Why doesn't God destroy the devil now?

[CatsAndDogs]

Sure!

According to Benedict XVI, what gives Christianity its distintively “European Character”?
Where did the Church Fathers come from?
When was the notion of “Peter and Paul at Rome” first reported and by whom?
What is “De-Hellenization”?
Where were the first nine Ecumenical Councils held?
During the first 800 years of the church, how many Church Fathers were from the West?
Who evangelized China and in what century?
What is a “stele”?

Q<

Please start another thread regarding this topic. I won’t be dealing with this sub-topic any further in this thread, as it appears to be off-topic.

It will be quite interesting to explore this with you, though I can guarantee you that you won’t like what I have to say about it!

 

[Q_Bee]

Please start another thread regarding this topic. I won’t be dealing with this sub-topic any further in this thread, as it appears to be off-topic.

It will be quite interesting to explore this with you, though I can guarantee you that you won’t like what I have to say about it!

It’s interesting that you are the one who asked for questions and then cut off conversation.

 

[Matariel]

You’ve presented nothingto sustantiate your position…

We were not discussing my position.

but went on attack again the person rather than the points in question.

How so? This is bothersome anyway; we’re getting off subject.

 

[Q_Bee]

We were not discussing my position.

Yes we were. You wrote:

“The Holy Scriptures support the Magisterium to a tee. You seem to be under the delusion that they are somehow conflicting (in which case you’d be unorthodox).”

You gave no basis from which you make the statement that scripture supports the magisterium to a tee. Then you went on attack by saying that I was under a delusion, which is an assumption on your part and rude as well.

Then you wrote:
“Wow. You have a very low view of our spiritual shepherds. If you don’t like the Church, and think she’s sexist, pompous, and overly-magisterial, then why do you continue to be a cafeteria Catholic? Why not just leave? No offense… but, seriously…”

So, more assumptions and nothing to go on that qualifies you as catholic or Christian in the way you present your staqtements. Cafeteria Catholic? You’d like to throw me out? Now that’s really quite an attitude from one who claims to be a ‘true disciple’… judge of all others!

How so? This is bothersome anyway; we’re getting off subject.

The problem is your angry diatribes and wholely unchristian attacks. I’m surprised that a Catholic site allows you to carry on in this manner.

 

[Matariel]

You gave no basis from which you make the statement that Scripture supports the Magisterium to a tee.

Show me where it doesn’t. I’ve looked, and I can’t find it.

Then you went on attack by saying that I was under a delusion, which is an assumption on your part and rude as well.

Attack?

It was a friendly bout of verbal sparring.

So, more assumptions and nothing to go on that qualifies you as catholic or Christian in the way you present your statements.

And you accuse me of attacking you? I never said you weren’t qualified as a Christian. As a matter of fact, I went out of my way to say “unorthodox” and not “heretical” because I didn’t want to offend you.

Cafeteria Catholic? You’d like to throw me out?

No, not at all. I don’t want to throw anyone out. I just wondered why you wanted to stay. If you believe in women “bishops” and “priestesses” why don’t you become Episcopalian? I’m just wondering, not insulting or telling you to leave the Church.

Heck, I’m not even Roman Catholic yet.

Now that’s really quite an attitude from one who claims to be a ‘true disciple’… judge of all others!

I never said I was a “true disciple” (although that sounds good). And I don’t judge anyone. Did I say you were going to Hell? No. That would be judging.

The problem is your angry diatribes…

I’m not angry. I’m happy.

…and wholely unchristian attacks.

I didn’t attack anyone. You’re quite exaggerating.

I’m surprised that a Catholic site allows you to carry on in this manner.

No need to blow this out of proportion.

 

[Q_Bee]

Attack?

It was a friendly bout of verbal sparring.

No, it was not friendly or Christlike. If this is your version of friendly, I’d hate to see what you do when you are really serious about attacking an enemy.

No, not at all. I don’t want to throw anyone out. I just wondered why you wanted to stay. If you believe in women “bishops” and “priestesses” why don’t you become Episcopalian? I’m just wondering, not insulting or telling you to leave the Church.

Heck, I’m not even Roman Catholic yet.

I suppose you call female doctors “doctoresses” and female attorneys “attorneyesses”. Why all the sexist rhetoric? You come across as a bigot.

