Who Was Paul?

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1291591319' post='2191116']
This is where I'm confused and no doubt many non Catholics would be also. Don't we teach by our actions as well as words? How can the Church have done terrible things and be 100% right in it's teachings? Do you mean it was wrong before but is right now?[/quote]

No that's not what I mean. You brought up the current pedophilia scandal. Now the Church teaching is crystal clear that both pedophilia and the coverup of such are grievous sins, but yet in practice the Church has failed to live up to its own ideal. All I mean to say is there is an incongruity between what the Church teaches and what it has actually done and that makes me hesitate to say Catholicism is 100% correct.

[quote]He's probably technically correct there. Jesus came to 'Not destroy the laws or the prophets but to fulfil!' The Jewish religion was far from accurate, Jesus brought it to truth. Islam [b]took[/b] what it wanted and discarded what it didn't and added what it favoured.
[/quote]

I thought the word implied something like "taking something that doesn't belong to them/that they don't have a right to." Maybe that's not what he meant. I dunno

Edited December 6, 2010 by Ice_nine

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1291420883' post='2190827']
Yes a true and faithful Catholic must trust the official teachings given to us by the Magisterium. But it doesn't have an official teaching on every single topic so there IS room for variety of opinion and practices concerning things like theology and devotion. Like for example, are you a Thomist, Molinist, or Augustinian? In this sense you can "pick and choose" while still being in line with Church Teaching.[/quote]
In matters of central dogmas such as whether Jesus Christ is God, or whether He in fact was crucified, died and resurrected, and saved us from our sins, there is no room for "picking an choosing."

Either the Christian Faith is true in these matters, or it is not.

Obviously, the Christian Faith and Islam (which denies these dogmas) cannot both be true.


[quote]oooookay. I don't know if you are insinuating if I or anyone else in this thread has either said or implied that even, but I don't believe anyone has. So if you are making that insinuation, it's unnecessary.[/quote]
Read over all Mark's posts in this thread. He seems unsure what the truth is.


[quote]What do you mean by "the Christian Faith"? If you define that term strictly as official teaching of the Magisterium then no that's not what I'm saying. Maybe my response to Seven77 will clarify my point further for you.
[/quote]
The fullness of the Christian Faith is indeed found in the official teaching of the Magisterium. Anything else is heresy. (I know, another insensitive, un-pc idea.)


[quote]OK surrsly I haven't counted how many times you've inferred or outright said this, but it's getting old.



"took." Interesting word choice. As if the truth belonged solely to Christianity. God IS truth. While I believe Catholicism is the fullest revelation of Truth that we have, I don't think it has a monopoly on God. [/quote]
It does have a monopoly on authoritative teaching on matters of Faith and morals. What you think is irrelevant.

Islam did in fact take its monotheistic ideas from Christianity, which it borrowed from, but distorted seriously. Mohammed did not come up with any truth on His own, but corrupted and changed Christian teachings - and thus the religion in itself is false.

God doesn't go around starting contradictory religions.

The Q'ran is no more true revelation from God than is the book of Mormon.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1291624406' post='2191177']
No that's not what I mean. You brought up the current pedophilia scandal. Now the Church teaching is crystal clear that both pedophilia and the coverup of such are grievous sins, but yet in practice the Church has failed to live up to its own ideal. All I mean to say is there is an incongruity between what the Church teaches and what it has actually done and that makes me hesitate to say Catholicism is 100% correct.[/quote]
It would be more accurate to say that no group of people is free from sin. (Only Our Lord and the Blessed Virgin have that privilege.)

The Catholic Faith is free from error in its teaching as you note. However, no Catholic, not even the Pope is impeccable - that is, incapable of sin.

The Church is infallible in Her teachings, but Her members are not impeccable. It seems most people on here don't understand the difference between infallible and impeccable.

The Church's teachings are like a user's manual. It doesn't prove the user's manual false if Catholics, including clergy, disregard or disobey the manual, though it does create scandal.

The Catholic Faith is 100% correct, but members of the Catholic Church, clergy included, are not free of sin.

If I, as a member of the Catholic Church, go out and rob a bank, that does nothing to prove Catholic moral or theological teaching false, only my own sinfulness.
If a priest robbed a bank, it would not invalidate the Church's teachings any more, though it would no doubt create greater scandal.

