the author of Babylon Mystery changed his mind....

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

No, you feel anger, not hatred. I don't hate you, but I am angry that so many people would rather make up lies about the Church than accept the truth.

Would you read this article?

Peter baptized WHOLE families, not children later.

Is anger towards people who proclaim Jesus as Lord and Savior a fruit of the Holy Spirit? And no, the prerequisite for baptism in the NT is always faith. The Babylonians baptized babies, that comes from their fishhead religion.

How can you so authoritatively claim such things after reading the article? Were the apostles in error for beginning the practice?

Zeal for the truth and anger against falsehood can be a gift. Making up lies and slander is also incorrect, something jjimdewey and you do not mind doing to the Catholic Church.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

reply to post by 547000


Again, this shows your inability to discuss, as well as a failure to look at your own behavior or recognize your own arrogant and self-righteous zeal.
Very Christ-like little "assault and battery" there.

Also excessively immature. But that's what I expected. Great case in point.

You know what? If you're right, you're right. But you are everything that Christ would not approve of. He said so.
And if you are a member of that church, you "represent" for it, and your behavior as a member and representative assures me that I want
NO
PART
OF
IT.

But then, the priests and bishops are also dismal "representatives". If you wanna hang out with them, go for it.
If I have to become a class-A jerk to "fit in," well, no thanks. You're the kind they prey upon. I am not.

Multiple times I asked about the miracles and only when you had some way to swipe you replied, ignoring the substance in my post. What does that say about you? What is your purpose in this thread other than to zealously declare that no one has the truth and traditional religion is wrong?

Only when I had some way to swipe at it? I happen to have been busy doing other things, not digging up a "swipe". I didn't ignore the substance, I answered you. That says about me that I know things you don't know and I know that I don't have all the answers.
My purpose on this thread is to discuss the topic, not agree with Catholics.

Why is colbe's "zealous declaration" more legitimate than mine, or sacgamer's, or jmdewey's, or NuT's opinions?

My zealous declaration is this:

The Catholic church brainwashes and abuses and exploits and lies to parishioners, thwart the exposure of the truth, manipulated the Word by deciding what to leave in and what to leave out, launder money, have their mitts in politics BIG time (and ALWAYS HAVE), refuse to acknowledge women as worthy, AND HAVE KILLED THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.
Got it?
It just so happens that I might be doing you a HUGE favor to dispell the hellfire and brimstone fear that your buddies dangle over your head like an anvil, and free you from a future of being swallowed alive by a monstrosity that calls itself "Holy".
But if that's what you want, go ahead. All you perfect Catholics will enjoy your heaven much better without anyone else there. I'd rather hang with the enlightened souls.

Oh, and btw, you're acting like a pissed off kid. Oh wait! That's what you are!
Never mind then. You wouldn't understand.

Originally posted by 547000
How can you so authoritatively claim such things after reading the article? Were the apostles in error for beginning the practice?

Zeal for the truth and anger against falsehood can be a gift. Making up lies and slander is also incorrect, something jjimdewey and you do not mind doing to the Catholic Church.

What have I said about the Catholic Church that isn't true? I said I had a couple misconceptions, I. E. your Christology compared to the Christology of protestants, but you and Colbe have clarified that already so I'm no longer confused there.

So help me out here. How should we respond when we're lied about and slandered?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe

 

Wow, I just noticed what you did up there. You twisted scripture. That verse doesn't say no one can interpret scripture, it says 'no PROPHECY of scripture is of private interpretation."

Did you remember Jesus saying this:

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." ~ John 16:13

See, with your reply you prove "Private Judgment is heresy." God gave the Church who gave you your Bible the authority to interpret it.

Peter is talking about all of Scripture, you've twisted it. Read the
footnote from the first English Bible, the translation of the first Bible,
St. Jerome's Vulgate.

Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. [2 Peter 1:20] [Latin]

[20] No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation: This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise.

On John 16:13, this was Our Lord's last discourse to His disciples, some
of them were His Apostles. He was talking to them. God the Holy Spirit guided the Apostles and we have their teachings unchanged to this day. The RCC stands alone, she remains true to Apostolic teachings.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by 547000

 

Again, this shows your inability to discuss, as well as a failure to look at your own behavior or recognize your own arrogant and self-righteous zeal.
Very Christ-like little "assault and battery" there.

Also excessively immature. But that's what I expected. Great case in point.

You know what? If you're right, you're right. But you are everything that Christ would not approve of. He said so.
And if you are a member of that church, you "represent" for it, and your behavior as a member and representative assures me that I want
NO
PART
OF
IT.

But then, the priests and bishops are also dismal "representatives". If you wanna hang out with them, go for it.
If I have to become a class-A jerk to "fit in," well, no thanks. You're the kind they prey upon. I am not.

Multiple times I asked about the miracles and only when you had some way to swipe you replied, ignoring the substance in my post. What does that say about you? What is your purpose in this thread other than to zealously declare that no one has the truth and traditional religion is wrong?

