The Water Cooler
See other The Water Cooler Articles
Title: Christian Peace
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Feb 13, 2018
Author: Vicomte13
Post Date: 2018-02-13 19:05:02 by Vicomte13
Keywords: None
Views: 12376
Comments: 101
It's been a rough couple of days around here. Several of us, myself included, have not behaved in a manner at all befitting of a follower of Jesus. I propose that we cut that off and come back together in peace. We worship the same God and follow the same Lord. And he admonished us to love each other. Having gone in the other direction and riled ourselves up with hatred, what do we have to show for it? Nothing good. So lets cut our losses and get back in line with our leader, who is in heaven. For my part, I am sorry for all of the harsh words. I was hurt and angry, and lashing out, trying to inflict hurt and spread around the hate. We all know this is bad. I'm sorry I did it, and I will work much harder to keep my hot blood in check in the future. If I hurt any of you, I'm sorry. VxH, let's make peace. Too Conservative, I'm sorry I swore at you. A K A Stone - it's your site, and I spread crap all over the place out of wrath. I am sorry, and I will try to not do that ever again. Our interpretations of Christianity are different, but do we disagree that we are not supposed to carry on like this? Surely we all do. So let's all repent of it, change a different direction, turn the other cheek, forgive and forget, and move on in a more positive direction. That's what I will try to do.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Vicomte13 (#0)
There are certain topics that are never going to lead to any peaceful discussion. Ecumenical dialogue is overrated. It is exceedingly rare that it accomplishes anything.
Ecumenical dialogue is overrated. It is exceedingly rare that it accomplishes anything. That may be so, but it doesn't excuse Christian people treating each other like crap.
You know what? Sometimes people just need to avoid certain topics known to cause problems. This is true of couples, of parents and children, of friends. And it is just as true of Christians, particularly those who have known longstanding doctrinal disagreements. Expecting anything else is just naive. Wisdom is often knowing not to keep putting your foot down on landmines when you know they are there.
But how did this start? With a discussion of religion? Not really - with a discussion of "faggots".
As usual, these threads just wander. As you know well. Quite often, you can't get a single post on topic. buckeroo isn't too wrong to call it a chat channel. Sometimes I wonder if posters have even read a single sentence of the article. But maybe I'm grumpy.
Pope Francis sends hate letter to Assad https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/12/pope-francis-appeals-to-bashar-al-assad-syria That Argentine asshole Francis needs to STFU on matters that are NOT faith or doctrine! He's spreading hate and discord worldwide with his crackpot communist personal agenda. Francis needs to move into the Vatican tool shed, and let Pope Benny 16 run the church. He's just encouraging the Hillary/Trump neocons (prots) to kill whitey, the pinchy gringo infidel. Stop the hate, dump Francis the war mongering neocon k0oK!
I'm not sure why but you made me laugh.
I really wish the clergy would stop wearing those dresses. If they wore sandals and monastic robes with cowls it wouldn’t bother me so much, but those.dress-like cassocks look smarmy and weird and impractical, like they’re trying to be pretty. And black and red, like the caricatures of the Devil. Why not white, or brown, or grey, even green. And the Swiss Guard! Why those gaudy pantaloons and hats. It’s cartoonish, and foppish. I don’t like any of it.
Imagine how long it takes them to unbutton those 40-50 buttons if they want to take a dump. Why put buttons only 2" apart? Who does that? But maybe the buttons are fake and the whole front seam is just a big Velcro strip. I don't like the gaudy crucifixes either. Apparently, as you work your way up the hierarchy, you get awarded bigger and classier crucifixes. But they just aren't attractive. They send a bad message, at least to non-Catholics. I think those little red beanies are an appropriation of the Jewish yarmulkes. They have other hat styles they could wear. And all those phony overpriced shawls and other old-lady gear just seem so stale. And the colors are unattractive, like a scarlet-headed blackbird. Only not as nice. The bird has more dignity. Princes of the church. Piffle. And the Swiss Guard just could not look gayer. It's a tourist display I guess, like the guards at Buckingham Palace.