[quote]I thought the word implied something like "taking something that doesn't belong to them/that they don't have a right to." Maybe that's not what he meant. I dunno
[/quote]It implies that it did not originate in Islam, but was taken from Christianity.

Just as if I borrowed ideas from your posts, then added some contrary ideas of my own, it would not not be correct to credit the ideas I took from you as my own ideas.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1291420883' post='2190827']
[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1291245629' post='2190261']
And no Muslims believe that Christ is God and our Savior. If they believed that, they'd cease being Muslims and be Christian instead.

[/quote]


oooookay. I don't know if you are insinuating if I or anyone else in this thread has either said or implied that even, but I don't believe anyone has. So if you are making that insinuation, it's unnecessary.
[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1291763399' post='2191498']
Read over all Mark's posts in this thread. He seems unsure what the truth is.

[/quote]

[/quote]
You're very good at changing things Rey oops I mean Socrates. I suppose it makes it easier for you to argue if you change things. You gave a criteria for being Christian, I do not dispute that. And I did not at any time say that Muslims [b]believe [/b]Christ was God. What I said was that not only are there people who call Jesus Lord who will not pass the gates of heaven (Scripture) but there are many who don't and will. I have a much higher opinion of Gods intelligence, love and compassion than you do. My opinion, yes, but I don't believe that the Church doesn't allow me to give higher praise to God than it commands.
[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1291764143' post='2191501']
It would be more accurate to say that no group of people is free from sin. (Only Our Lord and the Blessed Virgin have that privilege.)

The Catholic Faith is free from error in its teaching as you note. However, no Catholic, not even the Pope is impeccable - that is, incapable of sin.

The Church is infallible in Her teachings, but Her members are not impeccable. It seems most people on here don't understand the difference between infallible and impeccable.
[/quote]
Who is the Church in your opinion? If you consider that Jesus alone is the Church, then it would be infallible. But Jesus said. "On this rock I will build my Church!" He wasn't talking about himself. The church is people! If the people err then the church errs. I'm not talking about indiscretions of the individual Popes or his advisers, I'm talking about the collective decisions of the Church. What I have been saying is that what the Church has written down as teachings may be true, but it can be wrong by the error of omission and by it's actions. Supposing it's true that they did try to bump off a Pope because they didn't agree with what he was [i]teaching[/i]. it may have been the sin of the individual Cardinals or whatever, but it is also the failing of the Church. [b]When you represent something and you fail then you cause what you represent to fail also. [/b]



[quote]The Church's teachings are like a user's manual. It doesn't prove the user's manual false if Catholics, including clergy, disregard or disobey the manual, though it does create scandal.
[/quote]
Scandal brings the Church into disrepute and thus causing it to fail to inspire those who witness this failure and therefore it fails.

[quote]If I, as a member of the Catholic Church, go out and rob a bank, that does nothing to prove Catholic moral or theological teaching false, only my own sinfulness.
If a priest robbed a bank, it would not invalidate the Church's teachings any more, though it would no doubt create greater scandal.[/quote]

I don't care much that you have a hateful opinion of [b]all[/b] Muslims. That's your backpack and hatred is a backpack that does not pass through the eye of the needle. I pray that you can cut it free. What concerns me is that people visiting here will see you as a representative of Catholicism. They will see you boasting about how perfect your religion is and how every other religion or decent non religious person is totally wrong and doomed. And they will think 'How arrogant and opinionated can you be? If that's Catholicism or Christianity then I don't want any part of it.' I have come across scores of people who refuse to identify with any organised religion for those very reasons.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1291763399' post='2191498']
In matters of central dogmas such as whether Jesus Christ is God, or whether He in fact was crucified, died and resurrected, and saved us from our sins, there is no room for "picking an choosing."[/quote]

Cool. Good thing I never said that. If we look at just official teaching, then sure it's a monolith of 100% truth through and through, but looking at Catholicism more comprehensively (it's historical/cultural/personal impact and effects and whatnot) it is NOT 100% perfect or 100% correct in everything it has ever done. We apparently agree that church teaching is 100% correct, but you seem hesitant or unwilling to ascribe the historical failures and shortcomings of the Church to "the Christian faith" when, for example, I say something like "Catholicism is not 100% right." We essentially agree on this issue. I believe an impartial third party would be able to see this. You're just taking issue and splitting hairs over how I'm saying it while I think you're dodging the the failures of the Church. Your not holding the "Christian Faith" fully accountable for all the bad bad things the Church, as a collective body, has done.

