Protestant that agree...

[Singinbeauty]

Well, there’s no excuse…I explained to you that we do this in jest. I’m pretty sure that if even after I told you that our bickering is in a joking manner you still have that attitude, then it’s not neccessarily the board that makes you feel how you feel.

The tone of a lot of the posts are anything but ‘joking’ or in jest. You have more than once laughed at people who are trying to make serious points and the tone of your posts when you do this is definitely not in jest or funny. Often, catholics and protestants can sound condesending and you are no exception.

I’ve seen some nasty comments to (never from me), but that’s usually when someone can’t answer a question or when their proved wrong.

Sometimes, but not always. Sometimes the responses are nasty because they are arrogant, ignorant, spiteful, or idiots. There are all kinds on the internet. That is why it is important to take a breath before responding to a post and check to see if you would appreciate someone responding the same way to you.

Usually, those are the times when the curses have been launched at me and the vulgarity came out (I could accurately judge what denomination a person was by how they cursed at me! LOL!).

Accurately judge? How? I would like to have that gift!

Out of curiosity, do you know what ‘LOL’ means? It means Laugh Out Loud… Sometimes that will be perceived as you laughing at someone… Just an FYI…

I haven’t seen any of that here.

Then you haven’t been here long enough. I have seen it from both sides…

Again, I guess we have different ways to measure the “Christianity” of a religion. You do it in the “cyber” world, I have done my judging by actually walking into a church and meeting real live humans (“humans”, not profiles).

How is this your job? Judging the ‘christianity’ of a religion? What does this even mean?

This brings me to a question I have been meaning to ask you. I have heard several times you say that protestants fight with christians. What I gather from that is that you don’t think that protestants are christians. Is this correct?

LOL! And Catholics can’t be anti-Protestant! LOL! We’re the ones being “protested” against!

Oh, some catholics (not all) can most certainly be anti-protestant in the same way that some protestants (not all) can be anti-catholic. It’s the view you have of that belief system. Protesting doesn’t have anything to do with it. I can disagree and not be anti-catholic. But if I were to claim that the pope is the anti-christ and that the catholic church is the whore of babylon then I could be considered a HUGE anti-catholic. It’s the same when you reverse the thought process. A catholic who makes heinous and outrageous claims against protestants are most certainly anti-protestant. More than once you have eluded in your posts that protestants aren’t christians. That, I would consider anti-protestant. Catholics don’t have the corner hold on anti anything. It happens on both sides.

We don’t lay down and allow lies to be spread about us.

Neither do protestants

My arguments have been valid. They probably turn the stomachs of those who disagree with them, but there’s a little red box at the top right of the screen on your own computer that you can click on and remove yourself from the viewing of these posts.

Oh, I don’t mind ignorant views… some of them make me giggle, some make me sad, and some make me pray that God touches your heart and shows you love for your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Nobody is forced to view the forums. Nobody puts a gun to anybody’s head. People come here willingly. It’s voluntary.

The problem comes when you expect charity on a christian forum and get anymosity. Christ taught us to love not hate.

To be continued…

 

[Singinbeauty]

I’m sure that’s what they told Paul too. He too was pretty aggressive and peple just couldn’t stand to hear the truth and they cursed him as well. I must be doing something right if people who are wrong are displeased with me (not including you there).

There’s a difference between telling the truth and telling outright lies. We are all on the same team. We love Christ with all our hearts, minds, and souls but you don’t seem to see that. It’s sad really…

The good thing about this site is that the criticism has been against me has come from both Catholics and Protestants…The Protestants because I’ve trounced their arguments (sore losers) and the Catholics because they care more about “image” than truth.

How old are you? The arrogance is only shadowed by your ignorance. The maturity level you show is telling me you are probably a teenager. A little more life will show you that the catholics on this forum who repremand you aren’t caring about ‘image’. They are trying to guide you to adhere to catholic teaching. What catholic teaching tells you that protestants are not christian?

I’d rather have truth. The “image” will work itself out later.

Me too, but you catch more flies with honey than vinager. Try following Christ’s example, show love.

