themselves?

Job 34:10-12 seems to indicate a similar theme as follows:

"So listen to me, you men of understanding.
**Far be it from God to do evil, **
**from the Almighty to do wrong. **
He repays a man for what he has done;
he brings upon him what his conduct deserves.
**It is unthinkable that God would do wrong, **
that the Almighty would pervert justice.

It is interesting to note that Elihu did not defend Job as being innocent. However, his arguments certainly shifted the focus of suffering from one of punishment to one of warning. He even suggested that God allows a man to suffer in order “to turn back his soul from the pit”. Evidently Elihu had sat in silence throughout the discussion – in deference to the other speakers’ age he explains. However, this fact alone seems to indicate that he had a calmer nature – he seems to have refused to jump into every heated argument. I have more thoughts on this, but I’ll leave at this for now.

Coming back to the main point, however, if these above passages of Scripture are accurate, then it forces me to consider that something else is being said – something that is not expressly explained outright or immediately apparent in the Hebrew Scriptures but that one needs spiritual discernment to see.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Now consider the following lengthy passage of Scripture from Jeremiah…
Jeremiah 4:17-26 NIV:

They surround her like men guarding a field,
because she has rebelled against me,’ "
declares the LORD.
"Your own conduct and actions
have brought this upon you.
This is your punishment.
How bitter it is!
How it pierces to the heart!"
Oh, my anguish, my anguish!
I writhe in pain.
Oh, the agony of my heart!
My heart pounds within me,
I cannot keep silent.
For I have heard the sound of the trumpet;
I have heard the battle cry.
Disaster follows disaster;
the whole land lies in ruins.
In an instant my tents are destroyed,
my shelter in a moment.
How long must I see the battle standard
and hear the sound of the trumpet?
“My people are fools;
they do not know me.
They are senseless children;
they have no understanding.
They are skilled in doing evil;
they know not how to do good.”
I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty;
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone.
I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.
I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away. I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the LORD, before his fierce anger.

There’s a few things to note here…1: We apparently see that people’s own actions bring punishment upon themselves – not God actually making it happen.2: Although the context is within the concept of battle within this particular period in Jeremiah’s time-frame, we still see a contingent cause and effect whereupon disaster follows disaster – without God directly causing it per se.3. The people that God nonetheless has chosen (but yet do not know him) are quite skilled in doing evil – and yet they severely lack understanding and ultimately do not know how to do good.4. Jeremiah actually draws a parallel between their failure to do God’s will (and their ultimate ruin) with an illustration of the earth returning to the formlessness and darkness of nothing that previously existed before creation itself.5: The end result of their failure to do God’s will appears to be their fruitful land being reduced to a desert wasteland – yet this is all described happening in conjunction with "before the LORD, before his fierce anger."Based on this passage, would it be fair to say that people’s sins results in God anger – and that God’s anger is symbolic of people falling out of God’s creative order into the formless, lightless emptiness which existed prior to creation?

Or stated more plainly, would it be safe to say that transgressing God’s will basically make one’s life go into deep chaos so to speak – effectively tapping a primal chaos of nothingness?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

One thing that people seem to forget is that God does most certainly use poetry and prose to convey ideas about himself in the Scriptures. In other words, some of it is not meant to be taken as literal. In some case , it most certainly is using figurative, allegorical, and/or symbolic expressions to convey an idea – albeit complex interelationships between God and man (or his creation) expressed in a simple poetic manner.

Furthermore, Hebrew poetry comprises almost 50% of the Hebrew Scriptures and it differs significantly from English poetry in that the emphasis is on parallel thoughts (where in English poetry the emphasis is on rhyme and meter).

As I mentioned before, this correspondence of thought in Hebrew poetry is called parallelism. Although it is not a singular feature of the Israelite culture, it is one of the fore-most distinguishing marks of the Hebrew poet. In this sense, each line – including historical passages – has a correspondence with the lines of poetry which surround it. It is up to the reader to make the connections between the lines of parallel thought.

In synonymous parallelism the very same thought is repeated, at times in the very same words.