Only when I had some way to swipe at it? I happen to have been busy doing other things, not digging up a "swipe". I didn't ignore the substance, I answered you. That says about me that I know things you don't know and I know that I don't have all the answers.
My purpose on this thread is to discuss the topic, not agree with Catholics.
Why is colbe's "zealous declaration" more legitimate than mine, or sacgamer's, or jmdewey's, or NuT's opinions?

My zealous declaration is this:

The Catholic church brainwashes and abuses and exploits and lies to parishioners, thwart the exposure of the truth, manipulated the Word by deciding what to leave in and what to leave out, launder money, have their mitts in politics BIG time (and ALWAYS HAVE), refuse to acknowledge women as worthy, AND HAVE KILLED THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.
Got it?
It just so happens that I might be doing you a HUGE favor to dispell the hellfire and brimstone fear that your buddies dangle over your head like an anvil, and free you from a future of being swallowed alive by a monstrosity that calls itself "Holy".
But if that's what you want, go ahead. All you perfect Catholics will enjoy your heaven much better without anyone else there. I'd rather hang with the enlightened souls.

Oh, and btw, you're acting like a pissed off kid. Oh wait! That's what you are!
Never mind then. You wouldn't understand.

edit on 19-3-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

Colbe's "zelous declaration" isn't mine friend, it's Christ's Truth.

wildtimes, Porn is evil, a grave sin. Come to the good side, you're no better than those who fall to the sin of pornography. Instead, you say look at the Christians who have and mock them (in another thread to mock Santorum's stand on pornography). Non-Christians have no help, many more of them have a Porn addiction.

Your constant arguing with Catholics, I hope you change. We'll see
at the Great Warning.

reply to post by colbe

Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. [2 Peter 1:20] [Latin]

2 Peter is a forgery not written by Peter himself but someone long after the real Peter was dead.
This bit about authority is a characteristic of books written after the establishment of a professional class of church clerics who lorded over the populace.(something not allowed by the Apostles when they were alive)

reply to post by colbe

Instead, you say look at the Christians who have and mock them (in another thread to mock Santorum's stand on pornography). Non-Christians have no help, many more of them have a Porn addiction.

Your constant arguing with Catholics, I hope you change. We'll see

What?!!

What thread are you talking about?
I remember posting in a thread that Santorum would be my last choice....I don't discuss porn ever. I don't care about it, look at it, or pay attention to it except inasmuch as children are exploited and women also are exploited, and I would NEVER use it as an example of anything religious.
I remember saying "please, no" about another member saying Santorum would win Kansas.

Catholics are constantly attacking me, and I defend myself and my beliefs. You folks (Catholics), in my opinion, are deluded, and taking part in a religion that has a proven history of abomination, let alone ongoing exposure of CURRENT atrocities.

I just don't get how you can want to be part of an organization that has such an abysmal past of murder, torture, pdophilia, misogyny, forgery, money laundering, fake "miracles" (yep, fake), greed, oppression, control, pressure, and condemnation.
How is that, how are ANY of those, good things?

How can you still want to be part of that?
Why are you trying to recruit people to a murdering, lying, greedy, woman-hating, abusive organization that has manipulated people for more than 1700 years into giving them money and power and believing their heresies?

reply to post by colbe


What about getting a petition going to start back up the Inquisitions? I really think you'd enjoy purging us protestants of our sins and heresies against the church and her holiness right?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Oh no!!
Ack!
Wait! I'm a Protestant, but you're just an unaffiliated, so you'll be okay, but....yeah, I can't undo my baptism or confirmation in the Church (of England)......but, I'm ALSO someone who has studied and been initiated as a Wiccan!!

Wow, thanks a lot.....

Okay, colbe and 547000,
*puts on 'mom-voice*
Take a breath, both of you!!

You two are taking this stuff WAY too seriously. This is an entertainment and discovery site. You had an opportunity to "feel it out" or "try it on" before you became members.

Having said that, it can ALSO be a very EDUCATIONAL site! If you are not open to discussion, why do you bother? What is your motive? I know that you feel you are being "mocked" and everyone else is being "disrespectful". I think you miss the point that this forum is set aside for discussion of "Faith, Religion, and Theology."

If you can't stand the heat, why come into the kitchen?

I have never once suggested that either of you, or any other Catholic or Muslim or Wiccan or Protestant or Agnostic or Buddhist or Hindu or Fundie or..... who-have-you..... is going to burn in hell.

But you're not the ones who are hostile?

Guys, , I appreciate your passion and devotion, and also the idea that you're trying to help. I believe you, that you're trying to help. I really do.

reply to post by wildtimes

If you can't stand the heat, why come into the kitchen?