Did you know that Episcopalians are catholics too? I wouldn’t particularly choose that denomination, not because they are less gender prejudiced, but because they are even less personal/relational than RCs. Maybe it’s rare, but I actually believe we’re supposed to be living the Great Commandment and that we are a ‘community’.

I never said I was a “true disciple” (although that sounds good). And I don’t judge anyone. Did I say you were going to Hell? No. That would be judging.

ROTFL. I think maybe you need a thesaurus.

I’m not angry. I’m happy.
I didn’t attack anyone. You’re quite exaggerating.

No need to blow this out of proportion.

I think it’s time someone mentioned what your posts sound like. Just imagine a conversation with Jesus. How would that go?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Please start another thread regarding this topic. I won’t be dealing with this sub-topic any further in this thread, as it appears to be off-topic.

It will be quite interesting to explore this with you, though I can guarantee you that you won’t like what I have to say about it!

It’s interesting that you are the one who asked for questions and then cut off conversation.

DavidV is right. What we’re on about IS quite off topic for this thread, so it’s a good idea to move our conversation to a new thread.

I don’t start threads, generally, unless HIGHLY motivated, which I very nearly never am, so if you want to continue you’ll have to start another thread so as to be nice to the folks in this thread.

See 'ya there! Just let me know where it is! Go raibh maith agat. (Thanks. )

 

[CatsAndDogs]

So, more assumptions and nothing to go on that qualifies you as catholic or Christian in the way you present your staqtements. Cafeteria Catholic? You’d like to throw me out? Now that’s really quite an attitude from one who claims to be a ‘true disciple’… judge of all others!

The problem is your angry diatribes and wholely unchristian attacks. I’m surprised that a Catholic site allows you to carry on in this manner.

“…catholic or Christian…”

Hmmmm… Capitalizing “Christian” and not capitalizing “Catholic”?

Sounds like a protestant to me. But then, it could be a mere “slip of the pinky”, I suppose?

I have yet to see an “unChristian attack” on The Qubster. Me thinks she complains TOO much! She gets to attack the Church and anyone calling her on it is an “attacking unChristian”?

Fascinating.

 

[Q_Bee]

DavidV is right. What we’re on about IS quite off topic for this thread, so it’s a good idea to move our conversation to a new thread.

(Thanks. )

It’s interesting that the ones who initiated an off-topic attack are now mandating that the topic be moved elsewhere and that the mandate to move comes in response to my posts only. Is this a standard shell game in this forum? Just curious as to why the dynamics seem to be following a pattern.

Do you suppose that discussion of Bill Maher and the ‘devil’ has exhausted itself?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

No, it was not friendly or Christlike. If this is your version of friendly, I’d hate to see what you do when you are really serious about attacking an enemy.

I suppose you call female doctors “doctoresses” and female attorneys “attorneyesses”. Why all the sexist rhetoric? You come across as a bigot.
**
Did you know that Episcopalians are catholics too?** I wouldn’t particularly choose that denomination, not because they are less gender prejudiced, but because they are even less personal/relational than RCs. Maybe it’s rare, but I actually believe we’re supposed to be living the Great Commandment and that we are a ‘community’.

ROTFL. I think maybe you need a thesaurus.

I think it’s time someone mentioned what your posts sound like. Just imagine a conversation with Jesus. How would that go?

“Did you know that Episcopalians are catholics too?”

Need we have any more proof regarding to whom we’re speaking?

The veil comes off… I think the overriding “religion” of our conversation partner here is most likely “Universalistic Super FEMINIST POWER Ranger”, which subserviates (is that a word?) any “cult” (“cult” used in the Catholic fashion) she happens to belong to.

But, who knows? This IS a perfect venue for people to masquerade as anything they darn well please, isn’t it?

But, what do you make of it when the “label” that people choose for themselves completely contradicts what they present themselves as? It makes the mind boggle.

BUT, to get back to on topic:

Why doesn’t God destroy the devil who would have us believe that one can be unCatholic and call one’s self Catholic NOW!?

Because such a situation holds ENORMOUS potential for sharpening up in people what “Catholic” means, and other things that actual Catholics NEED to learn regarding the subject of Catechesis and the stealth tactics of the demons.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

It’s interesting that the ones who initiated an off-topic attack are now mandating that the topic be moved elsewhere and that the mandate to move comes in response to my posts only. Is this a standard shell game in this forum? Just curious as to why the dynamics seem to be following a pattern.