[quote]Either the Christian Faith [b]is true in these matters[/b], or it is not.[/quote]

Lookie that. We actually agree. I'm not asking you to budge on the essential truths of our faith. I'm asking you to genuinely acknowledge the failures of the Church (which can be done while proclaiming/upholding/maintaining the essential truths of Christianity, again, I promise) and bring some humility to the table when talking about other religions. Whether or not you mean to, your words can easily come across as arrogant, acerbic, and hard-headed. And while you may think you are fighting the good fight in tenaciously defending Truth amidst a world of evil and deceit, most people stop listening at the first sign of this perceived arrogance, and then you have already lost the battle. The Gospel is important. Don't give people a reason to not listen to you right off the bat.

[quote]Read over all Mark's posts in this thread. He seems unsure what the truth is.[/quote]

I don't believe absolute certainty is a mandate for faith or if it's even possible, and if it is then I guess Mark is guilty along with myself. But I still think you're making inaccurate claims about what he's saying. Maybe you're having comprehension problems. This is not taking a shot at your intelligence but I think you're being overly defensive and are therefore unable to see what we are [i]actually[/i] saying, instead mistaking it for what (according to your opinion of folks like us) [i]must[/i] be saying.

[quote]The fullness of the Christian Faith is indeed found in the official teaching of the Magisterium. Anything else is heresy. (I know, another insensitive, un-pc idea.)[/quote]

Is it? Doesn't Divine Revelation still continue to unfold even still to this day? Are there still new things to be learned by the Church? More refined teachings, new answers to the new questions that do and will arise in their particular time periods etc. And [i]anything else[/i] is heresy? I can see you saying "and anything in contradiction to the Magisterium is heresy," but to say anything else found outside the parameters of the official teaching of the Magisterium just doesn't make sense. Maybe my edit to your phrase is what you meant?

ps I would really appreciate if you wouldn't try to passive-aggressively try to caricature me as some hand-holding, relativist fluffball. plz and ty.

[quote]It does have a monopoly on authoritative teaching on matters of Faith and morals. What you think is irrelevant. [/quote]

Good thing that's not what I said. I'm starting to think you've stopped listening to me after my first post.

[quote]Islam did in fact take its monotheistic ideas from Christianity, which it borrowed from, but distorted seriously. Mohammed did not come up with any truth on His own, but corrupted and changed Christian teachings - and thus the religion in itself is false.[/quote]

I actually don't have a problem with this. Maybe if you would take time to listen to me and attempt to understand what I'm actually saying you would know this by now. I'll admit maybe I was reaching too far when I said the word "took" was an interesting word choice. Forget I said that. It's not important. I don't take issue with historical and theological accuracy, just try to be a little insensitive in the way you approach it. Will that kill you?

This is getting pointless. I believe dialogue can be fruitful when there is mutual respect between the participants but you seem to have this "I'm just stating the truth. If you have a problem with it you can go . . . cause I'm not bending to your sissy/liberal/political-correct/(insert favorite underhanded insult here) worldview" and that's really grating and tiring to deal with. Plus it's super late. I'm getting less and less coherent. But this has been fun. I think I'll bow out of this conversation as I don't see it going anywhere.

It's sad though. One time a friend of mine was asking questions about Catholicism in a semi-offensive way (I don't think she knew I was Catholic) and another friend (who has an aversion to most things religious) was like "what's wrong with them [Catholics]" and the former friend responded "they're just particularly arrogant about how they're the right ones," or something to that effect. Now granted I know my friend is misinformed about lots of things concerning Catholicism and she seems to have some authority problems (although she is a Christian) but I could weep when I think about how much a dose of humility could improve the Church's witness.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1291777264' post='2191519']
You're very good at changing things Rey oops I mean Socrates. I suppose it makes it easier for you to argue if you change things. You gave a criteria for being Christian, I do not dispute that. And I did not at any time say that Muslims [b]believe [/b]Christ was God. What I said was that not only are there people who call Jesus Lord who will not pass the gates of heaven (Scripture) but there are many who don't and will. I have a much higher opinion of Gods intelligence, love and compassion than you do. My opinion, yes, but I don't believe that the Church doesn't allow me to give higher praise to God than it commands.

