Catholicism Against Itself

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='2tim215' date='Jan 17 2006, 08:45 AM']Salvation is a gift.(FREE)  Christ Jesus did the Work!  All we have to do is accept it!  Mt. 11:13; 22:36-40;  Jn.5:39-47; 8:32,41,43-45,47,51,55;    John 1:17  Rom. 10:4-10    Grace and Faith THROUGH Jesus Christ, NO works!
[right][snapback]858617[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
When last I checked the only thing that counted was faith [b]working[/b] through love Gal 5:6. Oh wait, dear me, I probably took that out of context too although that is exactly what is says. It is a good thing we wont be judged by our actions. Wait, that is not what Romans 2:4-8 says though. [quote]Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?  5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;  [b]6Who will render to every man according to his deeds[/b]:
7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:  8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, [/quote] Was that out of context as well?

LD said that he has read Foxe's book and gave some examples of errors, would you like to respond to him? This is really getting old.

Tim: READ the Bible, you ignorant (edit)s. ESCAPE from your LIES and READ Foxes' book! YOUR salvation IS ASSURED!
Pmer: Tim, I have read the Bible and it tells us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12-13, and we are told in Matthew 7:21 that not everyone who cries "Lord, Lord" will be saved. Only those who remain in his kindness (Rom 11:12) and hold out to the end (2 Tim 2:11-13) will reign with Christ. Also, LD has read some parts of the book you mentioned and has exposed some errors. Can we please get a response?
Tim: (edit), you have taken everything out of context because you follow your (edit) Pope. READ THE BIBLE!
Pmer: Let us discuss this then.
Tim: You know your (edit) Pope is the antichrist and proclaims himself Vicar of Christ. (edit)s, READ YOUR BIBLE>.

That is about how things have been going here. People have responded Tim, most notably LD, but your ignore them. We have shown you how the "call no man father" is to be understood and you simply brush it off without engaging it. Now we have shown some errors in the book and you will no engage that either.

Here is a question point blank for you: Why are you here?

[2tim215]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 15 2006, 05:07 PM'][b]Call No Man "Father"?[/b]

Many Protestants claim that when Catholics address priests as "father," they are engaging in an unbiblical practice that Jesus forbade: "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).

In his tract 10 Reasons Why I Am Not a Roman Catholic, Fundamentalist anti-Catholic writer Donald Maconaghie quotes this passage as support for his charge that "the papacy is a hoax."

Bill Jackson, another Fundamentalist who runs a full-time anti-Catholic organization, says in his book Christian’s Guide To Roman Catholicism that a "study of Matthew 23:9 reveals that Jesus was talking about being called father as a title of religious superiority . . . [which is] the basis for the [Catholic] hierarchy" (53).

How should Catholics respond to such objections?
 
[b]The Answer[/b]

To understand why the charge does not work, one must first understand the use of the word "father" in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn’t forbidding this type of use of the word "father."

In fact, to forbid it would rob the address "Father" of its meaning when applied to God, for there would no longer be any earthly counterpart for the analogy of divine Fatherhood. The concept of God’s role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood.

But in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship.

For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8).

Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: "I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20–21).

This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).

[b]A Change with the New Testament?[/b]

Some Fundamentalists argue that this usage changed with the New Testament—that while it may have been permissible to call certain men "father" in the Old Testament, since the time of Christ, it’s no longer allowed. This argument fails for several reasons.

First, as we’ve seen, the imperative "call no man father" does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors "father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."

Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term "father" being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of "father" in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests "father") must be wrong, as we shall see.

Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, "But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt. 23:8–10).

The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."

Fundamentalists themselves slip up on this point by calling all sorts of people "doctor," for example, medical doctors, as well as professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates). What they fail to realize is that "doctor" is simply the Latin word for "teacher." Even "Mister" and "Mistress" ("Mrs.") are forms of the word "master," also mentioned by Jesus. So if his words in Matthew 23 were meant to be taken literally, Fundamentalists would be just as guilty for using the word "teacher" and "doctor" and "mister" as Catholics for saying "father." But clearly, that would be a misunderstanding of Christ’s words.
 
[b]So What Did Jesus Mean?[/b]

Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige.

He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.

Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).

Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.

Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.

As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles.

Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into "gurus" is worldwide.

This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a "cult of personality" around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.

He is not forbidding the perfunctory use of honorifics nor forbidding us to recognize that the person does have a role as a spiritual father and teacher. The example of his own apostles shows us that.

[b]The Apostles Show the Way[/b]

The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.

Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17); "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2); "To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2).

He also referred to Timothy as his son: "This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18); "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1); "But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).

Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.

[b]Spiritual Fatherhood[/b]

Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, "Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12:14); and, "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19).

John said, "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13–14).

By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests "father." Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.

Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them "father." Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their flock as "my son" or "my child" (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).