In antithetical parallelism, however, the thought of the first line is expressed by an antithesis in the second – or is counterbalanced by a contrast in the second. Furthermore, frequently there are one or more synonymous elements in both members of the antithetical parallel, thus making the contrast more emphatic

Parallelism in general may be defined not only as a relationship between two or more sentences that correspond in similarity or are set with each other – but also with two or more clauses which exhibit similar word formulae. In other words, antithetical parallelism within Hebrew poetry also includes sentences wherein which two or more clauses of a verse contrast each other.

In fact, one of the examples listed as an example of antithetical parallelism is that of Isaiah 45:7 itself, “I form the light, and create darkness”.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

We could go one step further with this. For example, when using the spirit/breath analogy, we see an even more interesting pattern: the same breath from God results in great blessing or else great cursing.

In fact, according to the Hebrew Scriptures themselves, we see that God’s breath is responsible for a wide variety of things, both good and bad as follows.

For example, I can point the positive effects of God’s breath in Genesis 2:7 as follows…

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Here’s another example in Job 32:8…

But it is the spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding.

And here’s yet another example in Psalm 33:6…

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.

However, having said this, apparently according to this same breath, we see God doing the following in Job 4:9…

At the breath of God they are destroyed; at the blast of his anger they perish.

A similar concept is expressed back further in Exodus 15:10…

But you blew with your breath, and the sea covered them. They sank like lead in the mighty waters.

And later we see a similar concept in 2 Samuel 22:16 as follows…

The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils.

Clearly both good and bad happen according to the same breath of God.

How can this be?

I think the answer is rather simple…though it might take some time to explain…

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued

Let’s say you are on an island surrounded by waters everywhere. On this island is a sailboat. The Lord has apparently directed you to ride this sailboat eastward to your destination far east. In fact, **let’s say that God has “fore-ordained” that you are to ride the sailboat to this eastward destination. **

Now, here you are on this small island. To the far east you can see land – you can even see your home there. However, in the westward direction, you can see land as well. In fact, the land in far west direction actually looks more promising to you. As far as you can tell, the land in the far west is actually closer than the land in the far east too.

You are clearly given a choice at this point within your own mind: you can follow God’s advice or you can reject it. As you’re beginning to doubt God’s word, a gentle breeze (symbolic of God’s will) starts to blow in an eastwardly direction.

Let’s say you choose to follow God’s will. Upon starting your voyage, you note that the eastwardly wind is picking up rather dramatically. However, as you’re guiding the sailboat, you see an important scroll case – sealed with the Lord’s insignia, which is also sealed in a watertight ivory case. You now realize why God wanted you to ride this boat home – to deliver his message.

After only a short period of time a storm comes upon you without much warning. As you’re controlling the rudder and sail, you realize that you were wise to follow God’s will. In fact, thanks to the strong winds of the storm, you are actually getting to the eastward lands much faster than you thought you would.

You arrive home safe and sound, if not a bit waterlogged.

In hindsight, you now realize that the storm, which you originally feared would kill you, actually turned out to be a very great blessing in disguise. Although you thought it very bad at first, you now realize that God intended this bad thing for your good.
Genesis 50:20:

You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.

Furthermore, you now realize that simply trusting God’s word, even in disasterous situations, will enable you to ride out any storm that might come your way.

Later, after you’ve delivered the scroll, as you’re sitting home safe and sound and warm, you start to wonder what it would have been like if you had chosen to go in the westward direction. You start to replay the situation in your head, remembering how strongly and quickly the wind picked up. You ask God what would have happened in prayer and God actually steps in through your prayer to reveal “what might have been”.

You see a vision of yourself attempting to sail the boat against the heavy winds (which is symbolic of God’s will). You see the boat’s sail being ripped nearly to shreads by the intense winds. You see the boat capsizing by riding against the wind lifted wave crests – and you see yourself drowning in the waters.

Upon seeing this, you now realize that the wind (which is symbolic of God’s will) could have killed you if you had gone against it. Oddly, however, you see your dead body and fragments of the boat being blown along by the easterly storm winds. You also see the end result of your folly – your dead body and fragments of the boat laying along the shore of the eastward lands which you were ignoring. You also see your body sadly being found by loved ones – **and you see that they find the sealed scroll as well. **

While tragic in its own right, you also realize upon seeing this vision that the Lord’s will would have been accomplished no matter what choice you made. In other words, God’s will was fulfilled in either a negative way or a postive way. You have the choice which way to fulfill it – either by moving** with** his Spirit, or else by moving against his Spirit.