Who is the Church in your opinion? If you consider that Jesus alone is the Church, then it would be infallible. But Jesus said. "On this rock I will build my Church!" He wasn't talking about himself. The church is people! If the people err then the church errs. I'm not talking about indiscretions of the individual Popes or his advisers, I'm talking about the collective decisions of the Church. What I have been saying is that what the Church has written down as teachings may be true, but it can be wrong by the error of omission and by it's actions. Supposing it's true that they did try to bump off a Pope because they didn't agree with what he was [i]teaching[/i]. it may have been the sin of the individual Cardinals or whatever, but it is also the failing of the Church. [b]When you represent something and you fail then you cause what you represent to fail also. [/b]




Scandal brings the Church into disrepute and thus causing it to fail to inspire those who witness this failure and therefore it fails.



I don't care much that you have a hateful opinion of [b]all[/b] Muslims. That's your backpack and hatred is a backpack that does not pass through the eye of the needle. I pray that you can cut it free. What concerns me is that people visiting here will see you as a representative of Catholicism. They will see you boasting about how perfect your religion is and how every other religion or decent non religious person is totally wrong and doomed. And they will think 'How arrogant and opinionated can you be? If that's Catholicism or Christianity then I don't want any part of it.' I have come across scores of people who refuse to identify with any organised religion for those very reasons.
[/quote]
Yeah, keep on knocking over strawmen.

Maybe try reading over what I've said about infallibility vs. impeccability. No one claimed Catholics are without sin. The sins of people in the Church do not mean the Church errors in its Magisterial teaching. Nor does saying that a religion in itself is objectively false constitute hatred toward people. The "h-word" gets thrown around far too casually these days.

To be honest, it's hard to follow what you're trying to say on here most of the time, but since you've apparently got me mixed up with this Reyb character, there's probably no point in trying to discuss this further.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1291850608' post='2191670']
Yeah, keep on knocking over strawmen.

Maybe try reading over what I've said about infallibility vs. impeccability. No one claimed Catholics are without sin. The sins of people in the Church do not mean the Church errors in its Magisterial teaching. Nor does saying that a religion in itself is objectively false constitute hatred toward people. The "h-word" gets thrown around far too casually these days.

To be honest, it's hard to follow what you're trying to say on here most of the time, but since you've apparently got me mixed up with this Reyb character, there's probably no point in trying to discuss this further.
[/quote]
The reference to Reyb is because you keep trying to steer the debate away from what it is really about and you keep changing what has been said by myself and Ice9. Admittedly I get misunderstood quite frequently and so it must be my problem and I need to try harder to make myself understood. However after all these posts I think I should have gotten the message across. Ice9 has pretty much written exactly what I have been trying to express. I've never been in a discussion with her before and don't know her, but I understand fully what she is writing and I think she understands that I'm writing very much the same thing, so I really cannot see that you could not understand either of us. Understanding is not an excuse that's why there are 4 gospels to reinforce the message.

Throwing in infallibility vs implacability is just a smoke screen, I think, designed to confuse the issue which it does. I've been told that the Popes have spoken infallibly on only three occasions. The Church teachings that are considered 'flawless' are ones taken from scripture for which there really is no doubt about and one must accept them as truth in order to be a Christian/Catholic. Where there is doubt the Church does not give a determination, such as the baptism of the infants/fathers etc. I don't think I have contradicted any of these conditions, if I have, point them out and I will clarify or retract them if necessary. I do not claim to be some know all.

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1290466245' post='2188662']
You trust the [color="#ff0000"][mod]"Muslims" would be a better word to use here. -dUSt[/mod][/color] to have a better understanding of Christianity than the Christians??

They deny the truth of much of the Gosples, including Christ's death and resurrection.
[/quote]

It's not for me to judge if it is hatred that drives you, God will do that in due time. But from edits such as this, [b]people[/b] will get the message that it could be hatred and this reflects badly on your Church Militant status and the Catholic Church. Your frequent use of angry looking avatars gives the impression of an angry person, you would be much better to use one that reflects good humour or Church icons (just my opinion)

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1291799512' post='2191554']


This is getting pointless. I believe dialogue can be fruitful when there is mutual respect between the participants but you seem to have this "I'm just stating the truth. If you have a problem with it you can go . . . cause I'm not bending to your sissy/liberal/political-correct/(insert favorite underhanded insult here) worldview" and that's really grating and tiring to deal with. Plus it's super late. I'm getting less and less coherent. But this has been fun. I think I'll bow out of this conversation as I don't see it going anywhere.