If you haven’t been to any, try going on some Protestant forums where they actually allow Catholics on. I guarentee you that you will see the exact same level of nastyness and bickering. Matter of fact, if you have a problem finding some, I’ll refer you to some sites where the Protestants bicker and insult their own Protestant brethren.

Unfortunately it happens on both sides…

Disagreement is not a “Catholic” thing…it’s a human thing.

Agreed…

(Sorry to drop this bomb on you, but the very Apostles that God hand picked disagreed and argued themselves…no one is perfect; perhaps you need to find a Kumbaya church…psyche! They don’t exist!)

That’s ‘sike’ by the way… There is disagreeing and then there is bashing. People don’t like to feel as if someone is calling them stupid or that their beliefs are not worth anything…

Never the less, I did pray that you would find your church. I seriously doubt that you’re Catholic material; When someone prays for us, we just return the gesture with a “Thank You” and not criticism the pointing out of their faults.



Pax

Wow… I am so glad that even your pope is nothing like you… I seriously don’t think he would say that anyone isn’t catholic material…

 

[jmcrae]

I didn’t like the guy that convinced me of the truth of the Catholic faith - he was, quite frankly, a total jerk.

I was adult enough to realize that he was right, though - and guess what, he was the only one out there telling the truth; everyone else was falling all over themselves being so polite that I had no idea what the heck they were driving at, most of the time.

Here it is again: Jesus only founded one Church. (Matthew 16:18-19)

It was not any of the Protestant churches, nor any of their offshoots, nor any of the schismatic churches, including separated Orthodox churches, since they did not exist until nearly a millenium after Christ had ascended into Heaven. (The earliest still-existing schismatic church is the Waldensian church, which was founded by a guy named Peter Waldo in the late 900s AD. There are two congregations remaining in the world today; both are in Italy.)

He put the Apostle Peter in charge of His Church. (John 21:15-19).

He promised that it would not fail before the end of time itself (meaning that it has to still be in existence today - it cannot have disappeared somewhere along the way). (Matthew 28:20)

There is only one Church on earth right now today that even bothers to try to claim succession from St. Peter, that has credible historical evidence to prove it.

 

[Special_Ed]

Well, all the Rites of The Catholic Church are in complete agreement on the issues of doctrines.

As for The Protestant Churches, I’d say that the closest thing to a group of churches having agreement would be The Assemblies of God and The Methodists. The Lutherans and Episcopalians and the Anglicans are pretty Catholic-like.

I was just wondering if say a Pentecostal and a Baptist church could worship together. I’ve never seen that type of interdenominational fellowship.

Thanks.

While speaking to a Baptist minister one day at our local McDonald’s, he said about Baptist and Pentacostal’s…

“*We can fellowship together but we cannot worship together”. *

That’s kind of sad.

 

[jmcrae]

While speaking to a Baptist minister one day at our local McDonald’s, he said about Baptist and Pentacostal’s…

“*We can fellowship together but we cannot worship together”. *

That’s kind of sad.

At least they are honest about it, and acknowledging that their doctrines are important enough to them to stand up for.

 

[2ndGen]

The tone of a lot of the posts are anything but ‘joking’ or in jest. You have more than once laughed at people who are trying to make serious points and the tone of your posts when you do this is definitely not in jest or funny. Often, catholics and protestants can sound condesending and you are no exception.

Because, when the subject gets heated and since the sentiment gets lost in the text, I laugh. Laughter should never make any body angry (so long as I’m not laughing “at” them).

See?

Sometimes, but not always. Sometimes the responses are nasty because they are arrogant, ignorant, spiteful, or idiots. There are all kinds on the internet. That is why it is important to take a breath before responding to a post and check to see if you would appreciate someone responding the same way to you.

I’ve seen some negative stuff by Catholics, but because I don’t feel it’s my place to tell anybody how to act, I don’t say anything (just like I don’t say anything to Protestants).

Accurately judge? How? I would like to have that gift!

LOL! I kid you not! I’ve had them curse at me and I’d say “you must be a Pentecostal!” and they respond “what da “F” does that have to do with anything! And how did you know!”.