Love ya Bro and thanks for this thread. If I have ever offended you in any way I apologize and seek forgiveness. God Bless.
And almost on cue.
God Bless. Thank you. Everybody here needs to try harder at this, and we would all enjoy the place more.
And the Swiss Guard! Why those gaudy pantaloons and hats. It’s cartoonish, and foppish. I don’t like any of it. " Agree !!! Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt "If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)
Vicomte13 posted No you need to try harder at this. You were getting your ass kicked up and down the aisle because you were ignoring scripture. Adding to scripture. Making stuff up saying Mary wasn't a sinner. Yes that is some Catholic bullshit. I recall another time you were getting your ass kicked. You pulled this same stunt. Same type of thread. Let's all get along. Thing is I don't want to go along with bullshit to get along. That doesn't mean ai I don't like you or hate you. It means some of your beliefs are out there and not based on scripture. Then someone calls you on it because it isn't in the Bible because it is some made up bullshit. Then you get all mad about it and start saying we aren't christians. I was very careful to say that I don't think Catholics who are doctrinelky in errror that they could still be saved if they actually believed that Jesussus was the saviour. So we don't all need to do better. That is some liberal group think bullshit.
Here is the link to the thread I mentioned. https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=52835&Disp=183#C183
Ok. Well, I tried. I was not "getting my ass kicked" or anything like it. There was a thread about gays, and VxH showed up and decided to bring my father's death from AIDS, as if to make a point. This was very nasty business, but it did not "kick my ass", it made me properly angry. What I wrote here is objectively true. Christian people should not be talking to each other the way that they do here. If people are to discuss Scripture, God, things spiritual, they should do so in a manner that respects the subject matter. You don't. Too Conservative does not. I try to. I am not going to debate Scripture with you on this thread. That was not the point. The point was to remind everybody that we are supposed to live within boundaries and keep a guard on our mouths. You don't want to do so, indeed, you see weakness in doing what Christ said to do. So let that be upon your head. It has never here been a matter of getting my ass kicked intellectually. Truth is, none of you ever actually engage with the ideas I present. What you do is start to rant and get nastier and meaner, hurling accusations. You, and Too Conservative, and VxH, take the conversation in a direction that forces me to choose to be uncivil and coarse - which sometimes I do, but I'm not good at it and am unwilling to keep at - or to back away and cease the discussion. Your message just told me that you don't care about the limits that Christians are supposed to place on their mouths, that you're not going to, that you don't read well, that you're not honest, and that you're going to go right on being a nasty jerk, that that's what this site is for - take it or leave it. I choose to leave it. Good bye. Close my account.
Sorry to hear that you're leaving and hope that you'll reconsider and come back after a while. There's a few nasty prots here who are filled with hate against Catholics. Fred Mertz is banned again, a Catholic who cracked his head on the ice in the church parking lot attending Holy Mass. I don't know if there are any practicing Catholics left here now? If a man acts in a religious way, an ethical way, then he’s really a religious man—and it doesn’t have a lot to do with how often he gets inside a church. And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.” I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don’t hurt anyone else in the process.
You can't be told you are wrong. You're delusional. Close your own account by not signing in.
You are the one who said you wanted to murder right wingers and that would solve the world's problems. I treated you fairly so quit spewing bullshit.
You ignored this part.
You should get an Oscar for this dramatic little performance. It was you who claimed angelic ancestry on that thread, starting in #39. It was you who claimed that the Father had carnal organs and had sex with Mary in your #84: And of course the Father begat Jesus via Mary. Then, after much protestation, I reviewed some of your other heresies regarding whether God is the author of evil and whether Jesus was an XX male (hermaphrodite or close to it) in my #184, claims that you made in just since September. You can't spout a lot of known ancient heresies (sprinkling in a few you made up for yourself) and not expect Christians with orthodox views to quietly assent to it or agree with you. This is even more true when your own church of Rome does not hold any of these positions and would, if the point were forced, condemn your views on these matters. So you can stomp off, all hurt and self-righteous. But the truth is that you picked a fight with orthodox Christian belief as it has been known since ancient times and you got your ass kicked. And you think that's unfair. I didn't and don't particularly want you to leave LF. But if you do, it's on you, bub. You wanted dialogue. You got it. And these were all topics you knew in advance were pure trouble and likely to start fights. Yet you persisted. Then you want to play the wounded woman and flee. Well, fine. But what I have described in this post is a very fair summary of what you did. It's on you, not on us, if you choose to leave after making an ass of yourself.