[/quote]

Well that feeling, I think, is pretty much unanimous. If you are determined to have the last word Socrates then it's yours.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1291799512' post='2191554']
Cool. Good thing I never said that. If we look at just official teaching, then sure it's a monolith of 100% truth through and through, but looking at Catholicism more comprehensively (it's historical/cultural/personal impact and effects and whatnot) it is NOT 100% perfect or 100% correct in everything it has ever done. We apparently agree that church teaching is 100% correct, but you seem hesitant or unwilling to ascribe the historical failures and shortcomings of the Church to "the Christian faith" when, for example, I say something like "Catholicism is not 100% right." We essentially agree on this issue. I believe an impartial third party would be able to see this. You're just taking issue and splitting hairs over how I'm saying it while I think you're dodging the the failures of the Church. Your not holding the "Christian Faith" fully accountable for all the bad bad things the Church, as a collective body, has done.[/quote]
Whatever you intended to mean, I would say the statement, "Catholicism is not 100% right" is very poorly worded, and potentially very misleading.

To me, the word "Catholicism" in such a context implies the Catholic Faith itself, and the body of truths it teaches - as opposed to the behavior of persons who are baptized Catholics (who remain prone to sin).

To return to my earlier example, if I, a baptized church-going Catholic, go out and rob a bank, does that evil action prove that [i]Catholicism[/i] is not right, or rather that[i] I[/i] am not right in my own behavior?

It would be the same issue if a gang of priests and nuns (inspired no doubt by the masks worn in that scene in [i]The Town[/i]) went out and robbed a bank, though no doubt, by their position in the Church, such an action would cause greater scandal.

If the Church were to teach dogmatically through the Magisterium that robbery is is morally acceptable, that would be a very different matter.

Call it hair-splitting, but I think this is a very important distinction, which must be clearly made if we're to have meaningful discussions of the Church's infallibility in Her teachings on Faith and Morals, and needs to be clarified, even if I did in fact misunderstand your original intention.


[quote]Lookie that. We actually agree. I'm not asking you to budge on the essential truths of our faith. I'm asking you to genuinely acknowledge the failures of the Church (which can be done while proclaiming/upholding/maintaining the essential truths of Christianity, again, I promise) and bring some humility to the table when talking about other religions. Whether or not you mean to, your words can easily come across as arrogant, acerbic, and hard-headed. And while you may think you are fighting the good fight in tenaciously defending Truth amidst a world of evil and deceit, most people stop listening at the first sign of this perceived arrogance, and then you have already lost the battle. The Gospel is important. Don't give people a reason to not listen to you right off the bat.
[/quote]
While you may disagree, I think nowadays Catholics tend to be far too "apologetic" in their apologetics, and spend far to much time apologizing for the perceived failings of the (almost always of [i]other[/i] Catholics, often those long dead, and often based in reality on anti-Catholic distortion), rather than proclaiming the Catholic Church to in fact be the Truth handed down from Jesus Christ to the Apostles.

There's no reason to be humble regarding the Catholic Faith - which is quite different from true personal humility and charity.

I don't claim to be personally better than anyone else. I know there are plenty of protestants (and probably plenty of Muslims as well) who put me to shame in matters of personal virtue. And I know there are other Catholics who fail to live their Faith.

But I won't be shy in boasting of the truth of the Catholic Faith instituted by Christ Himself.
If we act unsure of the truth of our Faith, or talk as though Catholicism is really not much different or better than other religions, others will see little reason to convert from their own religions (particularly if their own church has better music, better after-service donuts, etc.)

I know my own parents (converts from protestantism) weren't converted by Catholics who were weak regarding teaching the truth of their Faith, or by preaching watered-down religious indifferentism.

[quote]I don't believe absolute certainty is a mandate for faith or if it's even possible, and if it is then I guess Mark is guilty along with myself. But I still think you're making inaccurate claims about what he's saying. Maybe you're having comprehension problems. This is not taking a shot at your intelligence but I think you're being overly defensive and are therefore unable to see what we are [i]actually[/i] saying, instead mistaking it for what (according to your opinion of folks like us) [i]must[/i] be saying.