Out of curiosity, do you know what ‘LOL’ means? It means Laugh Out Loud… Sometimes that will be perceived as you laughing at someone… Just an FYI…

I know. And I want them to know that I’m “laughing”.
I don’t want them to think that I’m in any way angry or indignant. It usually lightens up the mood, but that doesn’t work with everybody.

How is this your job? Judging the ‘christianity’ of a religion? What does this even mean?

Those aren’t my words. Those words are someone else’s.

This brings me to a question I have been meaning to ask you. I have heard several times you say that protestants fight with christians. What I gather from that is that you don’t think that protestants are christians. Is this correct?

Nooooo! Why don’t you go to my profile and look at all my posts. You’ll find my Protestant friendly posts there. See, you only know what you know about me, but NOT everything there is to know.

There are plenty of posts where I’ve espoused great love for my Protestant brethren and have shared personal experiences with them in fellowship.

And for the record, Protestants are Christians.

Oh, some catholics (not all) can most certainly be anti-protestant in the same way that some protestants (not all) can be anti-catholic. It’s the view you have of that belief system. Protesting doesn’t have anything to do with it. I can disagree and not be anti-catholic. But if I were to claim that the pope is the anti-christ and that the catholic church is the whore of babylon then I could be considered a HUGE anti-catholic. It’s the same when you reverse the thought process. A catholic who makes heinous and outrageous claims against protestants are most certainly anti-protestant. More than once you have eluded in your posts that protestants aren’t christians. That, I would consider anti-protestant. Catholics don’t have the corner hold on anti anything. It happens on both sides.

Have I made any outrageous claims against Protestants?

Please, point out where I’ve said anything remotely to what you’ve just attributed to me (that Protestants aren’t Christians).

And for the record, I am anti-anti-Catholics…“if” they happen to be Protestants (which the overwhelming majority of anti-Catholics are), then so be it. However, I’m not anti-Protestant.

Dudette, 1/2 my family are Protestants with their own Churches (I probably have more pastors in my family than any family down south).

Oh, I don’t mind ignorant views… some of them make me giggle, some make me sad, and some make me pray that God touches your heart and shows you love for your brothers and sisters in Christ.

I love ignorant views…they make me laugh…oh, is that ok by you?

LOL!

The problem comes when you expect charity on a christian forum and get anymosity. Christ taught us to love not hate.

One should expect “humans” when they come to a Christian forum. I’ve never judged Protestants by the abuses I’ve experienced on Protestant forums. Catholics should have that same treatment.

 

[2ndGen]

Here come the insults…

How old are you? The arrogance is only shadowed by your ignorance. The maturity level you show is telling me you are probably a teenager. A little more life will show you that the catholics on this forum who repremand you aren’t caring about ‘image’. They are trying to guide you to adhere to catholic teaching. What catholic teaching tells you that protestants are not christian?

Wow… I am so glad that even your pope is nothing like you… I seriously don’t think he would say that anyone isn’t catholic material

Sure…He’d say that those who are mean and nasty to you when you pray for them are not Catholic material. Matter of fact, Jesus would say that they aren’t Christian material.

I blessed someone who cursed me (not vulgarly cursed me, but pointed out my faults).

Pope John Paul prayed for the man who shot him.

 

[2ndGen]

I didn’t like the guy that convinced me of the truth of the Catholic faith - he was, quite frankly, a total jerk.

I was adult enough to realize that he was right, though - and guess what, he was the only one out there telling the truth; everyone else was falling all over themselves being so polite that I had no idea what the heck they were driving at, most of the time…

Just like when Jesus told His disciples that they were to obey The Pharisees when they taught rightly and they were to ignore what they did when they were wrong.

As for the rest of your post, do I have to say that I agree? A blind man could see that!

 

[2ndGen]

While speaking to a Baptist minister one day at our local McDonald’s, he said about Baptist and Pentacostal’s…

“*We can fellowship together but we cannot worship together”. *

That’s kind of sad.

I agree. That’s been said to me to by anti-Catholic Protestants. Luckily there were Protestants who didn’t treat me so uncharitably and I worshipped with them.

