Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Only if ya promise not to send this little guy to me.Please enlighten me . . .
problem is, TLF, in EVERY argument, you quote RCC dogma as "fact." you know we don't accept it as such. You say "hey, it's Fact that Jesus instituted the RCC as the one true church.". We don't see it as fact. When you post the sparse biblical passages that the RCC uses to support it, you claim THAT as fact. The only fact, is that the scripture exists, and that we disagree on what it means.I diagree . . I find that facts have been repeatedly ignored and undermined by those engaging in polemics and unsubstantiated claims in response. . . .
I got her for both of us bro!
tulc(likes to help!)
I do love that story
You must spread some reputation around before giving it to sunlover1 again
I love the way you "annoy".'fraid I can't help you there bro'!
tulc(besides, I've always found that guy to be pretty annoying!)
problem is, TLF, in EVERY argument, you quote RCC dogma as "fact." you know we don't accept it as such.
You say "hey, it's Fact that Jesus instituted the RCC as the one true church.". We don't see it as fact.
When you post the sparse biblical passages that the RCC uses to support it, you claim THAT as fact. The only fact, is that the scripture exists, and that we disagree on what it means.
just because you've written it in TLF's big book o' facts, doesn't behoove us to accept it as fact.
and you talk about polemics?
Every argument coming from you is a polemic nightmare as well. It's RCC party line, every last bit.
(if you, of course, offer an argument beyond "not much of an argument here....")
When you have nothing to add just call it unsubstantiated claims and more polemics...
Yes he does, with the force of one who clearly understands he is the leader of the universal Church with real authoirty and power, ie the pope, sitting in the See of Peter the first Pope, disobedience to whom is a serious matter and nothing short of sin.
I agree, if someone comes to this with the assumption of sola scriptura as the basis of their paradigm, it would seem strange.
But if one let's go of that assumption, then it all comes together very nicely and logically.
God never expects that we set aside our reason and right use of logic. When applied correctly they help us discover what our assumptions are and whether they are valid or not.
That's what I had to ask myself about Luther . . a very good question . . it started me on the path that led me into Catholicism. It was a very worthy question to ask and pursue.
No, of course he isn't saying this . . but have they done more than the Catholic Church? No, no way.
Jesus promised the Apostles personally that the Holy Spirit would lead THEM into the ALL TRUTH.
If it was exactly waht Jesus said, then it was ALL TRUTH, nothing less.
If it was ALL TRUTH, then all was revealed that is necessary for faith and morals in this life. THIS is what we refer to as "The Fullness of Truth."
Since the Fulness of Truth was given to the Apostles, there is nothing left to be revealed that we need for this life regarding truth in faith and morals.
There is a great deal of myth that surrounds the inquistion created and fabricated by the Church's enemies during the Reformation.
Much of it has been debunked and exposed as fraud, exagerration, and fabrication.
The BBC, about 10 years ago, created a documnetary doing just this.
In fact, when the Spanish Inquisition was critically and objectively examined, it was found that most of what we have been led to believe through popularist history was ctually false.
In fact, what they discovered was the Spanish Inquisition was ahead of its time in the ways of judicially protecting human rights, care of prisonors, fairness of treatement and rendering justice.
In fact, the Spanish Inquisition's jails were a model for others to follow for many years to come. They were clean, offered clean water, decent food, clothing and bedding, and a systemtatic and effective hearing process with legal representation for the accused.
In fact, people caught in the secular system were in danger of dying before ever reached trial, which might be never, from bad food and water, disease, etc.
In fact, many would try to force their case to be transferred to the inquisitional system because they were assured of a fair trial in addition to the benefits above. They would get out of the death trap of the secular system.
In addition to all this, the tales of execution, burning at the stake and torture are fabrications and/or exagerations.
The truth is, the protestant inquistions killed and brutally tortured 100 to 1000 times more than all of the Catholic inquisitions put together.
So, if the Spanish Inquisition is holding you back, then there is no real reason for it to hold you back any longer.
The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition
"The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition," a 1994 BBC/A&E production, .........