Is it? Doesn't Divine Revelation still continue to unfold even still to this day? Are there still new things to be learned by the Church? More refined teachings, new answers to the new questions that do and will arise in their particular time periods etc. And [i]anything else[/i] is heresy? I can see you saying "and anything in contradiction to the Magisterium is heresy," but to say anything else found outside the parameters of the official teaching of the Magisterium just doesn't make sense. Maybe my edit to your phrase is what you meant?[/quote]
Actually, the Church teaches that there is no new public revelation after the death of St. John the Evangelist, though the Church may proclaim existing teachings dogmatically after dispute rises over them.

[quote]ps I would really appreciate if you wouldn't try to passive-aggressively try to caricature me as some hand-holding, relativist fluffball. plz and ty.



Good thing that's not what I said. I'm starting to think you've stopped listening to me after my first post.



I actually don't have a problem with this. Maybe if you would take time to listen to me and attempt to understand what I'm actually saying you would know this by now. I'll admit maybe I was reaching too far when I said the word "took" was an interesting word choice. Forget I said that. It's not important. I don't take issue with historical and theological accuracy, just try to be a little insensitive in the way you approach it. Will that kill you?

This is getting pointless. I believe dialogue can be fruitful when there is mutual respect between the participants but you seem to have this "I'm just stating the truth. If you have a problem with it you can go . . . cause I'm not bending to your sissy/liberal/political-correct/(insert favorite underhanded insult here) worldview" and that's really grating and tiring to deal with. Plus it's super late. I'm getting less and less coherent. But this has been fun. I think I'll bow out of this conversation as I don't see it going anywhere.

It's sad though. One time a friend of mine was asking questions about Catholicism in a semi-offensive way (I don't think she knew I was Catholic) and another friend (who has an aversion to most things religious) was like "what's wrong with them [Catholics]" and the former friend responded "they're just particularly arrogant about how they're the right ones," or something to that effect. Now granted I know my friend is misinformed about lots of things concerning Catholicism and she seems to have some authority problems (although she is a Christian) but I could weep when I think about how much a dose of humility could improve the Church's witness.

[/quote]
I'm not caricaturing you as anything, and don't purport to know anything about you personally (I wasn't even sure of your sex until recently), and I'm sure you don't know much about me.

This discussion is about the teachings of the Faith, and their truth, not about personal issues, though invariably people who take issue with my words on this forum spend much of their time trying to psycho-analyze my alleged inner personal motivations, rather than sticking to the actual topic of debate.

Since we don't know much about each other in person, if we word things poorly, we'll be misunderstood.
I'm sure I've worded things badly myself on here.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1291926248' post='2191819']
Throwing in infallibility vs implacability is just a smoke screen, I think, designed to confuse the issue which it does. I've been told that the Popes have spoken infallibly on only three occasions. The Church teachings that are considered 'flawless' are ones taken from scripture for which there really is no doubt about and one must accept them as truth in order to be a Christian/Catholic. Where there is doubt the Church does not give a determination, such as the baptism of the infants/fathers etc. I don't think I have contradicted any of these conditions, if I have, point them out and I will clarify or retract them if necessary. I do not claim to be some know all. [/quote]
It's not a smokescreen, but very central to the issues at stake here.

There's a huge difference between saying the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church are not entirely correct, and saying that members of the Church commit sins.

The first statement is not correct, but the second is.

If you dismiss that important distinction as a "smokescreen," it speaks more about you, than about anything else.


[quote]It's not for me to judge if it is hatred that drives you, God will do that in due time. But from edits such as this, [b]people[/b] will get the message that it could be hatred and this reflects badly on your Church Militant status and the Catholic Church.
[/quote]
Saying that a set of religious beliefs is objectively false (such as Islam, which rejects Christ's divinity) is not the same as hatred of persons, and it's absurd to talk as though it did. As Catholics we should hate error and falsehood, yet love and seek to convert those who mistakenly hold these errors.

If people want to twist what I write, it's their own problem.

[quote]Your frequent use of angry looking avatars gives the impression of an angry person, you would be much better to use one that reflects good humour or Church icons (just my opinion)[/quote]
So now you're attacking my[i] avatars[/i]??

I actually thought the donkey in my avatar looks like he's laughing, rather than angry, though I'll admit I'm not a certified expert in asinine facial expressions.

