Summations Only

Just a few Bible verses on election to show that it is standard Christian doctrine and not something I made up.John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,John 15:19 I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth youMatthew 24;24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.2 John 1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children,The gospel is offered to all, and taken by missionaries to all parts of the world; anyone can be one of the elect if you accept it.

If you think that last post of yours is a reasonable answer to what I've been saying, you've outdone yourself on this thread far beyond any of the others.

Your claims devolve and diminish. First you say it's a "mistake" to think the Catholic church "has anything to do with Christianity," but then it's reduced to, "the majority of its doctrines and practices are clearly anything but Christian," and finally it's merely "known Catholic practices violate known Bible doctrine." These are the kinds of things that religions always say about one another. It's why churches branch off from one another to form new sects.And none of your positions of diminishing degree provides any support for your claim that the Catholic church, the largest Christian church in the world, is out of the mainstream, which is what I originally said. By definition that isn't possible. You've been casting about for some way that you're not wrong ever since.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Remove extraneous space.

It's a cookbook. --Percy

Of course it can and is. They say they are the ones who are following correct doctrine.By the way, so do Muslims. In fact the whole origin of Islam was that Christians pervert the scripture.

I've been "casting about" if that's the word, for a way to say it that won't trip over your neverending irrelevant objections, but obviously there is no such way. Everything I've said is true though you want to make it out to be contradictory. It is not a Christian church, and this is due to its violations of Biblical doctrine, which are legion, though it preserves some remnants of the truth from back when it was just another bishopric and before it became the apostate behemoth it is now. I'm representing standard doctrinal Christianity that goes back to the early church doctrinal councils and before that to the apostles, but that is bizarrely disputed by you all here. There's enough in what I've said in all the posts here to make my case but I'm obviously up against some kind of determined resistance, the same as I always encounter here but it does seem more irrational than usual as I said to NoNukes. But of course I just say all this for the record since nobody here is going to accept it.

You seem to have become reduced to casting aspersions instead of making arguments.It sure would be nice if debates could be won simply by declaring one's own views sacrosanct and other's views irrelevant, but alas. You've managed to post yet another content-free message that does nothing more than declare our objections irrelevant and your own claims true. We all bow to your omniscience, Lord Faith.We understand you disapprove of Catholicism, especially many things from its long history, but it's the largest Christian church and cannot, by Webster alone, be out of the mainstream of Christianity. Your judgments of the severity of its various crimes against Christian doctrine are merely your own opinion. You seem to be under some odd misimpression that your opinions are unchallengeable, that merely stating them ends discussion, and that once stated all objections can be dismissed with a mere "I've already answered that" hand wave.--Percy

What's the point of giving arguments, as I did for the Trinity based on the Bible and also for the violations of the RCC plus what one would expect anyone to know about the gospels and the teachings of Christ (I guess I could be wrong about that but so many here claim to know the Bible well that would be odd), which are not opinions but evidence. Your dismissing the Bible as fiction doesn't change the fact that it is the foundation for Christian doctrine, and again, that has been evidenced.I could also quote the Reformers -- the movers and shakers of just about the most gigantic event in western history -- which I've done on previous threads, and many contemporary theologians, but all that would be absurdly dismissed as just representatives of my "cult" wouldn't it? Equivalence between them and some self-promoted cult leader would be asserted against all reason. "Well, such and such a cult says the same thing, therefore you're wrong blah blah blah." Unbelievable really. How does one answer such craziness? I've tried at times, keep thinking it can't be as futile as it seems, but then learn again that it is. I'm speaking into such a strange conclave of irrationality I'm almost awestruck at its ability to rationalize away the truth with the flimsiest of "reasonings."You even think I should answer jar's ridiculous claim that because the individual verses that show the Trinity don't show it in their local context that the whole Trinity is bogus. As if nobody had ever noticed that the local context has nothing to do with defining the Trinity, as if it could possibly change the fact that they each describe the nature of God in a way that supports the Trinity. My head spins at such irrationality. And even saying this which should answer it is only going to meet with the usual weird denials.And No Nukes compares the tiara of world dominance and the robes of the religion of pagan Rome, whose head was called the Pontiff, with the suits and ties of today's ministers? What on earth could possibly be said into such craziness that would make a difference? Again I say it now only for the record.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You're confusing opinions with evidence. For example, that the Catholic Church engaged in indulgences is fact, but that this combined with similar facts disqualifies Catholicism as Christianity is opinion. A minority opinion, not a mainstream one. No one is arguing that because the Bible is fiction that it isn't true that it's the foundation of Christian theology and doctrine. The argument is the exact opposite. It's because the foundation of Christianity theology and doctrine is fiction that it's not true, and so is not worth serious discussion. NoNukes seems willing to discuss it, though, if you'd just return to discussing instead of declaiming. By me? Sure. By everyone? No. There are people here wiling to discuss this with you, even if only from an academic perspective. I think if all you've got to offer is characterizations like "absurd" and "craziness" and "ridiculous" that it's pretty obvious you're out of ammo and are firing blanks.Speaking just for myself personally, before I could take Bible-based theological arguments seriously you'd have convince me that the relevant portions of the Bible have some basis in fact. That the words have provided inspiration to generations is not evidence that they're true. Words of many different holy books provide inspiration.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add missing double quote around "absurd".

