Questions for Your Notre Dame Mormon

[zerinus]

Oh please! Don’t tell me you’ve fallen for that old Constantine nonsense! You don’t think the church had a central authority until Constantine? Start reading early church history my friend, and put that Constantine nonsense to bed. Here is St. Ignatius in AD 110 talking about the supremacy of Rome (emphasis added)“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (*Letter to the Romans *1:1 [A.D. 110]). “You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

Here is Irenaeus in AD 189 (emphasis added):“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). There’s a whole lot more where this came from. This is verifiable proof that the church had a central authority long before Constantine. I can’t make it any clearer than this. You can choose to ignore it, but to do so is to deny historical fact.

There isn’t a “whole lot more”. Those were the opinions of those who wrote them. At the time that they wrote, the bishops of larger provinces had already began to exert their influence over the smaller ones. But there was NO central governing authority over the church that was recognized by everyone. The churches in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire (the Greek speaking part, where the majority of the Christians lived) did not recognize Rome as their governing authority. Rome’s influence extended only to the Latin speaking part of the Empire, which had a smaller and much less influential concentration of Christians. All the great centers of Christian learning (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), as well as concentrations of Christians (such as Asia Minor) were all in the East (Greek speaking) part of the Empire; and these did not accept any authority over them from the bishop of Rome. If the bishop of Rome was the governing authority at the time of Constantine, why did Constantine convene the council of Nicaea and not the bishop of Rome? Why did Constantine preside over the council and not the bishop of Rome?

You keep saying over an over again that Paul was an Apostle. I never said he wasn’t. Of course he was an Apostle! But he did not replace one of the others, nor was he part of a “twelve.” You have no evidence for that other than your own mathematics.

Don’t try to nonsensicate me! You had asked me a silly question and I was doing my best to try and answer it for you.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

and why does the LDS church have 15 Apostles today?

 

[zerinus]

Just wanted to post a follow up:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/10/campbellR031006_228x265.jpg

Graphic link to result.

This is the LDS position as long as there’s rape or incest involved. Pain and consciousness have nothing to do with the LDS position - all unborn humans are potentially fair game.

If for no other reason, this alone would keep me out of the LDS church.

God Bless,
RyanL

Like I said, you guys must really hate your wives (assuming you have one), or hate all women if you don’t; otherwise you wouldn’t talk like that. I think that the life of the mother is of far greater worth than the life of an unborn foetus. I would rather terminate a million unborn foetuses than allow it to cause any harm to my wife. I think it is deeply immoral and criminal to contemplate the alternative you are proposing. You obviously would rather put a metal spike through the head of your wife. Let me assure you that I wouldn’t.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

typical amgid response. no ne ever condoned driving spikes in anyone’s head except for you endorsing abortion. I see that you place no value on the life of the unborn. who lives and dies is now bassed on subjective value?

Go ahead and try to twist the truth that we hate women and want to kill our wives. you know it isn’t true. You have made it clear that you are all for killing babies…as long as they haven’t born yet. But your methodology for doing so shows a callous disregard for all life that you don’t see as valauble. The culture of death at it’s finest.

Now explain why it’s a sin at all then?

 

[Chris-WA]

There isn’t a “whole lot more”. Those were the opinions of those who wrote them.

Oh I get it now–my factual quotes are only somebody’s “opinions,” and your opinions are facts. Glad we have that settled.

 

[sterryfamily]

Like I said, you guys must really hate your wives (assuming you have one), or hate all women if you don’t; otherwise you wouldn’t talk like that. I think that the life of the mother is of far greater worth than the life of an unborn foetus. I would rather terminate a million unborn foetuses than allow it to cause any harm to my wife. I think it is deeply immoral and criminal to contemplate the alternative you are proposing. You obviously would rather put a metal spike through the head of your wife. Let me assure you that I wouldn’t.

zerinus

Zerinus, what is your basis…seriously, for valuing one person’s life over another. The slave owners valued one person over another based on skin color. The US Supreme Court values a post-birth person’s life over a pre-birth person based on, yes, “personhood” (whatever that means - to them).

Now, seriously, what is YOUR basis for valuing one life over another? and please explain how you come to this. Maybe we can start there.

 

[sterryfamily]

There isn’t a “whole lot more”. Those were the opinions of those who wrote them. At the time that they wrote, the bishops of larger provinces had already began to exert their influence over the smaller ones. But there was NO central governing authority over the church that was recognized by everyone. The churches in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire (the Greek speaking part, where the majority of the Christians lived) did not recognize Rome as their governing authority. Rome’s influence extended only to the Latin speaking part of the Empire, which had a smaller and much less influential concentration of Christians. All the great centers of Christian learning (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), as well as concentrations of Christians (such as Asia Minor) were all in the East (Greek speaking) part of the Empire; and these did not accept any authority over them from the bishop of Rome. If the bishop of Rome was the governing authority at the time of Constantine, why did Constantine convene the council of Nicaea and not the bishop of Rome? Why did Constantine preside over the council and not the bishop of Rome?]

Dude, where are you getting your information? Do you bother to check?