But for my next avatar, I'll make sure I find something that looks really pissed, just for you.

[Mark of the Cross]

[img]http://demotivate.me/mediafiles/full/4162010103910AM_doublefacepalm.jpg[/img]
[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1292023757' post='2192038']
But for my next avatar, I'll make sure I find something that looks really pissed, just for you.
[/quote]
I was hoping you would do something other than angry Clint Eastwood pictures for the benefit of what you are professing to represent. And your choice of words seems out of place on a Catholic forum. Disclaimer:- It's just my view and does not necessarily represent the opinion of the heavenly establishment or of Phatmass. I do hope that that can be understood.

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1291926248' post='2191819']
[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1291799512' post='2191554']
This is getting pointless. I believe dialogue can be fruitful when there is mutual respect between the participants but you seem to have this "I'm just stating the truth. If you have a problem with it you can go . . . cause I'm not bending to your sissy/liberal/political-correct/(insert favorite underhanded insult here) worldview" and that's really grating and tiring to deal with. Plus it's super late. I'm getting less and less coherent. But this has been fun. I think I'll bow out of this conversation as I don't see it going anywhere.



[/quote]

Well that feeling, I think, is pretty much unanimous. If you are determined to have the last word Socrates then it's yours.
[/quote]


Icey , looks like we can't make ourselves understood. I don't know any other languages, how about you? Maybe some pictures

thread is

[img]http://wildelycreative.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/resignation.jpg[/img]

Edited December 12, 2010 by Mark of the Cross

[Socrates]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1292118403' post='2192250']
I was hoping you would do something other than angry Clint Eastwood pictures for the benefit of what you are professing to represent.[/quote]
Clint Eastwood is flippin' awesome.
You're probably just jealous that I thought to use him as an avatar before you did. (And he's not angry in that pic, btw. He's cool, collected, and ready shoot down any fo[font="Arial"]ol[/font] stupid enough to go up against him.)

But since my avatar now is a goofy-looking jackass (put in place after someone said my posts make me look like a donkey - how good-humored is that?), I don't see what your problem is.

But I suppose some gay little dancing frog or something would make my words ever so much more effective.

[quote]And your choice of words seems out of place on a Catholic forum.[/quote]
What words exactly?

Would you say these words are out of place on a Catholic forum?

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful but within are full of dead men's bones and of all filthiness." (Matt. 23:27)

"You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?" (Matt. 23:33)

"You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do." (John 8:44)

I certainly don't think saying that Islam a false religion and Mohammed is a false prophet is in the least bit out of place on a Catholic board. I'm sure Jesus would have no hesitation about saying that. The New Testament repeatedly warns of false prophets, and Mohammed of Arabia is indeed one of them.

[quote]Disclaimer:- It's just my view and does not necessarily represent the opinion of the heavenly establishment or of Phatmass. I do hope that that can be understood.
[/quote]
That's nice of you to clarify that. I was pretty worried there that the heavenly establishment had forbidden the use of Clint Eastwood avatars!

Edited December 13, 2010 by Socrates

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1292267298' post='2192567']
Clint Eastwood is flippin' awesome.
You're probably just jealous that I thought to use him as an avatar before you did. (And he's not angry in that pic, btw. He's cool, collected, and ready shoot down any fo[font="Arial"]ol[/font] stupid enough to go up against him.)

But since my avatar now is a goofy-looking jackass (put in place after someone said my posts make me look like a donkey - how good-humored is that?), I don't see what your problem is.

But I suppose some gay little dancing frog or something would make my words ever so much more effective.
[/quote]
The frog is not gay! Just another one of your judgements I suppose. S/he is very happy knowing she is created by God, but maybe you didn't like her because s/he is not a Militant catholic.

[quote]What words exactly?[/quote]
I like you, you're silly! If I must spell it out, the word was 'Pissed'

[quote]Would you say these words are out of place on a Catholic forum?

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful but within are full of dead men's bones and of all filthiness." (Matt. 23:27)

"You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?" (Matt. 23:33)

"You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do." (John 8:44)

I certainly don't think saying that Islam a false religion and Mohammed is a false prophet is in the least bit out of place on a Catholic board. I'm sure Jesus would have no hesitation about saying that. The New Testament repeatedly warns of false prophets, and Mohammed of Arabia is indeed one of them.
[/quote]
No they are not! It's the absence of the ones that give them balance and [b]your[/b] [b]implications[/b] that are out of place. And the fact that the Church specifically disagrees with you, which has been cited by several people, but which you chose to ignore.
[quote]That's nice of you to clarify that. I was pretty worried there that the heavenly establishment had forbidden the use of Clint Eastwood avatars!