Either way, the Lord’s will shall be done by his Spirit regardless of our own human actions…

Now let me ask you a couple of questions:

In the above analogy who caused the man in the boat to die?

Did God cause it – or did the man cause it himself?

 

[Image_of_God]

In the above analogy who caused the man in the boat to die?

Did God cause it – or did the man cause it himself?

I would have to say the man and God. God in the sense that he permitted the event, since anything that God does not permit cannot be. And also the man, because he chose to go against the wind, the man is the author of the evil(that is going against the wind), God only permitted the man to go against the wind, he never forced him.

And therefore I conclude that God only permits evil and is not the direct ordainer of it. Since God is infinitely good, he could not create evil, because evil is the abscence of God’s prescence. Also, since God looked upon everything he created and saw it was very good, he could not have created evil. For evil is not good and good is not evil. Then we know that God did not created evil, for evil is an abscence of good and all that God created was very good.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I would have to say the man and God. God in the sense that he permitted the event, since anything that God does not permit cannot be. And also the man, because he chose to go against the wind, the man is the author of the evil(that is going against the wind), God only permitted the man to go against the wind, he never forced him.

And therefore I conclude that God only permits evil and is not the direct ordainer of it. Since God is infinitely good, he could not create evil, because evil is the abscence of God’s prescence. Also, since God looked upon everything he created and saw it was very good, he could not have created evil. For evil is not good and good is not evil. Then we know that God did not created evil, for evil is an abscence of good and all that God created was very good.

Amen brother!

 

[Exalt]

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

I know I’m not exactly the most upstanding of posters - I’ve received my own rebuke or two by the mods. I’d love to hear your ideas, but your posts are insanely long. I direct you to the Forum Rules.

Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies (especially replies that consist largely of quotes from an earlier message).

You made nine posts in a row. Maybe you can be more concise in the future? I’d love to participate in the discussion, but I definately feel bogged down by the sheer length of your responses.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

I know I’m not exactly the most upstanding of posters - I’ve received my own rebuke or two by the mods. I’d love to hear your ideas, but your posts are insanely long. I direct you to the Forum Rules.

You made nine posts in a row. Maybe you can be more concise in the future? I’d love to participate in the discussion, but I definately feel bogged down by the sheer length of your responses.

They are long, and I do apologize about this novena-like repsonse. But I’ve been involved in these kinds of debates for a while-- and I fairly well already know pretty much exactly what’s going to be brought up. As such, I’ve just went ahead of the game and fairly well laid out pretty much every little angle that’s going to be raised by those who think otherwise.

The botton line is this: God is good and in him there is no evil whatsover. Period.

The only way that God ‘created’ evil is by allowing people to rebel against his will. God doesn’t change. We do. But I already know that there will those who will reject this-- so I’ve pretty much slammed a tentpeg through the theological skull of anyone who thinks otherwise.

Now if I’ve broken the forum rules, then I’ll potitely take my lumps from the moderators here if they decide to take action against my lengthy posts. In other words, I’ll take the suspension without argument.

In the meantime, however, I find the concept that God is in anyway evil to be a simply foolish concept-- especially if someone is claming to be a Christian. And, quite frankly, I’m not going to sit back and let others confuse other people here with posts that haven’t even looked at the full implications of what they’re claiming about God’s holiness.

Some people here are claiming that God is evil.

If I sit back silently and allow people to be led away from God to their own potential damnation because of forum guidelines, then I am a joke in the face of God.

As Romans 14:16 says…

Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.

And, consequently, if the only thing that someone can say about someone’s answer is the length of their posts, then it seems to me that they may possibly be simply too lazy to actually search intently enough through the answers given to actually understand God’s wisdom as he’s revealed it through the church.