 

[moondweller]

As for The Orthodox considering The Pope the first Protestant, if that were true, “they’d” be the Number 1 Christian church and not in 2nd place.

They don’t believe they are in 2nd place. So in their mind, where does that leave you?

Jesus Church is never in 2nd place or 3rd or 34,000th place.

That’s right!. He’s “Head of the Body, the church,” both in heaven and on earth. Being omnipotent He needs no “vicar.”

 

[jmcrae]

They don’t believe they are in 2nd place. So in their mind, where does that leave you?That’s right!. He’s “Head of the Body, the church,” both in heaven and on earth. Being omnipotent He needs no “vicar.”

Explain the meaning of John 21:15-19. Of what “flock,” if not His Church, was Jesus placing St. Peter in charge over?

 

[moondweller]

Explain the meaning of John 21:15-19. Of what “flock,” if not His Church, was Jesus placing St. Peter in charge over?

I think you’re pouring a lot of Rome’s theology into those passages, jm. Jesus says nothing there about placing Peter “in charge” of His church. Christ Himself is “Head of the body, the church” (Col. 1:18). I can find no Scriptural passages that teach otherwise. Nor does Jesus in those passages refer to His “flock” as the Roman Catholic church. Peter, in fact, was the Apostle to the “circumcision” (Jews), whereas Paul was the Apostle to the “uncircumcision” (Gentiles). If I went with your logic (interpretation), Christ’s church (flock) would have only been Jewish.

 

[Benedict16]

I have read and heard Scott Hahn’s testimony. I also have heard many converts in the opposite direction. Again, as I have stated before, I believe The Holy Spirit is the common denominator.

I serve a missionary in East Asia who served under Mother Theresa and now practices her faith under a non denominational faith. Mother Theresa herself supported her decision to leave her vocation as a nun and now, she runs a orphanage and a bible school in a country that oppresses Christians. This government that supports another false religion is the same government that orphans those babies. She is a light in a dark world. She is bringing the lost to Christ in that country.

Many may disagree and I’m really OK with that. But, when I read the bible, the OT and NT, I’m encouraged and convicted to have a change of heart, to transform my spirit to the image of Christ. I see that can be done with or apart from traditions that we have created by our interpretation of scripture.

What leads me to that conclusion is that God sees our heart. There are many examples in the bible of people fulfilly The Law, but doing it with a wrong heart, as the Pharisees did. We’re all subject to the sin of the Pharisees. We can celebrate the Mass and the Sacraments and be hell bound. We can say a sinner’s prayer, fill out a card, answer an alter call and be hell bound.

God does not desire our sacrifices, He desires mercy, He desires a transformation of our heart to mirror the image of His. That can be done in a Catholic arena or a Protestant arena or a non denominational arena. Any arena where the Gospel is proclaimed.

Any time spent in these debates will show that both sides are standing firm in the way they were taught. Both sides have their interpretation of given scripture. I don’t proclaim to know the right answer. But, the scriptures BOLDLY proclaim a blessed assurance for those who place their faith in the finished work of the Cross. I also believe the scriptures that proclaim faith without works is dead. The argument then is what is “works.”

And on and on and on the debate goes.

Um, the "sinners prayer is NOT in the bible and won’t save you. It is a FALSE DOCTRINE that developed from Calvinism and was first practiced less than 50 years ago.

 

[2ndGen]

They don’t believe they are in 2nd place. So in their mind, where does that leave you?That’s right!. He’s “Head of the Body, the church,” both in heaven and on earth. Being omnipotent He needs no “vicar.”

Then I guess according to you Jesus was wrong when He appointed Peter as the Head Shephard of His Church when He left us?



(Yeah, it’s “in” scripture)

 

[2ndGen]

Explain the meaning of John 21:15-19. Of what “flock,” if not His Church, was Jesus placing St. Peter in charge over?

JMCRAE,

You always do that…LOL!

You always answer my answer before me!

 

[2ndGen]

Now I see why your name is "moon"dweller…

I think you’re pouring a lot of Rome’s theology into those passages, jm.