The Inquisition had a secular character, although the crime was heresy. Inquisitors did not have to be clerics, but they did have to be lawyers. The investigation was rule-based and carefully kept in check. And most significantly, historians have declared fraudulent a supposed Inquisition document claiming the genocide of millions of heretics.
What is documented is that 3000 to 5000 people died during the Inquisition's 350 year history. Also documented are the "Acts of Faith," public sentencings of heretics in town squares. But the grand myth of thought control by sinister fiends has been debunked by the archival evidence. The inquisitors enjoyed a powerful position in the towns, but it was one constantly jostled by other power brokers. In the outlying areas, they were understaffed - in those days it was nearly impossible for 1 or 2 inquisitors to cover the thousand-mile territory allotted to each team. In the outlying areas no one cared and no one spoke to them. As the program documents, the 3,000 to 5,000 documented executions of the Inquisition pale in comparison to the 150,000 documented witch burnings elsewhere in Europe over the same centuries.
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/article4.html
And that's just the witch burnings in protestant areas . . . . that is only the beginning . . . .
No, you claimed it was inaccurate . . you never proved it.
If God can inpsire an ASS to give His word to the prophet Balam, and Saul, His enemy, to prophecy like the prophets, then He can inspire anyone,
Inspiration has nothing to do with pecaability, ie sinfulness.
Peter was inspired to write scripture. He also sinned when he acted contrary to Church teaching and quit eatng and living like the gentiles when the judiazing jews came to where he was. Peter acted the part of the hypocrit.
That didn't stop God from inspiriting him to right scripture.
The point is, the Papacy is not a person, it is an office, and as with other offices, its validity and power and authority does not depend on the personal sinlessness of the one who occupies it.
If a very sinful person occupies the office of the president, even if he is a traitor, that does not invalidate the office of the presidency or its power and authority.
So the authority and power of the office continues regardless of the worthiness of the one occupying it.
Oh? Then why didn't they approve also the other books that were already in use?
Why did they leave those books out even though they were already in use?
Yep those books were already in use by the time of those councils, so it seems rather clear that the councils did more than simply give their stamp of approval to books "already in use". . . . .
Yeah, I noticed that too . . . those are called "strawman" and we sure see a lot of those in response to our well thought out logical and resaoned arguments.
Just part of the terrain I guess.
And he is claiming it is no small sin (that's what transgression means for those who oppose Catholicism)if they disobey him.
We sin when we disobey God appointed authority, so this obviously means he is God's appointed authority we are to obey, sitting in Peter's chair.
Hi SunI think you should take this one to the formal
debate folder.
That would weed out the distracting remarks and
maybe could get to pure truth.
What do you say chestertonrules?Hi Sun
I'd love to take on the "known for all ages" claim regarding universal authority to task in a formal debate to any takers.
No thanks. I don't dare bring up the "P" word again.And he is claiming it is no small sin (that's what transgression means for those who oppose Catholicism)if they disobey him.
We sin when we disobey God appointed authority, so this obviously means he is God's appointed authority we are to obey, sitting in Peter's chair.
nothing. What does proclaiming something as fact, have to do with whether something is fact or not?What does your acceptance or none acceptance of a fact have to do with whether something is a fact or not?
I agree. So therefore, it may not be a fact, even if you accept it, or it might be, even if you reject it.Facts, like truth, are facts regardless of whether you accept them or reject them.
and again, calling it fact, doesn't make it so either. All you can forward it as, is your belief. not fact.How does what you see make it fact or not fact?
It doesn't. You are free to accept or reject facts since God gave us free will to do so.
That doesn't make it any less a fact.
now you're just getting repetitive.Truth is not relative upon your acceptance or rejection of it.
more repetition.Again, facts are no relative and do not depend on your acceptance of them to be facts, or your rejection of them to not be facts.
Proposing truth/facts are relative to one's acceptance or none acceptance of them is not a logical proposition.
even more repetition. I've already made my rebuttal to this.That is different than claiming they are not facts.
Whether you accept them or not does not change their factual nature or the truth.
So far your argument has been based on the relativity of your acceptance as somehow determining if what we believe is factual and true.
It's not.