Any cursory perusal of the writings of the Early Church Fathers will show a CONSTANT deferral to the See of Rome, ESPECIALLY from Bishops in the east. Any time they needed confirmation or dispute resolution it was always an appeal to Rome.

 

[zerinus]

Dude, where are you getting your information? Do you bother to check?

Any cursory perusal of the writings of the Early Church Fathers will show a CONSTANT deferral to the See of Rome, ESPECIALLY from Bishops in the east. Any time they needed confirmation or dispute resolution it was always an appeal to Rome.

Yea, I get it. And CONSTANTine was their first Pope!

zerinus

 

[majick275]

now there is a lie of the blackest die. No surprise it comes from the biggest liar these boards have ever seen. Face it amgid you’ve been outed. calling yourself zerinus or gameboy or zenu isn’t fooling anybody. your just out making up fables to try and lure someone into your cult… kind oflike Joseph Smith.

give it up dude before we have to repost your embarassing little thread where you proved mormonism false with your own evidence thus necessitating this little “zerinus” facade.

 

[Damo73]

There is no historical evidence for the book of mormon, they have never found a building, sword or anything that belongs to the Nephites or Lamenites or Jarodites, even the animals mentioned in the book of mormon did not exist in America during the time it is said to have happened,

How can you explain that every other civilization as large the ones mentioned during that period of history have left traces yet there is nothing left of there culture.

 

[santaro75]

There is no historical evidence for the book of mormon, they have never found a building, sword or anything that belongs to the Nephites or Lamenites or Jarodites, even the animals mentioned in the book of mormon did not exist in America during the time it is said to have happened,

How can you explain that every other civilization as large the ones mentioned during that period of history have left traces yet there is nothing left of there culture.

The million dollar question. you’ll get a 5 dollar answer

 

[zerinus]

There is no historical evidence for the book of mormon, they have never found a building, sword or anything that belongs to the Nephites or Lamenites or Jarodites, even the animals mentioned in the book of mormon did not exist in America during the time it is said to have happened,

How can you explain that every other civilization as large the ones mentioned during that period of history have left traces yet there is nothing left of there culture.

I have already discussed that subject with Chris-WA in this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1536986#post1536986

 

[majick275]

your “discussion” was merely to reiterate the FARMS/FAIR position that “we know it’s true so there must some explanation for all this evidence that seems to disprove it, we just haven’t found it yet”.

I would have you compare the current LDS doctrine with te original that Joseph Smith taught. why has it changed so much? because it was so wrong that it had to change to keep members? something was wrong. either Joseph smith or the current LDS church. either way mormonism is false doctrine.

 

[majick275]

BTW…you still haven’t explained why there are currently 15 ordained Apostles in the LDS church.

 

[Tmaque]

The Holy Spirit witnesses to me that it is true. I have read the Book of Mormon, and I know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost that it is true.

zerinus

I have read the BOM and prayed about it devoutly and intensely. I honestly wanted to believe it but the Holy Spirit told me it was totally false. How can we both be right? We can’t be.

 

[zerinus]

I have read the BOM and prayed about it devoutly and intensely. I honestly wanted to believe it but the Holy Spirit told me it was totally false. How can we both be right? We can’t be.

That is right, we can’t be. And guess what, I think I am right and you are wrong.

zerinus

 

[Unfinished]

That is right, we can’t be. And guess what, I think I am right and you are wrong.

zerinus

Nanny nanny boo boo I’m telling mom?

Feelings don’t make you any more correct than anyone else who has prayed about it - and so far no real evidence has been presented.

 

[majick275]

amgid/zerinus has already proven himself wrong with his own facts. He just wants to become a God so badly that he continues to believe despite anything God shows him. He is so deeply in the grasp of Satan that he even twists LDS doctrine to what he wishes to be true.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

My Friends,

I have posted a new thread called, “Your Notre Dame Mormon on Testimony”

Thanks for your questions and enjoy the discussion.

 

[flameburns623]

Like I said, you guys must really hate your wives (assuming you have one), or hate all women if you don’t; otherwise you wouldn’t talk like that. I think that the life of the mother is of far greater worth than the life of an unborn foetus. I would rather terminate a million unborn foetuses than allow it to cause any harm to my wife. I think it is deeply immoral and criminal to contemplate the alternative you are proposing. You obviously would rather put a metal spike through the head of your wife. Let me assure you that I wouldn’t.

zerinus

Foul play my man. While I am sympathetic to the argument that you feel you must make a choice in this situation I think you are missing the point. For Roman Catholics the choice is between two living human beings. Try to imagine being in a situation where you must choose between the life of your 16 year-old daughter or your wife. Between your 12 year-old or your wife. Your 6 year old child or your wife. Your six month-old infant or your wife. You see that in any or all of these situations, if you are any kind of person at all, you would not want to choose your child over your wife nor your wife over your child. Your preference might well be the same as that taken by the Roman Catholic Church: to do all in your power to save both lives and leave to God the decision of which life shall be lost and which saved. Catholicism simply extends that logic out to the very moment of conception, arguing that we are no less human as a conceptus than we are at 16 years old, 12 years old, six years old, or six months old.