Do you suppose that discussion of Bill Maher and the ‘devil’ has exhausted itself?

Are all feminists so “into” being victims?

Anyway, I did indeed start an off topic sub-thread, which I’m not really averse to doing (within bounds of course) as long as it doesn’t become annoying to the threads denizens. Once they speak up that I’m being off topic, it’s time to move the off topic sub-thread to it’s own thread, or simply drop that conversation.

So, if you’re interested in continuing the conversation, create the thread, as I’ve no interest in starting it.

 

[Q_Bee]

“Did you know that Episcopalians are catholics too?”

Need we have any more proof regarding to whom we’re speaking?

The veil comes off… I think the overriding “religion” of our conversation partner here is most likely “Universalistic Super FEMINIST POWER Ranger”, which subserviates (is that a word?) any “cult” (“cult” used in the Catholic fashion) she happens to belong to.

But, who knows? This IS a perfect venue for people to masquerade as anything they darn well please, isn’t it?

But, what do you make of it when the “label” that people choose for themselves completely contradicts what they present themselves as? It makes the mind boggle.

BUT, to get back to on topic:

Why doesn’t God destroy the devil who would have us believe that one can be unCatholic and call one’s self Catholic NOW!?

Because such a situation holds ENORMOUS potential for sharpening up in people what “Catholic” means, and other things that actual Catholics NEED to learn regarding the subject of Catechesis and the stealth tactics of the demons.

All these assumptions! It’s apparent that the senior members have an agenda to continue on an attack that has been, at their discretion, moved elsewhere. Where does all this paranoia come from? Is it intrincially “Catholic”? Perhaps there’s really a reason to be so concerned about a ‘devil’ when this sort of paranoia dominates one’s thinking.

It’s really interesting that the above quoted post goes through without a modicum of civility. This must be the Pit-bull Catholic League.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

All these assumptions! It’s apparent that the senior members have an agenda to continue on an attack that has been, at their discretion, moved elsewhere. Where does all this paranoia come from? Is it intrincially “Catholic”? Perhaps there’s really a reason to be so concerned about a ‘devil’ when this sort of paranoia dominates one’s thinking.

It’s really interesting that the above quoted post goes through without a modicum of civility. This must be the Pit-bull Catholic League.

Hilarious! <chortle, chortle, chortle…>

 

[Q_Bee]

"Why doesn’t God destroy the devil who would have us believe that one can be unCatholic and call one’s self Catholic NOW!?

“Catholic”: Universal, all embracing; someone who subscribes to the beliefs of the Universal Christian Church.

… And Jesus said unto them, “And whom do you say that I am?”
*They replied, “You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed.”
*And Jesus replied, “What?”

 

[CatsAndDogs]

“Catholic”: Universal, all embracing; someone who subscribes to the beliefs of the Universal Christian Church.

… And Jesus said unto them, “And whom do you say that I am?”
*They replied, “You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed.”

*And Jesus replied, “What?”

Just start your thread, and invite me over. Best to you.

 

[Fran65]

My understanding is that we can’t know the mind of God. As He is omnipotent He knows when, where and how the Devil will be destroyed and we know that it will occur from scripture and Church teaching.

My own reasoning is that God is giving us a chance to turn back towards Him and the true faith, which I know to be the Catholic Church.

If I am wrong then I welcome correction - I love learning about my faith.

God bless.

 

[Matariel]

No, it was not friendly or Christlike. If this is your version of friendly, I’d hate to see what you do when you are really serious about attacking an enemy.

Seriously, Q, take a deep breath-- I think you’re being too sensitive.

I suppose you call female doctors “doctoresses” and female attorneys “attorneyesses”. Why all the sexist rhetoric? You come across as a bigot.

“Priestess” is a regular English word. So is “waiteress” and actress". There is nothing sexist about using these English words. I hear women use them all the time?

Did you know that Episcopalians are catholics too?

I used to be Episcopalian. I seriously doubt you could call most of them Catholic, even in the general sense.

I wouldn’t particularly choose that denomination, not because they are less gender prejudiced, but because they are even less personal/relational than RCs. Maybe it’s rare, but I actually believe we’re supposed to be living the Great Commandment and that we are a ‘community’.

Never mind the four marks of the Church.

ROTFL. I think maybe you need a thesaurus.

How exactly did I judge you, anyway?

I think it’s time someone mentioned what your posts sound like. Just imagine a conversation with Jesus. How would that go?