We’re talking about the salvation of people’s eternal souls-- so I’m not content with sound-bites and buzz-words when explaining God’s holiness and his concern for all people’s eternal life.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

My reasons are as follows:

1. I simply do not perceive the hand of God in the Church anymore. When I was younger and understood less about the Church’s teachings, I felt more connected to God than I have as an adult Catholic. Learning more about my Church and history left me feeling less spiritually connected to God.
2. The theology itself was something I could not honestly believe anymore. The fact of the matter is, the trinity does not make sense to anyone who doesn’t already believe it. It is not a logical doctrine, and while I acknowledge that God is beyond understanding…this isn’t the case with the trinity. The trinity is easy to understand; it’s just contradictory, that’s what makes it so tough for outsiders to accept that it makes sense.
3. The history of the Church does not seem to fit one that has the full truth of God. Too many wars, too many mistakes, and too much intolerance.
4. The structure looks like “spiritual licensing” to me. I do not agree that God limits his substance and distributes it to authorized persons only, on the basis of ritual transfer.
5. The behavior of the average Catholic is not remotely like anything a first century Jew would recognize as good and moral. I realize that times change, but it’s apparent to me that Christianity in general is simply debasing itself to the point that whatever morals rule the day, are the morals conveniently taught by Christianity.

There’s a short list.

I think all these reasons of yours show why the Church is an object of faith: because without faith, it would be impossible to see how the Church is in any way different to any other society on earth. By some standards, it is far worse than they are, because it makes higher claims yet fails to live up to them. (I am not “bashing the Church” BTW.)​

There is no rational or moral reason to be Catholic or Christian - if there were, it would be by implication be transparently obvious that Christians - or the Catholic kind, since it’s the CC we’re discussing - always behaved in a morally better way than any one else. But we haven’t - so reasoning based on the moral superiority of Catholics is worthless: so a different reason to be Catholic is necessary.

And that is where grace & faith come in. Any Catholic apologetic that is not built on them, has feet of clay - because they are all that make Christianity in any of its forms distinctively Christian. And they are the only basis for faith, in the Church or anything else. Ignore them, and apologetic for the Church becomes no more than apologetic for another interest group, & the way is opened to self-conceited self-righteousness and factionalism in it.

Legalism in the Church is the worst thing for it - it’s far the oldest of heresies: look at how St.Paul had to combat it - & arguably the most stubborn. It is grace, & only grace, that keeps the Church able to fulfil its mission despite its flaws. It is only by grace that we can pick ourselves up amid our sins & carry on from where we fell down. So the sins of Catholics, however enormous or countless, are in a sense irrelevant - legalism makes them look more important than they are; grace is powerful enough to take them with full seriousness, & to transcend them; which is just what legalism (& justice) cannot do.

Law & legalism cannot forgive, because to forgive, is to act well to someone who by definition has absolutely no excuse for having done what needs forgiveness; & that is unjust & unreasonable & immoral, as is much of what God does. There is no place in legalism for the scandal of the Cross - yet that is how God saves mankind.

As to 4 - it depends how one sees this (of course).

If one sees it as God freely & graciously covenanting with limited entities (= creatures) to act through them despite theit utter unfitness for so great a thing, I think that all reason for human pride is shattered. God does not redeem us because we are good enough to deserve it - we are redeemed because we are immeasurably unworthy to be redeemed. It is God’s creative mercy & grace to us that remakes us & that enables us to receive His gifts - not our own goodness, for we have none worth discussing before we are justified by the grace of Christ.

The mistake is to think of God’s mercy to us, as something we can pride ourselves on - but our wrong attitudes to what God has done for His Glory alone do not cancel what He has done; they merely show our sinfulness & pride. So the perverted ways we have of regarding His gifts to His Church, don’t undermine those gifts. They remain - for He is always Good, & does not recall them.

The sooner this pagan self-conceit of us Christians can be purged out of us, the better. As St.Paul says - “we have this treasure [the Gospel] in earthen vessels” - yet that treasure is treasure despite externals. Jesus is the Saviour, not despite the Cross, but because of & by it. ##

 

[tequilamac]

Ah, people give this guy a rest. If you check any thread he is currently starting or responding on whether it be this one or the threads on Islam, pro universal’s interest is only in smacking the Church around. For instance on one of the threads on Islam, he blames all of Christianity for the behavior of the Dutch Reformed Group in apartheid. He blames all of Christianity for the actions of the Russian Orthodox. I am not exactly sure yet if pro is purely anti catholic or if he is purely anti christian, but he does deny that the Catholic Church follows the central teaching authority of the Pope, which would indicate that we are all arguing with someone who knows exactly squat about the Church in the first place except from what he may have read or even learned here. He is unable to distinguish between Roman Catholics and any other Christian group theologically, biblically, or historically which should be a big red warning flag to any Roman Catholic on this board that this guy may very well have never even set foot in a Catholic Church much less left it.