[/quote]
OK since you are so touchy about that then I concede I was wrong and apologise. I must remember to stay off your lawn from now on.

[Winchester]

raeg

[Socrates]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1292272625' post='2192590']
The frog is not gay! Just another one of your judgements I suppose. S/he is very happy knowing she is created by God, but maybe you didn't like her because s/he is not a Militant catholic. [/quote]
Gay means happy.
Why so touchy?

[quote]I like you, you're silly! If I must spell it out, the word was 'Pissed' [/quote]
Fair enough.

[quote]No they are not! It's the absence of the ones that give them balance and [b]your[/b] [b]implications[/b] that are out of place.[/quote]
My point was only that not all words spoken by Christ are "nice" and "non-judgmental."

[quote]And the fact that the Church specifically disagrees with you, which has been cited by several people, but which you chose to ignore. [/quote]
What specifically have I said that goes against Church teaching?

I don't recall posting anything contrary to the Catholic Faith. If you or anyone else wants to draw bogus "implications" from my words, that's your problem, not mine.

Provide specific quotes, please. Vague nonsense about "hatred" and angry-looking avatars won't cut it.


[quote]OK since you are so touchy about that then I concede I was wrong and apologise. I must remember to stay off your lawn from now on.[/quote]
[i]Gran Torino[/i] - great flick!

Edited December 14, 2010 by Socrates

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1292357452' post='2192747']
Gay means happy.
Why so touchy?

[/quote]
Well you tricked me there! Original definition eh? I assumed that either you meant he liked to share his pond and taddies with a frog of the same sex, or the most recent definition meaning that it is no good and/or silly. and I was gunna say most people liked him.


[quote]My point was only that not all words spoken by Christ are "nice" and "non-judgmental."
[/quote]
Yes he was quite blunt on occasion, like when he chased people out of the temple. If you want to abuse people for showing disrespect for our religion or my fathers house, I'll hold them in a headlock while you kick their butt! What I was saying was that to insult what people hold near and dear is not the way to bring them to Christ, especially since they already have him to some extent. It would be nicer if they realised just what they are so close too and I agree with that, but like I said it's all in the technique.

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1292250717' post='2192524']
Cornelius in Acts 10 did [b]not have faith in Christ but he already had graces at work within him to shape who he was and make a seedbed for that faith[/b] which Peter brought to him. But how God shapped him is who he was at the time that Peter came. And so it was he by the grace of God who was able to say yes to Peter. The work. The work that cannot be separated from God's work. Grace is not discrete events before which there was no grace. All is grace.
[/quote]
This is from another thread, but I thought it was interesting in that it demonstrates that God can be at work within people whose faith is not complete or who have Christ in them but don't [b]Yet[/b] realise what they have. I visualise that when we stand before God we will see that things may be vastly different than what we thought or imagined. This is what I meant by the Church not having a monopoly on truth. As long as the bus is going down your street, Gods not too worried. He will worry about stopping it at your home later.


[quote]What specifically have I said that goes against Church teaching?

I don't recall posting anything contrary to the Catholic Faith. If you or anyone else wants to draw bogus "implications" from my words, that's your problem, not mine.
[quote][b]841[/b] [i]The Church's relationship with the Muslims.[/i] "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."[330]
[i]'The Church holds with esteem also the Muslims[/i].'[/quote]
[/quote]
I could be wrong, but you haven't given the impression of holding the Muslims with esteem. You have been giving the impression that you hold them with contempt.
I think what the Church is trying to say is that we can achieve more with diplomacy and tact than we can with hurtful remarks. Here Downunder the Catholics and the Muslims throw a prawn on the barby and have a beer together. It's so much nicer and more productive than machete fights.

[quote]Provide specific quotes, please. Vague nonsense about "hatred" and angry-looking avatars won't cut it.[/quote]
Note, I did not state that you harboured hatred. I said it was an impression that may be gleaned by your readers, which is what was trying to convey with the Jackass comment.