Indeed this is true and it's something I strive for. Though you and I disagree on some academic points, as well as, of course theology in general, you've shown before and again here your heart is good, and in my book (though perhaps not everyone's), that is the important thing. Whether you do depart for good now or perhaps may return at some point, I wish you the absolute best.
We Catholics call that Immaculate Conception, it's NOT boning Mary! It's no wonder that you're prohibited from having statutes of Mary the Blessed Virgin.
One "benefit", or perhaps virtue of what I believe is that academics do not have any bearing on our spirituality. As I understand things, it doesn't matter if you believe in evolution or creationism, or a literal interpretation of the Bible or not, or even if you believe the Bible at all, as it's all just academic head knowledge and God simply doesn't care about that. Head knowledge -- the contents of our physical brains -- dies with the human body, afterall, and our human bodies are not important. We are Sons of God because we are souls. What is important is what we do with what we believe, and whether we are fostering and growing our spiritual virtues and quashing our vices, which nearly always has to do with how we interact with others. That is our journey and purpose on earth, and knowing that gives me, at least, good reason to simply brush aside all theological discussion as, though interesting, still moot, in the event there is beneficial reason to do so. And the simple benefit is that I can wish all of you the absolute best no matter how much you disagree with me, with no compulsion to hurl insults or respond in kind should I receive them. I see all of us as having our individual paths to walk on, though never alone, and all of us must, or should, do whatever we are called to do, and all of us will be well in the end.
The word 'begat' has specific meaning in scripture. It refers to men having carnal relations with a woman to produce an heir (or male offspring). Scripture never says that the Father begat Jesus. Yet the vast majority of major Jewish personages in the Bible are listed by lineage as having been 'begat'. But not Jesus. So are you also on-board with the whole God-has-a-penis-and-screwed-Mary doctrine that Vic seemed to be offering up? Yes or no? Why don't you go try to peddle that to the local church of Rome where you live and see what the result is. About the same reception as you'll get when you try to say the same thing here. I know the Catholics where I live would never say such things. But they are quite conservative Catholics.
Why don't you go try to peddle that to the local church of Rome where you live I said "it's NOT boning Mary", so no I'm not on-board with your fantasy that God has a penis. Go peddle that shuck 'n jive at your local cults crop circle. Vic never said the crap you're making up.
He did say it. I quoted it. You can verify that he wrote it. Or are you going to try to argue, like a Xlinton, that "it depends on the meaning of the word 'begat'"? You can't have your cake and eat it too. You don't get to make up heretical nonsense entirely outside the teachings of orthodox Christianity for 2,000 years and still claim to represent mainstream beliefs.
We Catholics call that Immaculate Conception, it's NOT boning Mary! It's no wonder that you're prohibited from having statutes of Mary the Blessed Virgin. Are you sure you passed your catechism? I thought this doctrine was drilled into every Catholic child. Wiki: The Immaculate Conception is commonly confused with the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Jesus' birth is covered by the Doctrine of Incarnation, while the Immaculate Conception deals with the conception of Mary, not that of her son. Although the belief that Mary was sinless, or conceived without original sin, has been widely held since Late Antiquity, the doctrine was not dogmatically defined until 1854, by Pope Pius IX in his papal bull Ineffabilis Deus.[2] The Catholic Church celebrates the Feast of the Immaculate Conception on December 8; in many Catholic countries, it is a holy day of obligation or patronal feast, and in some a national public holiday. Without exception, the church of Rome insists that the Immaculate Conception was that of Mary, not of Jesus. If you believe otherwise, try to find any authoritative Catholic source that says so. You could start with, for instance, Catholic.com, a very staid Roman source: Maybe you should write them some emails to correct their theological errors. I'm sure they'd like to hear from you. So I'm kinda wondering just how devoutly Catholic you can possibly be if some Prot retard like me knows fundamental Roman doctrine from the catechism better than you seem to.