 

[pro_universal]

but he does deny that the Catholic Church follows the central teaching authority of the Pope, which would indicate that we are all arguing with someone who knows exactly squat about the Church in the first place except from what he may have read or even learned here. He is unable to distinguish between Roman Catholics and any other Christian group theologically, biblically, or historically which should be a big red warning flag to any Roman Catholic on this board that this guy may very well have never even set foot in a Catholic Church much less left it.

Please show me a single quote that proves this claim.

If you’re going to accuse me of being a liar, you should have something better than words put into my mouth. Let’s see the quote of mine where I say “there is no central teaching authority of the pope.”

If you’re referring to my comments on Christianity being fractured, you need to get yourself a cup of coffee and read the papers. Half of the world’s Christians don’t follow the Pope. Any Catholic knows that.

As for ascribing the crimes of others to all Christianity…see the terrorism thread. That’s the point: If it’s ridiculous to blame all Christians for what one group of orthodox do in Serbia, why is it less ridiculous to blame all Muslims for what one sect does in the middle east?

 

[tequilamac]

Please show me a single quote that proves this claim.

If you’re going to accuse me of being a liar, you should have something better than words put into my mouth. Let’s see the quote of mine where I say “there is no central teaching authority of the pope.”

If you’re referring to my comments on Christianity being fractured, you need to get yourself a cup of coffee and read the papers. Half of the world’s Christians don’t follow the Pope. Any Catholic knows that.

As for ascribing the crimes of others to all Christianity…see the terrorism thread. That’s the point: If it’s ridiculous to blame all Christians for what one group of orthodox do in Serbia, why is it less ridiculous to blame all Muslims for what one sect does in the middle east?

Okay. You have asked and once again I am referring you to your own statements. You have repeatedly over and over and over again blamed “Christians” and “Christianity” for the troubles with Islam. The examples you cite to Catholics are the actions of non catholic christians. I pointed this out to you in the thread titled
Terrorism is alien to Islam and in your posts 86, 91 and I believe 98 you argued with me that Christianity has a central authority for both theology and bible in the Pope. Now, if you are going to lump Roman Catholics in with all the behaviors of every crazy Christian in the world and then deny that Christianity has a teaching authority central to it, which is exactly what you did on that thread, and then complain that Catholics are accusing all ordinary Muslims of behaving like crazy radical groups with no central teaching authority, How can anyone take you seriously?>
If you choose to put the Roman Catholic Church in with all of Christianity and then deny that Christianity has a central teaching authority, we then have to determine that either a. you have never been catholic, b. do not understand the word schism, or c. are determined to obfuscate on a slippery slope. In any case, you are not operating in good faith. If you look at your posts you will see I asked you directly why you were making claims that Christianity did this that and the other things without a central teaching authority, and why you were lumping the Roman Catholic Church in with those who had no central teaching authority and you just kept on doing it. So hey…

 

[M_Oliver]

It’s an accurate translation. But your way of interpreting it does not jive with the Holy Spirit’s intentions.

I assume you’re refering to me-- and that you completely ignored the passages I quotes which showed what was intended by it.

There’s no doubt that the Lord creates thing things. No one will argue with you about this. Exactly how the Lord creates these things, however, is not clearly stated in the passage though.

How do you feel the God greates good and evil?

Are they by the same method?

Where are your Scriptural reference for the ‘mechanism’ by which God creates these things?

Again, no one will argue with this passage.

Exactly how the Lord creates these things, however, is not clearly stated in the passage though.

How do you feel the God greates good and evil?

Are they by the same method?

Where are your Scriptural reference for the ‘mechanism’ by which God creates these things?

God meaning to allow evil to happen in order that good may prevail is not the same thing as God deliberately causing evil from his own essence.

God meaning to allow evil to happen in order that good may prevail is good.