Polemics: the branch of theology dealing with the history or conduct of ecclesiastical disputation and controversy.Where are the polemics in my posts UB?
Pointing out lack of substance and polemics is not engaging in polemicis, it is simply point out what is there.
I don't think polemics means what you think it means . . .
oh, are you going to claim you don't use that little hand wave a great deal? Again, I invite you to reread your own posts.LOLOL!
nothing. What does proclaiming something as fact, have to do with whether something is fact or not?I agree. So therefore, it may not be a fact, even if you accept it, or it might be, even if you reject it.
but saying "this is fact" is not making it fact.
and again, calling it fact, doesn't make it so either. All you can forward it as, is your belief. not fact.
now you're just getting repetitive.
more repetition.
btw, if you're going to bring up logic, how about you apply Occams razor (logic) to the passages, and find out if the most logical outcome of reading the passages, is that they mean that one organzation will have dominion over Christianity, with a titular head with infalliblity powers.
the RCC position doesn't pass the logic test on those passages, yet you are claiming logic.
even more repetition. I've already made my rebuttal to this.
Polemics: the branch of theology dealing with the history or conduct of ecclesiastical disputation and controversy.
yes, you are. As we all are. yes, I know what it means.
oh, are you going to claim you don't use that little hand wave a great deal? Again, I invite you to reread your own posts.
You mean we haven't done that already?It would serve you far better if you tried to defend your claims with actual evidence . . I can't think of one post of yours in this thread that has any actual evidence to support your claims against the Catholic Church . . .
No thanks. I don't dare bring up the "P" word again.
That seems to be a popular word here.Now all you are doing is flipping my response to your argument of non acceptance of fact into an strawman attack on our beliefs.
No one every said that "simply because" we say something is a fact, that this makes it a fact.
it's not an attack on your beliefs at all. It's pointing out that you can't make something fact, by claiming it as such.Now all you are doing is flipping my response to your argument of non acceptance of fact into an strawman attack on our beliefs.
oh, really? because I never stated that something wasn't fact, because I didn't believe it! Care to take your double standard down a notch?No one every said that "simply because" we say something is a fact, that this makes it a fact.
I really, really wish you wouldn't use logical fallacy arguments. You don't understand them, and you don't use them the way they are meant to be used.I never arguned that. So your response is one big stramwan.
you never see evidence, unless it has Nihil Obstat engraved on it. I wasn't the one bringing up the evidence in this thread. Do you KNOW what Occams razor is? (I'll give you time to google it.) It is a progression of logic. RCC interpretation of key passages violates the premise. IF you are going to use logic as your argument, you have to come to grips with this.You claim that the Catholic positon doesn't pass the "logic test" but you have yet to prove this . . mostly all I see in your responses are claims. I can't remember the last time I saw any actual evidence in your responses to us . . .
I'm not asking you. I'm telling you. Your "not beliving it is a fact doesn't make it not a fact" has been rebutted. accept it or not, I don't care. It's coming from an opposing viewpoint to your own, so I'm damn sure I know what you'll consider it.The rebuttal contains no evidence . . . just claims . . . not much of a rebuttal if you ask me.
www.dictonary.com. I'm sure you can read it for yourself. EVERYTHING we do on here, when we debate, is polemic. You use it as an insult and accusation, but it's really no such thing.Please provide the source of your definition.
Here are defnitions and they don't match yours very well:The art or practice of disputation; especially, the use of aggressive argument to refute errors of doctrine
the branch of Christian theology devoted to the refutation of errorswordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Polemics /pəˈlɛmɪks, poʊ-/[puh-lem-iks, poh-] is the practice of disputing or controverting religious, philosophical, or political matters. As such, a polemic text on a topic is often written specifically to dispute or refute a topic that is widely viewed to be a "" or beyond reproach.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemics
whatever, TLF.It would serve you far better if you tried to defend your claims with actual evidence . . I can't think of one post of yours in this thread that has any actual evidence to support your claims against the Catholic Church . . .
Also, the RCs will be happy to know I do not view the Pope/papacy in Revelation.I don't spout RCC party line "evidence" so you will never see it. Neither do anyone else who posted evidence in this thread.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?