You have adopted to being an aggressive asshole. What are you doing?
So I'm kinda wondering just how devoutly Catholic you can possibly be No I'm not sure, that was a long time ago. Anyway you can't flunk out of being baptized a Catholic. I haven't been excommunicated yet that I know of, so I'm still in. I never made any claims to be devoutly Catholic, just a regular old school lapsed Catholic. The most popular type by far. If you expect me to be all new wave Catholic, and read all of Francis' drivel you can just forget that notion, no way! Fred Mertz is probably all up to date on the latest Francis propaganda in his church bulletin.
Sure you can... Henry VIII & Martin Luther are probably the most famous, but a more complete list of historical figures who flunked-out can be found here.
As I documented, the doctrine of Immaculate Conception was infallibly dictated by the pope in 1854. And it is part of catechism. I wouldn't state it as any kind of expert but I don't think you can be considered a real Roman Catholic without espousing it. It's not just a matter of conscience where you can choose to believe it or not. The pope says that you must believe it without exception.
Alright then, believe whatever you like, but I also confirmed that I was a Catholic Christian, and was slapped by a Bishop. The confirmation name that I chose is John. I'm not going to try to defend Catholicism against your straw-man "God's penis". Show me a quote by Vic talking about God's johnson. Vic is a weirdo, but you've got him beat!
Exactly what do you think 'begat' means? And Vic did say that God begat Jesus in the same context with the fallen angels begetting the Nephalim (whose descendants are the Basque, people like him). Begat is begat. Deal with it.
As for the doctrine of Immaculate Conception itself, perhaps you'll accept the official Catechism. Chesapeake, Va. (Catholic Online) - On this Feast of the Immaculate Conception, Catholic Online presents these texts of explanation and instruction on this beautiful doctrine from the Catechism of the Catholic Church so that our readers may come understand its mystery more fully: Born of the Virgin Mary 487 What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ. Mary's predestination 488 "God sent forth his Son", but to prepare a body for him,125 he wanted the free co-operation of a creature. For this, from all eternity God chose for the mother of his Son a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, "a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary":126 The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in the coming of death, so also should a woman contribute to the coming of life.127 489 Throughout the Old Covenant the mission of many holy women prepared for that of Mary. At the very beginning there was Eve; despite her disobedience, she receives the promise of a posterity that will be victorious over the evil one, as well as the promise that she will be the mother of all the living.128 By virtue of this promise, Sarah conceives a son in spite of her old age.129 Against all human expectation God chooses those who were considered powerless and weak to show forth his faithfulness to his promises: Hannah, the mother of Samuel; Deborah; Ruth; Judith and Esther; and many other women. 130 Mary "stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from him. After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion, and the new plan of salvation is established."131 The Immaculate Conception 490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace. 491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135 492 The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son".136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".137 493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long. "Let it be done to me according to your word. . ." 494 At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:140 As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary "the Mother of the living" and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary."143 ***** Endnotes 125 Gal 4:4; Heb 10:5. The only really surprising thing in there to me was that it is an extremely rare instance of any acknowledgment of predestination by the Roman Catholic establishment. Otherwise, they loathe the concept. And Luther and Calvin embraced it. Especially Calvin. At any rate, I can't find any statement that a Catholic is refused communion if they dissent from the doctrine of Immaculate Conception even if the pope did proumulgate the doctrine infallibly in 1846. There are other doctrines for which there is no dissent allowed at all, such as those enumerated at the Council of Trent in 1546 where they list one heresy after the next (mostly Protestant doctrines) and pronounce anathema on anyone, Catholic or Protestant, who does not adhere to the official doctrines of the Catholic church. This 1546 Council is where the catechism itself came from, it was a direct result of the Council. Good anecdote. I didn't know about it. I assume it disappeared after Vatican II. I read this account from 2012: Slapped By A Bishop
There ya go. I was wrong about the possibility of sin before the virgin birth, there was none, ever. As an earlier post of yours said, lots of people confuse the Immaculate Conception (Mary's birth) with the Virgin birth of Jesus. Yes, I'm guilty of getting them mixed up. I do wonder what they mean by PERSONAL sin? Are there group sins, or what? Sounds sort of like a loophole, lawyer speak. Immaculate Conception says that there was no original sin.
