WATCH: Ted Cruz tells Iowa group that gays are waging ‘jihad’ against Christians

a reply to: Seamrog

I find it strange that you do not reply to some of my posts. Hmm I wonder why.

originally posted by: Seamrog
For Catholics, it is not nonsense - it is the bedrock of our faith. Jesus Christ founded and guides his Church. He is eternal - read unchangable. There is absolutely no flex in that.

...and the changes in doctrine? Sins become 'meh' at the drop of a funny hat?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Seamrog

The Catholic Church was okay with slavery..... until it wasn't. Did God change?

The Church never taught that slavery was good, or OK.

According to Paul, in a society in which slavery is accepted, the slave should be obedient to his master. Does this constitute to approval of slavery in your mind?

The Church has a remarkable record of renouncing slavery, and influencing civil laws regarding slavery.

And no, God did not change - He cannot change.

a reply to: Seamrog

Oh did you just sputter? It's ok.It's when you have a cognitive dissonance. Don't be afraid. You are smart.

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck


The Catholic Church has its failures. It has had its re-writes. It changes its tune. What did George Carlin say about those 'doing eternity for eating meat on a Friday'?

Of course it has - but in matters of faith, it has never changed. It cannot change, and it will never change.

No flex? Nonsense.

For Catholics, it is not nonsense - it is the bedrock of our faith. Jesus Christ founded and guides his Church. He is eternal - read unchangable. There is absolutely no flex in that.

No. Once again, we have little if any idea of how the early Christian church was organised. It started off Jewish, probably because Jesus was a Rabbi. Paul's decision to bring in Gentiles must have been deeply controversial and we know from some of his Letters that he was often in trouble with Jerusalem. That ended after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD and the Temple was utterly destroyed. We think that James died just before the siege, but we don't know. What we do know is that the Church owes more to Paul than anyone else at this time. The historicity of Jesus is a deeply controversial topic even now.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck


...and the changes in doctrine? Sins become 'meh' at the drop of a funny hat?

Well put your money where your mouth is.

Give us an example where the Church as proclaimed sins are now "meh."

Give us one, or as many as you like.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

we have little if any idea of how the early Christian church was organised.

You are factually, and remarkably incorrect. I'll leave it at that.

a reply to: Seamrog

You are factually, and remarkably incorrect. I'll leave it at that.

There you go again. Claiming that nobody here understands the history and Christian theology and doctrine.

You shut down the discussion by claiming that.

Why don't you go away if you dont like this?

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck


...and the changes in doctrine? Sins become 'meh' at the drop of a funny hat?

Well put your money where your mouth is.

Give us an example where the Church as proclaimed sins are now "meh."

Give us one, or as many as you like.

Adultery. Idolatry.

If we are counting the Seven Deadly Sins then: Greed. Sloth. Pride.

I am this point where I think he is a troll. I understand all about Poe's law but I am really tired.

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

we have little if any idea of how the early Christian church was organised.

You are factually, and remarkably incorrect. I'll leave it at that.

Says the person who in one post claims that their faith and everything in their Holy Book is gospel and absolute, while then claiming in another post that several of the things directly demanded in that book are not supported by those of that faith...

So which is it?

Do you follow every word of your holy book because it is the infallible instruction manual of your faith, or do you accept that several things in that book are morally reprehensible?

Please advise us on the following..

Do you believe that slavery is acceptable?
Do you believe that you should have the right to sell your daughter?
Do you believe that men should never cut the hair of their temples?
Do you believe that the eating of any product from a pig, or the handling of any pig products (including the American football) should be banned?
Do you believe that eating shellfish should be banned?
Do you believe that menstruating women should be locked away from society?
Do you believe that women should only listen to the opinions of men and never have the right to express their views?
Do you believe that no women should hold any position of power in society or the church?
Do you believe that crops of two kinds should never be sown in the same field?
Do you believe that clothes woven from more than one fabric should be banned?
Do you believe...

I could go on for a while, but I'll let you answer these ones before raising more entirely ignored "sins" from your precious instruction manual, you know, the one you claim is infallible while conveniently cherry picking from.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Seamrog

You are factually, and remarkably incorrect. I'll leave it at that.

There you go again. Claiming that nobody here understands the history and Christian theology and doctrine.

You shut down the discussion by claiming that.

Why don't you go away if you dont like this?

I'm largely ignoring you because there is not substance in what you're posting - you're being a mosquito. I directly responded to you a page or two ago and you glossed over it entirely. So be it.

Regarding the early Church - the poster is ENTIRELY incorrect.