I doubt Christ is as sensitive as you’re being, Q Bee.

 

[Q_Bee]

Seriously, Q, take a deep breath-- I think you’re being too sensitive.

It’s a Catholic value to consider the impact one has on others. If we are considering how evil influences come into the church or the world, we have to take into account the potential for such an impact to come from our carelessness.

“Priestess” is a regular English word. So is “waiteress” and actress". There is nothing sexist about using these English words. I hear women use them all the time?

So are the words “server”, “actor”, and “priest”. In the twenty-first century sexist conotations and labels are dropped when they reference the same job description. In all theological venues “priestess” only applies to the Cult of Isis and such false belief systems. And, obviously you must know that, but choose to present slurs because these venues still remain in a male domain in your mind. Our priests and bishops are able to make the transition to the 21st century; so should the rest of the Catholic world.

I used to be Episcopalian. I seriously doubt you could call most of them Catholic, even in the general sense.

Now you’re judging Episcopalians.

I doubt Christ is as sensitive as you’re being, Q Bee.

Here’s the thing… You’re judging how I’m ‘being’… this is a problem for you. Does deferring the rush to judgment present a problem that leaves you uncomfortable until you find a convenient pigeonhole to use?

How do you doubt Jesus’ sensativity when he was able to detect the needs of others without them even saying anything? What he’s asking of us is to awaken our world-deadened senses so that we are healers of the world and shepherds of His flock. Can battling between Catholic be what he’s called us to do? What do you think his reaction would be to some of the nasty assumption-laced diatribes that come out of the mouths (or keyboards) of those who claim to be his disciples? I think he’s saying, “Get behind me, Satan! How can anyone be so callous and at the same time think they represent or speak for me?”

IF Catholicism is Christ’s true discipleship, then how about witnessing to that here and now and in every post? I don’t see apologetics as separate as per ‘just talking about theories’ apart from the witness of our true intentions. Each and every act is a sacramental undertaking, otherwise, we are the demonic influence that makes people like Bill Maher satirize what he witnesses from so-called “believers”.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Can battling between Catholic be what he’s called us to do? What do you think his reaction would be to some of the nasty assumption-laced diatribes that come out of the mouths (or keyboards) of those who claim to be his disciples?

When you say that you can disagree with things that you can’t disagree with, you are the initiator of “battling” between yourself and those who know better, who point out your complicity in that self-contradiction.

YOU started any “battle” which you seem to see. We are merely pointing out how you are being self-contradictory. You are defending self-contradiction (untruth) against truth.

IF Catholicism is Christ’s true discipleship, then how about witnessing to that here and now and in every post? I don’t see apologetics as separate as per ‘just talking about theories’ apart from the witness of our true intentions. Each and every act is a sacramental undertaking, otherwise, we are the demonic influence that makes people like Bill Maher satirize what he witnesses from so-called “believers”.

So-called “believers” such as yourself, who quite obviously don’t believe what you have to believe to be able to call yourself a Catholic, are indeed the cause of people like Maher being able to mock the Church.

The Church allows such sins as yours because it would be an overreaction to “ban” you from the Church for such trivial nonsense as displaying yourself anonymously in a venue like this as you do.

You may not see your actions as initiating conflict, but they are. We’re simply trying to educate you.

Now, why DOESN’T God just make everything “perfect” right now by putting the devil in his place and whatever else is necessary to bring on the “new heavens and the new earth”?

(( Can we get back on topic, please? ))

 

[Q_Bee]

When you say that you can disagree with things that you can’t disagree with, you are the initiator of “battling” between yourself and those who know better, who point out your complicity in that self-contradiction.

Who are the “those who know better”?

YOU started any “battle” which you seem to see. We are merely pointing out how you are being self-contradictory. You are defending self-contradiction (untruth) against truth.

Who is the “we”?

So-called “believers” such as yourself, who quite obviously don’t believe what you have to believe to be able to call yourself a Catholic, are indeed the cause of people like Maher being able to mock the Church.

What is it you think I 'have to believe"?

The Church allows such sins as yours because it would be an overreaction to “ban” you from the Church for such trivial nonsense as displaying yourself anonymously in a venue like this as you do.

You may not see your actions as initiating conflict, but they are. We’re simply trying to educate you.

Again, what are the “sins” and who is the “we”?

(( Can we get back on topic, please? ))

This is the topic.