God deliberately causing evil from his own essence means that God himself is partly evil.

We’ve never argued with you about this point.

How do you feel the God greates good and evil?

Are they by the same method?

Where are your Scriptural reference for the ‘mechanism’ by which God creates these things?

Claiming that God is even slightly evil overwhelmingly contradicts a multitude of verses which explicitly claim that God is good and that in him there is no evil.

Of course it does. And no one has argued with you on this point.

What you’ve failed to provide so far, however, are your Scriptural reference for the ‘mechanism’ by which God creates these things.

How exactly does God create good and evil M_Oliver?

Yes. But does God creating evil then mean that God himself is evil?

No. It does not.

You have yet to provide a Scriptural reference for the ‘mechanism’ by which God creates evil.

For the record readers, I blew this away WITH Scripture but it has been deleted by the moderators. I guess I got a little to close to the truth for their comfort.

I’d love to continue to use Scripture to show your error Mr Ex but i am being censored…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

For the record readers, I blew this away WITH Scripture but it has been deleted by the moderators. I guess I got a little to close to the truth for their comfort.

I’d love to continue to use Scripture to show your error Mr Ex but i am being censored…

 

[pro_universal]

Okay. You have asked and once again I am referring you to your own statements. You have repeatedly over and over and over again blamed “Christians” and “Christianity” for the troubles with Islam.

When did I blame Christianity for troubles with Islam? Huh???

I notice you’re not quoting me. That’s because I didn’t say what you accuse me of saying.

The examples you cite to Catholics are the actions of non catholic christians.

Where? This is simply not true. Your reading comprehension is apparently only as good as your grasp of the paragraph structure.

I pointed this out to you in the thread titled
Terrorism is alien to Islam and in your posts 86, 91 and I believe 98 you argued with me that Christianity has a central authority for both theology and bible in the Pope.

1. I didn’t start the thread.
2. The Pope does not control all Christians. That’s a cold hard fact. Almost half the Christians in the world aren’t under the authority of the Pope.

Now, if you are going to lump Roman Catholics in with all the behaviors of every crazy Christian in the world and then deny that Christianity has a teaching authority central to it, which is exactly what you did on that thread, and then complain that Catholics are accusing all ordinary Muslims of behaving like crazy radical groups with no central teaching authority, How can anyone take you seriously?>

Reread my posts. You are wrong about what they say.

If you choose to put the Roman Catholic Church in with all of Christianity and then deny that Christianity has a central teaching authority,

Okay, this is bordering on absurd. Denying that the Pope controls all Christians is like admitting that the sky is blue. I have no idea why this is a controversial statement for you.

we then have to determine that either a. you have never been catholic, b. do not understand the word schism, or c. are determined to obfuscate on a slippery slope.

A convenient little conclusion, but it doesn’t make any sense.

In any case, you are not operating in good faith. If you look at your posts you will see I asked you directly why you were making claims that Christianity did this that and the other things without a central teaching authority, and why you were lumping the Roman Catholic Church in with those who had no central teaching authority and you just kept on doing it. So hey…

I’ll respond again to this charge when you demonstrate that you’re capable of reading and comprehending my posts. I’m sorry, but you are accusing me of being a liar here based on a gross inability to read what I’m typing.

Redo your reading before you insult people, especially if you know that your reading skills are not that good.

 

[jonfan]

Look if Pro believes in Islamic governments and that Jesus and the Catholic Church aren’t correct then then what else can you say? 254 posts to this subject. Enough already. I hate to see Pro leave such a beautiful faith but he has made his choice as you can see in his responses. my 2cents.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Pro will insult me just as he has insulted others in here, but I don’t care because I’m “Iggy-ing” him right after this post. So call me what you will, Pro_Al Quaeda.