Are you peddling the crap that Mary never sinned? Why did she call Jesus her saviour?
Like many doctrines, it has a sugary coating. We like to think that Mary was an utterly pure being from the moment of her conception. It's poetic and bears a resemblance to similar doctrines found in other ancient religions such as in Egypt. The problem becomes that if your mother is a virgin, created sinless from the moment of conception, she really cannot need a savior. And she is then not a human being. And therefore Jesus himself was not a real human being. You start to get into various questions about whether they have one body and two spirits or whether they are divine beings who only appear to be human beings. The key point is: if Mary was a magical and godlike being herself, then Jesus was too. Yet scripture and conventional doctrine insist that Jesus was both fully man and fully divine. Whenever you lessen the humanity of Jesus by emphasizing his godlike attributes, you make Him less and less a human being and He become God in disguise, an actor on a stage in a repertoire piece whose outcome is entirely predetermined. And yet, scripture paints no such picture of Him. It may be that I cannot describe adequately why the humanity of Jesus was His primary quality, more so than His divinity. I recall a great brief sermon by Charles Spurgeon who preached on this quite passionately back in the day: Methinks, however, there is a sweeter thought than this in the name, Son of man. It seems to me that Christ loved manhood so much, that He always desired to honor it; and since it is a high honor, and indeed the greatest dignity of manhood, that Jesus Christ was the Son of man, He is wont to display this name, that He may, as it were, put rich stars upon the breast of manhood, and put a crown upon its head. Son of man — whenever He said that word He seemed to put a halo round the head of Adam’s children. Yet there is perhaps a more lovely thought still. Jesus Christ called Himself the Son of man, because He loved to be a man. It was a great stoop for Him to come from heaven and to be incarnate. It was a mighty stoop of condescension when He left the harps of angels and the songs of cherubims to mingle with the vulgar herd of His own creatures. But condescension though it was, He loved it. You will remember that when He became incarnate He did not become so in the dark. When He bringeth forth the only begotten into the world, He saith, “Let all the angels of God worship Him.” It was told in heaven; it was not done as a dark secret which Jesus Christ would do in the night that none might know it; but all the angels of God were brought to witness the advent of a Savior a span long, sleeping upon a Virgin’s breast, and lying in a manger. And ever afterwards, and even now, he never blushed to confess that He was man; never looked back upon His incarnation with the slightest regret; but always regarded it with a joyous recollection, thinking Himself thrice happy that He had ever become the Son of man. All hail, thou blessed Jesus! we know how much Thou lovest our race; we can well understand the greatness of Thy mercy towards Thy chosen ones, inasmuch as Thou art evermore using the sweet name which acknowledges that they are bone of Thy bone and flesh of Thy flesh, and Thou art one of them, a brother and a near kinsman. I will tell you the people whom Christ will save — they are those who are lost to themselves. Just imagine a ship at sea passing through a storm: the ship leaks, and the captain tells the passengers he fears they are lost. If they are far away from the shore, and have sprung a leak, they pump with all their might as long as they have any strength remaining; they seek to keep down the devouring element, they still think that they are not quite lost while they have power to use the pumps. At last they see the ship cannot be saved; they give it up for lost, and leap into the boats. The boats are floating for many a day, full of men who have but little food to eat. “They are lost,” we say, “lost out at sea.” But they do not think so; they still cherish a hope that perhaps some stray ship may pass that way and pick them up. There is a ship on the horizon; they strain their eyes to look at her; they lift each other up; they wave a flag; they rend their garments to make something which shall attract attention; but she passes away; black night comes, and they are forgotten. At length the very last mouthful of food has been consumed; strength fails them, and they lay down their oars in the boat, and lay themselves down to die. You can imagine then how well they understand the awful meaning of the term — “lost.” As long as they had any strength left they felt they were not lost; as long as they could see a sail they felt there was yet hope; while there was yet a moldy biscuit left, or a drop of water, they did not give up all for lost. Now the biscuit is gone, and the water is gone; now strength has departed, and the oar lies still: they lie down to die by each other’s side, mere skeletons; things that should have been dead days ago, if they had died when all enjoyment of life had ceased. Now they know, I say, what it is to be lost, and across the shoreless waters they seem to hear their death-knell pealing forth that awful word, Lost! lost! lost! Now, in a spiritual sense, these are the people Christ came to save. Sinner, thou too art condemned. . . . Perhaps you can see why Spurgeon was so praised in his day. He had considerable passion for his topic. This sermon was convincing enough to me that I never forget what he was trying to say about Christ as the Son of Man. And it is an interesting feature of scripture that you'll read something like this and then suddenly notice all the many times you've seen the title "Son of man" in scripture. And it doesn't register much until Spurgeon points it out. It didn't hurt that he was a very sweet preacher and writer, very sincere.