The Catholic Church does not reside in Rome, so unless you’re talking about the City, you’re wrong there. Vatican City is an autonamous country.

Jesus says nothing there about placing Peter “in charge” of His church.

Only a Shephard feeds sheep and feeds lambs.
But of course, if Jesus didn’t tell Peter to Shephard (“pastor”) His flock,
then you must believe that on top of Jesus being a Carpenter and a Priest,
He also had a flock of actual sheep and lambs (the animals).
If the passage wasn’t allegorical, then it had to be literal.

Christ Himself is “Head of the body, the church” (Col. 1:18).
I can find no Scriptural passages that teach otherwise.

Where does it (since you want to be all “literal” about it)
that Jesus Christ is the head of The Church?
It says “body”, not “Church”.
See how your being a Scriptural Literalist can come back to bite you?
That is, unless you “pick and choose” what you want to be allegorical and what you want to be literal.

Nor does Jesus in those passages refer to His “flock” as the Roman Catholic church.

Nor does Jesus Christ refer to The Holy Bible as His Word so if we were to “not” believe in things that aren’t in The Holy Bible or that Jesus wasn’t recorded as saying, we’d have to stop believing in The Holy Bible, The Holy Trinity, The Rapture, etc…because Jesus never “said” those things either.

Peter, in fact, was the Apostle to the “circumcision” (Jews), whereas Paul was the Apostle to the “uncircumcision” (Gentiles).

Yet Paul was subject to Peter. He waited 3 years before he began his ministry and it was only “after” he had met with and consulted with Peter (literally admitting that Peter was The Church leader in general, with James being the Church leader of Jeruselum).

If I went with your logic (interpretation), Christ’s church (flock) would have only been Jewish.

How you tied in Jewishness and Jesus’ Church from nowhere is beyond me. But in all truthfullness, the overwhelming majority (a good 99%) of The Church while Jesus walked the earth was Jewish (if you want to be literal about Jesus’ Church).

But wait a minute…if you insist on being literal about it, are you now saying that Pete is the head of the Jewish flock and Paul is the head of the Gentile flock and “not” Jesus? Isn’t that a contradiction?

Do you have any Scriptural evidence of Jesus having baptized a Gentile?

Also, by saying that Christ’s Church would only be Jewish is to say that it was “made” Jewish and Gentile by Peter and Paul. Doesn’t this counter your whole “he don’t need no vicar” statement?

(Thank you for breakfast! )

 

[2ndGen]

I think you’re pouring a lot of Rome’s theology into those passages, jm. Jesus says nothing there about placing Peter “in charge” of His church. Christ Himself is “Head of the body, the church” (Col. 1:18). I can find no Scriptural passages that teach otherwise. Nor does Jesus in those passages refer to His “flock” as the Roman Catholic church. Peter, in fact, was the Apostle to the “circumcision” (Jews), whereas Paul was the Apostle to the “uncircumcision” (Gentiles). If I went with your logic (interpretation), Christ’s church (flock) would have only been Jewish.

Why do you think that Jesus chose Peter to build His Church upon then?

 

[moondweller]

Then I guess according to you Jesus was wrong when He appointed Peter as the Head Shephard of His Church when He left us?



(Yeah, it’s “in” scripture)

Only if He actually did appoint Peter as “head of the Church.” But Scripture reveals to us that Christ Himself is “head of the body, the church” (Col. 1:18). Nowhere in Scripture is Peter ever called “head of the body, the church.” No such appointment exists Scripturally. Only in Rome. Why do you think that is?

 

[2ndGen]

Only if He actually did appoint Peter as “head of the Church.” But Scripture reveals to us that Christ Himself is “head of the body, the church” (Col. 1:18). Nowhere in Scripture is Peter ever called “head of the body, the church.” No such appointment exists Scripturally. Only in Rome. Why do you think that is?

Still waiting for the answers to my questions.

 

[paarsurrey]

Still waiting for the answers to my questions.

Nowhere in Scripture is Peter ever called “head of the body, the church.” No such appointment exists Scripturally.

Hi

Anyone, anybody to provide quotation from NTBible, to satisfy the question.

Thanks