Balderdash! If it violates recognizable Biblical doctrine then it is more than opinion, the scripture itself is evidence that the RCC is NOT CHRISTIAN, and I listed half a dozen ways that is true, many more could be listed. If it's opinion then it's of the status of God's opinion. It was held by the Protestant Reformation and that pretty much took over the world and its influence lasted until very recently. Don't give me "minority opinion."I have no interest in discussing this further with someone who confounds the trappings of world domination and pagan religion with Christian ministry.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I didn't comment on whether "recognizable Biblical doctrine" is opinion. I said that whether some Catholic practices disqualified it as Christianity was opinion. Your opinion that Catholicism is not Christian is an unambiguously minority opinion. This is true by definition for the very simple reason that there are more Catholics than any other Christian group in the world.Why do you insist on getting beat up on issues of simple word definitions in thread after thread? So now your opinion is God's opinion? If you're so eager to express exasperation you might do better to express it at something I actually said. I *did* call the Bible fiction - isn't that enough that you don't have to make things up?--Percy

AND I ANSWERED THAT IF THOSE RCC PRACTICES VIOLATE THE BIBLE, WHICH THEY DO. THEN THEY ARE DISQUALIFIED AS CHRISTIAN BY THE EVIDENCE OF THE BIBLE, NOT BY OPINION.As for numbers of this that or the other, the majority are always idiots.And if the Bible is opinion then it's God's opinion. You could have gotten that straight without too much strain but you chose to turn it into an accusation of me.Why do I have to correct every little thing. I was talking about NoNukes in that last statement because you'd recommended I discuss this with him because he's willing to discuss the Bible.

You don't seem to know where your opinion begins and stops. It is only your opinion that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and not fiction, and it is only your opinion of what the Bible says, and it is only your opinion that these facts of Catholic history constitute disqualification as a Christian religion. No one died and made you God, Faith. No, that is incorrect. Biblical authorship is largely unknown, and it is only your opinion that it contains God's opinion. No one gave your opinion the status of holy writ, Faith, and it's time you stopped acting as if it did. You gave no indication that the final paragraph was about NoNukes. I've mentioned this problem of yours before about overuse of pronouns. Sometimes one has to read back several of your messages just to figure out what "it" refers to.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Faith denounces the papcy as being non-christian, and then appoints herself as Pope. Awesome.

Actually Faith, once again you simply misrepresent and play con man hide the pea shell games.There is a difference between violating the Bible and doing things not mentioned in the Bible.No where in the Bible does it say that the Pope should not wear a crown during ordination.No where in the Bible is the practice of indulgences prohibited.Do you remember what the author of Luke claims the Angel Gabriel said? No where in the Bible is it said that people should not venerate Mary, mother of Jesus.A Rosary is nothing more than a place keeper and counting device. No where in the Bible does it prohibit using such things to count repetitions or aid in concentration.Not a single one of your examples was an example of violating the Bible.