There are volumes of works by the early Church Fathers - we have the manuscripts - they are there and they describe the history. You can find them as easily as I can find them for you, but that is not what you're after here.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
I am this point where I think he is a troll. I understand all about Poe's law but I am really tired.

Meh. He does the same stuff to me. I'm pretty sure he's not a troll. He just isn't a great arguer.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

Says the person who in one post claims that their faith and everything in their Holy Book is gospel and absolute, while then claiming in another post that several of the things directly demanded in that book are not supported by those of that faith...

This is a strawman argument. I never claimed that.

If you were interested in the post, you would see that I made it clear that one verse, or one gospel does NOT constitute the entirety of the faith.

Sacred Scripture as interpreted by the Church and presented as doctrine is infallible, and absolute.

THAT is what I'm saying.

a reply to: Seamrog

I'm largely ignoring you because there is not substance in what you're posting

No you are ignoring the rest of us. You are acting as if this thread is your soapbox.

BTW you didn't reply to my post about how uneducated Ted Cruz (you know? the topic in OP?) I am waiting for you to reply.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

He just isn't a great arguer.

It is almost impossible to 'argue' with someone who either cannot, or will not follow the argument.

Look at all these tangents, and look critically at where they are going.

It is childish banter.

a reply to: Seamrog

It is almost impossible to 'argue' with someone who either cannot, or will not follow the argument.

BINGO! I'll let you figure out the irony since you are smart (I hope so?)

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

He just isn't a great arguer.

It is almost impossible to 'argue' with someone who either cannot, or will not follow the argument.

Look at all these tangents, and look critically at where they are going.

It is childish banter.

Says the guy who has completely ignored every post directed to you from me that is on topic in this thread only to respond to the one post not directed at you from me that was a bit off topic. Good job proving my point.

originally posted by: Seamrog

No flex? Nonsense.

For Catholics, it is not nonsense - it is the bedrock of our faith. Jesus Christ founded and guides his Church. He is eternal - read unchangable. There is absolutely no flex in that.

Thank you for re-proving to me that Catholicism is absolute nonsense.

You just admitted that the bedrock of Catholic faith is based on a bunch of non-sequitors and dogmatic fallacies.

I also have to note the humour in you thinking that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ himself. Jesus appointed Peter as the foundation of the Catholic Church. Peter was not without fault, and if the Holy Spirit exists, it dropped the ball on a lot of ideologies that Jesus conveyed that Peter strictly ignored in order to make the Catholic Church go corporate.

-Pray in your bedroom with the door closed? Synagogues. Build synagogues everywhere.

-Give what you can offer to the church? Tax collectors are deep sinners? Demand tithes, collect via taxation.

-Faith in God is a vow of poverty? Gold scepters in a gold palace. Offer the poor "hope" by building churches that they can collect tithes from.

-Share the word with everyone? Write it in one language so that only those appointed can even read it.

-Accept your neighbours, understand their plight, listen, be mindful of their struggle? Condemn, chastise, murder, torture, publicly berate, encourage mob rule violence -- kill anyone who disagrees; apostasy cannot be tolerated.

Now, you can go ahead and say that the message has not changed, but it has and that is proven through the exercise of their disciplinary tactics alone, never mind the plethora of other things (Including that the Church upheld that the Bible not be translated into different languages for your brilliant self to be reading it at all). You cannot, with any semblance of intellectual honesty, say that the Catholic Church's message has not changed when it has gone from "slaughter the heathens, they know not the wrath of God and we will show it to them" to "please listen to these words, are you upset? God loves you. Please don't leave the Church.". That is a fundamental change, whether or not the followers are blind enough to ignore such a thing is irrelevant. That is a completely different interpretation of scripture and you'd have to be a damned fool not to see it so plainly.

It's actually disgusting to me that people who have access to so much information and education on this issue would make the claim that the Catholic Church cannot make a mistake in it's doctrine, because God would not allow it, when that very flawed doctrine is what caused people to be systematically slaughtered in its name for thousands of years. The doctrine of the Catholic Church had a set of rules, and most of them ended with you dying if you didn't listen.

Pope Gregory XI and Pope Martin V were easily two of the most vile, putrid, wretched pieces of human filth that I have ever heard of. To claim that these individuals were, at any time, the sole bastion of God's sound doctrine in his "one and only church" is evidence enough to me that those who continue to believe this nonsense are either being convinced by an emotional factor that runs deeper than their will to be honest, or that they are complete psychopaths themselves.

originally posted by: Seamrog

In the midst of the fractured 'modern' Christian church you describe, stands the One Catholic Church, as it has for two thousand years.

Like I said, your posts are confused by blind belief and apparent overwhelming arrogance.

You are not the only authority on Christianity and neither is your Church.

/shrug

Blather on.