Well the Blessed Virgin Mary did get some special privileges like being free from original sin, and full of grace. Jesus IS the savior, yes or no? Mary was flesh and blood human so she's included.
Comments (41 - 101) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Tooconservative (#1)
There are certain topics that are never going to lead to any peaceful discussion.
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
#4. To: Tooconservative (#3)
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
#6. To: Vicomte13, Community Organizer Pope, Obama Trump neocon, *Arab Spring Jihad* (#0)
#7. To: hondo68 (#6)
#8. To: hondo68 (#6)
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
(Edited)
I really wish the clergy would stop wearing those dresses.
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#0)
#11. To: Tooconservative (#7)
I'm not sure why but you made me laugh.
#12. To: redleghunter (#10)
Love ya Bro and thanks for this thread. If I have ever offended you in any way I apologize and seek forgiveness.
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
" I really wish the clergy would stop wearing those dresses. If they wore sandals and monastic robes with cowls it wouldn’t bother me so much, but those.dress-like cassocks look smarmy and weird and impractical, like they’re trying to be pretty. And black and red, like the caricatures of the Devil. Why not white, or brown, or grey, even green.
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
(Edited)
Thank you. Everybody here needs to try harder at this, and we would all enjoy the place more.
#15. To: All (#14)
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#0)
I propose that we cut that off and come back together in peace.
#17. To: A K A Stone (#14)
#18. To: Vicomte13, Mr. Conservative, Barry Goldwater, Fred Mertz, The last practicing Catholic, got the ax, buckeroo, Deckard (#17)
I choose to leave it. Good bye. Close my account.
Barry Goldwater “Mr. Conservative”
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
has never here been a matter of getting my ass kicked intellectually. Truth is, none of you ever actually engage with the ideas I present. What you do is start to rant and get nastier and meaner, hurling accusations.
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
That doesn't mean ai I don't like you or hate you. It means some of your beliefs are out there and not based on scripture. Then someone calls you on it because it isn't in the Bible because it is some made up bullshit. Then you get all mad about it and start saying we aren't christians
#22. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone, redleghunter (#17)
You, and Too Conservative, and VxH, take the conversation in a direction that forces me to choose to be uncivil and coarse - which sometimes I do, but I'm not good at it and am unwilling to keep at - or to back away and cease the discussion.
Angels had children with human women, creating the Nephilim (and their descendants, the Basques) so apparently they have the equipment...at least some of them. Other than the fact that they mated with human females and produced the Nephilim.
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
What I wrote here is objectively true. Christian people should not be talking to each other the way that they do here. If people are to discuss Scripture, God, things spiritual, they should do so in a manner that respects the subject matter.
#24. To: Tooconservative (#22)
(Edited)
And of course the Father begat Jesus via Mary.
#25. To: Tooconservative, Vicomte13, A K A Stone, redleghunter, Liberator (#22)
#26. To: hondo68 (#24)
We Catholics call that Immaculate Conception, it's NOT boning Mary!