LOL,

"Ni@@as is jealous, but really I could care less,
I'm in Hell's Kitchen with an apron and a hairnet.
Devil on my shoulder, the Lord is my witness,
So on my Libra scale, I'm weighing sins and forgiveness.
What goes around comes around like a hoola hoop.
Karma is a bitch? Well just make sure that bitch is beautiful.
Life on the edge, I'm dangling my feet,
I tried to pay attention but attention paid me!
Haters can't see me: nose-bleed seats,
And today I went shopping and talk is still cheap!"

- Lil Wayne

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You are a liar jm. The portion you DID quote from wiki is the first sentence. SHAME ON YOU!

The post you linked to earlier had no Wikipedia quotes in it.
Your second attempt linked to a post that did have a Wikipedia post.
If anyone is lying, it is you, knowing that you linked to the wrong post.
My using a quote from Wikipedia is not lying.
You are not making sense or adding to the thread but are just attempting to derail the thread to satisfy your lust for ego fulfillment at other's expense.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You're not a child, in fact you're 20 years older than me at least.

You know exactly what post I was referring to, the only one on the previous page where you linked Wiki. I don't worry too much about making sure I hit "reply" to the specific quote itself. Some people do that, but sometimes it's easier to find the nearest post by a person and hit "reply" on that one.

I'll make sure from now on I hit the "reply" button on the specific quote itself instead of just any post with your name on it. I wouldn't want you to get completely confused again like you did. But yeah, grow up, you know which post you made with Wiki included in it on the previous page.

I don't have a babysitter's license, and I'm not too good with changing diapers.

reply to post by 547000

How can you so authoritatively claim such things after reading the article?

Dude, by some estimations from 18 up to 40 million Christians were murdered by the RCC in it's past, and a majority of those were either for not wanting to baptize babies, or for trying to give the Word of God to the common man.

40 million. Do you realize how big that number is? lets say you put them all in a single file line 4 persons wide, and they began marching past you. it would take 4 years and 4 months for the line to finally pass your vantage point.

This makes so much sense now:

"And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration."

What about the St. Bart's Day massacre of French Christians?? 75,000 in a SINGLE DAY!!!!!!

That's more than all the Jewish authorities persecutions and the persecutions by the Roman emperors COMBINED in almost 400 years of desperately trying!

When news of the Massacre reached the Vatican there was jubilation! Cannons roared­bells rung ­ and a special commemorative medal was struck­to honor the occasion! The Pope commissioned Italian artist Vasari to paint a mural of the Massacre ­ which still hangs in the Vatican!

HERE is the medal that was made by Emperor Gregory XIII (1572-1585) to commemorate the event, where their (RCC) own "numbers" claimed it was 100,000 French Christians murdered.


For what?? Teaching that there isn't a reference to babies being baptized in the Bible??? WTF dude?? Where in Paul's teachings on "church disciple" did it include MURDER AND TORTURE???



August 24, 1572

Please show where Jesus instructed to murder and torture heretics please. PLEASE?? Usually in Biblical hermeneutics it takes three verses from scripture to support any major doctrine, I'm asking for JUST ONE.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You know exactly what post I was referring to . . .

You assumed so earlier.
I pointed out that you were mistaken.
You are a false prophet in that you insist that you know my thoughts.
You are also assuming the position of Satan by throwing accusations against me.
I just explained it in my last post and I have no intention of repeating myself.
Go over my earlier post until you understand it.

You just put on a demonstration of your lack of logic, and your tendency to jump to conclusions without evidence, and to ascribe to others bad intentions, over the slightly cryptic "PO" post, so allow the benefit of the doubt in view of your own failure at omniscience.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Nope, I had arrows pointing to the top of the page. Now, I've already freely admitted that may have been confusing for you, I apologized, but the goof up was yours. besides that, you completely MISSED the point, as usual. It wasn't that you did or didn't have wiki in a certain post, it's that you linked it in ANY post. Your hypocrisy doesn't vanish because I hit reply to the incorrect post.

You've already said wiki isn't a "reliable" source for information. Well, I guess only when it shows you are wrong.

Stop straining for gnats, you're chocking to death on the camels.

You just put on a demonstration of your lack of logic, and your tendency to jump to conclusions without evidence, and to ascribe to others bad intentions, over the slightly cryptic "PO" post, so allow the benefit of the doubt in view of your own failure at omniscience.

Lookie here Pot, you're black too! At least you're consistent jm, you never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Now piss off, I don't need any more puppies, I have 2 dogs already. Go find another Christian to pester, berate and condemn to the pits of Hell.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Nope, I had arrows pointing to the top of the page.

If you expect people to know what those mean, then you should include a legend.
Such as:
1^ = directly above, 2^'s = a little higher, 3^'s = top of page.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Nope, I had arrows pointing to the top of the page.

If you expect people to know what those mean, then you should include a legend. Such as, 1 = directly above, 2 = a little higher, 3 = top of page.

You know, I didn't think you'd be confused as to which post of yours I was referring to, you only had one on that page where you linked Wiki.

Next time I'm be MUCH more careful. I gave you too much credit, I've repented from that already.