It might be instructive to people on here to look up his other posts. He makes outrageous and untrue statements, then accuses people of calling him a liar when they call him on it. Maybe he believes himself and maybe he doesn’t, but it doesn’t matter, because:

1. He is not Catholic in any manner. He only tells you that in order to bait you into communicating with a person who says such terrible and disrespectful things that you would dismiss him out of hand if he did not make this claim. He uses your wish to save him in order to try to destroy your own faith.
2. He is a Mohamedan provocateur who defends every Islamic untruth and outrage that exists, no matter how unconscionable, without a single exception.
3. His only interest in being on here is to try to persuade people that what they know to be true is untrue. Check out what he claims. Research of few of them, and you will almost always find it to be absolutely untrue.
4. He has not the slightest interest in any fact or argument you put before him. His objective is to undermine your faith in your religion and in your culture.
5. After an argument he can’t deal with, he goes back to his Madrassa mentors and comes up with some new anti-Christian, pro-Islamic argument he didn’t have before, like a Jack Chick of Islam armed with a “how to argue with Catholics” book.
6. He defends murder, terror and genocide by claiming it never happened or, if he admits it happened, he justifies it in the name of some preposterous Islamic apologium and finds some way to misrepresent history to claim that that infamies of Islam are not only the fault of Jews and/or Christians, but were deserved by the victims as well.
7. If you don’t believe me, go back and read his other posts. They will take your breath away.
8. Islam condones lying to “infidels” if it will serve the purposes of Islam. His only interest is in telling you your religion is false and your country is in the wrong. No doubt that is his “assignment” from his Mullahs or Imams or Muftis or whoever directs his vicious attacks.
9. In considering the kind of Islam he espouses, do not consider his claims of peaceful intentions. Go back and look at what he justifies. Remember that if you said anything you have said on here, openly, in his own country, you and your family would be tortured and killed. In communicating with him, you should consider that he is a “true believer” in Islamic excesses, and that you are talking to someone who would quickly find a way to justify your death and that of your children, as he justifies the deaths of so many others. You would not communicate with one who justifies serial killing in any other context. Please keep in mind that he justifies the wilful murder of Israeli women and children. Look at his other posts. Your life means no more to him than the lives of Jews whose deaths he so cavalierly dismisses and justifies, and you would be foolish in supposing that it does.

So, goodbye Pro_Hezbollah, Pro_911. Say what you want, knowing you are saying it only to yourself.

 

[tequilamac]

When did I blame Christianity for troubles with Islam? Huh???

I notice you’re not quoting me. That’s because I didn’t say what you accuse me of saying.

Where? This is simply not true. Your reading comprehension is apparently only as good as your grasp of the paragraph structure.

1. I didn’t start the thread.
2. The Pope does not control all Christians. That’s a cold hard fact. Almost half the Christians in the world aren’t under the authority of the Pope.

Reread my posts. You are wrong about what they say.

Okay, this is bordering on absurd. Denying that the Pope controls all Christians is like admitting that the sky is blue. I have no idea why this is a controversial statement for you.

A convenient little conclusion, but it doesn’t make any sense.

I’ll respond again to this charge when you demonstrate that you’re capable of reading and comprehending my posts. I’m sorry, but you are accusing me of being a liar here based on a gross inability to read what I’m typing.

Redo your reading before you insult people, especially if you know that your reading skills are not that good.

It would appear pro universal from the amount of angry contentious posts you are receiving as answers to your typing, that the problem is not that people are not capable of comprehending your posts, but that they actually do. But if not, why not try writing correctly instead of asking people to improve their reading comprehension skills. One can only read what is written, kind of like a computer, garbage in, garbage out. Start with your writing skills first and then see if people can “read” you better. Personally, I think we are reading you just fine. Down with Catholics, up with Islam. So what’s new?

 

[pro_universal]

It would appear pro universal from the amount of angry contentious posts you are receiving as answers to your typing, that the problem is not that people are not capable of comprehending your posts, but that they actually do.

Okay, you’re leaving out a key ingredient: Why are they angry?

Because of personal attacks? No.

They’re angry because I say moderate things about Islam and do not agree with their Islam bashing. Not agreeing makes people angry here.

But if not, why not try writing correctly instead of asking people to improve their reading comprehension skills. One can only read what is written, kind of like a computer, garbage in, garbage out. Start with your writing skills first and then see if people can “read” you better. Personally, I think we are reading you just fine. Down with Catholics, up with Islam. So what’s new?

No amount of different writing will cure your mischaracterization of my posts. You claim you understood, yet you accuse me of all sorts of things that appear nowhere in my writing.

I’ll make it simple for you: Re-read my posts. Then, write a response that separates points to make them clear.