#27. To: Tooconservative (#26)
So are you also on-board with the whole God-has-a-penis-and-screwed-Mary doctrine
#28. To: hondo68 (#27)
Go peddle that shuck 'n jive at your local cults crop circle. Vic never said the crap you're making up.
#29. To: hondo68, A K A Stone, redleghunter (#24)
(Edited)
Vic: And of course the Father begat Jesus via Mary.
The Immaculate Conception, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, is the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary free from original sin by virtue of the merits of her son Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that God acted upon Mary in the first moment of her conception keeping her "immaculate".[1] I. THE DOCTRINE
In the Constitution "Ineffabilis Deus" of December 8, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin" (Denzinger, "Enchiridion", 10th ed., n. 1641). The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body. The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis, carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul. The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin, the state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam—from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death. The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Savior to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ's redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred, than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor (Ullathorne, "Immac. Conception", p. 89). Such is the meaning of the term "Immaculate Conception".
#30. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#19)
You can't be told you are wrong. You're delusional. Close your own account by not signing in.
#31. To: Tooconservative, Fred Mertz, Knights Templar (#29)
Are you sure you passed your catechism?
#32. To: hondo68 (#31)
Anyway you can't flunk out of being baptized a Catholic.
#33. To: hondo68 (#31)
I never made any claims to be devoutly Catholic, just a regular old school lapsed Catholic. The most popular type by far. If you expect me to be all new wave Catholic, and read all of Francis' drivel you can just forget that notion, no way!
#34. To: Tooconservative, Gods penis idolatry, invented here (#33)
(Edited)
I don't think you can be considered a real Roman Catholic
#35. To: hondo68 (#34)
I'm not going to try to defend Catholicism against your straw-man "God's penis". Show me a quote by Vic talking about God's johnson.
#36. To: hondo68 (#34)
(Edited)
126 Lk 1:26-27.
127 LG 56; cf. LG 61.
128 Cf. Gen 3:15, 20.
129 Cf. Gen 18:10-14; 21:1-2.
130 Cf. I Cor 1:17; I Sam 1.
131 LG 55.
132 LG 56.
133 Lk 1:28.
134 Lk 1:28.
135 Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854): DS 2803.
136 LG 53, 56.
137 Cf. Eph 1:3-4.
138 LG 56.
139 Lk 1:28-38; cf. Rom 1:5.
140 Cf. LG 56.
141 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 22, 4: PG 7/1, 959A.
142 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 22, 4: PG 7/1, 959A. 143 LC 56; St. Epiphanius, Panarion 2, 78, 18: PG 42, 728CD-729AB; St. Jerome, Ep. 22, 21: PL 22, 408.
144 Lk 1:43; Jn 2:1; 19:25; cf. Mt 13:55; et al. I also confirmed that I was a Catholic Christian, and was slapped by a Bishop.
#37. To: Tooconservative, A K A Stone (#36)
By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
#38. To: hondo68 (#37)
there was none, ever.
#39. To: hondo68, redleghunter (#37)
There ya go. I was wrong about the possibility of sin before the virgin birth, there was none, ever.
“CHRIST THE SON OF MAN.”
HOW fond our Master was of the sweet title, the “Son of man!” If He had chosen, He might always have spoken of Himself as the Son of God, the Everlasting Father, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Prince of Peace. He hath a thousand gorgeous titles, resplendent as the throne of heaven; but He careth not to use them; to express His humility and let us see the lowliness of Him whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light, He calls not himself the Son of God, but He speaks of Himself evermore as the Son of man who came down from heaven. Let us learn a lesson of humility from our Savior; let us never court great titles nor proud degrees. What are they, after all, but beggarly distinctions whereby one worm is known from another? He that hath the most of them is a worm still, and is in nature no greater than his fellows. If Jesus called Himself the Son of man, when He had far greater names, let us learn to humble ourselves unto men of low estate, knowing that he that humbleth himself shall in due time be exalted.
#40. To: A K A Stone (#38)
Why did she call Jesus her saviour?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]