All of these passages were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly recorded truth that Christ’s ministers do have a role as spiritual fathers. Jesus is not against acknowledging that. It is he who gave these men their role as spiritual fathers, and it is his Holy Spirit who recorded this role for us in the pages of Scripture. To acknowledge spiritual fatherhood is to acknowledge the truth, and no amount of anti-Catholic grumbling will change that fact.
[right][snapback]856935[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
NOT IN DA SOUTH as the WOMAN said; I and all I know have always called your DADDYS DAD or DADDY!!!!!! She must be a transplant!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='2tim215' date='Jan 17 2006, 09:27 AM'][mod] buh bye [/mod]
[right][snapback]858638[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
you're going to get banned with that kind of carp.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='2tim215' date='Jan 17 2006, 03:33 PM']NOT IN DA SOUTH as the WOMAN said; I and all I know have always called your DADDYS DAD or DADDY!!!!!!  She must be a transplant!
[right][snapback]858641[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Guees that means all the Catholics who call their priests Abba or Mar are off the hook then, right? :

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='2tim215' date='Jan 17 2006, 09:25 AM']AGAIN! YOU DO NOT READ!  That part of the verse IS Capitalized!
[right][snapback]858637[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Where? In the King James version? I doubt there are any Greek manuscripts that have capitals like that (I'm positive actually). That little detail must be a part of the later king james revelation. Btw, the KJV is a pretty weak translation, it has many errors.

[2tim215]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jan 16 2006, 06:54 PM']Those books are not exactly easy to come by.  Where can we find them?

Our authority is Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium.  The Bible is a product of the Church's authority to declare what books were inspired by God.  Where do you think the Bible comes from?
[right][snapback]858174[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
GOD! II Pet. 1:21

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='2tim215' date='Jan 17 2006, 09:57 AM']GOD!  II Pet. 1:21
[right][snapback]858657[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Exactly, now you are getting it. God here spoke through prophets. God also speaks to us through Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. The Holy Spirit guides and protects His Church. God is our authority on matters of faith and practice, and He speaks to us through what we mentioned.

[quote]For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: [b]but holy men of God spake [/b][as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost. [/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='2tim215' date='Jan 17 2006, 09:57 AM']GOD!  II Pet. 1:21
[right][snapback]858657[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


wow, we agree!

although I'm sure the exact way in which God reveals himself would be a matter of dispute between us as the concept of [i]sola scriptura [/i]is absurd to me.

[2tim215]

[quote name='2tim215' date='Jan 17 2006, 10:57 AM']GOD!  II Pet. 1:21
[right][snapback]858657[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I searched for TRUTH and I found them! You do not seek TRUTH, Beads for the Bible, Man for God, and as far as the scriptures you have 2 of the most corrupt MSS that were ever penned BY MAN ORIGEN!

[mod] rest of post deleted - Az [/mod]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='2tim215' date='Jan 17 2006, 10:02 AM']I searched for TRUTH and I found them! You do not seek TRUTH, Beads for the Bible, Man for God, and as far as the scriptures you have 2 of the most corrupt MSS that were ever penned BY MAN ORIGEN! LXX is the 5th column of the hexapla= 666 Just like what's on your PIMPS fish Hat!
[right][snapback]858661[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Hey!! Isn't that from Jack Chick and David Daniel's recent book on the Bible??

You'll find that they are not the most accurate scholars in the world. I strongly suggest reading things that go beyond anti-Catholicism. You'll find that these authors are liars and bafoons.

And if you keep calling the Pope those kind of names you will be banned. I'm sure of it.,

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='2tim215' date='Jan 17 2006, 10:02 AM']5th column of the hexapla= 666 Just like what's on your PIMPS fish Hat!
[right][snapback]858661[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]You are referring to the title Vicarius Filii Dei aren't you? Well that myth has been blown out of the water, even by non-Catholics. Look here: [quote]One common myth surrounding the papal tiara suggests that the words Vicarius Filii Dei exist on the side of one of the tiaras. This myth is believed by many conservative Seventh-day Adventist church members (and was once officially taught), but is now contrary to the official belief of that church.

The myth centres on the widely made claim that, when numerised (i.e., when those letters in the 'title' that have roman numeral value are added together), they produce the number '666', described in the Book of Revelation as the number of the Antichrist (whom some have claimed would 'wear' a crown similar to a triple tiara). This claim has been made by some conservative Protestant sects who believe that the Pope, as head of the Roman Catholic Church (in their cosmology, the Whore of Babylon), is the Antichrist or False Prophet. However, a detailed examination of all the tiaras shows that no such decoration exists.

Further, "Vicarius Filii Dei" (Vicar of the Son of God) is not among the titles of the Pope; the closest match is "Vicarius Christi" (Vicar of Christ, also rendered in English
[/quote] Found here at [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myths_and_legends_surrounding_the_Papacy"]Wikipedia[/url]

[Theoketos]

[quote name='2tim215' date='Jan 17 2006, 10:02 AM']I searched for TRUTH and I found them! You do not seek TRUTH, Beads for the Bible, Man for God, and as far as the scriptures you have 2 of the most corrupt MSS that were ever penned BY MAN ORIGEN! LXX is the 5th column of the hexapla= 666 Just like what's on your PIMPS fish Hat!
[right][snapback]858661[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If you hold off on the caps it would be easier to read what you write.

I am sure that we have manuscripts older then the ones attributed to Origen.

And please stop calling the pope a pimp.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Jan 17 2006, 10:07 AM']I am sure that we have manuscripts older then the ones attributed to Origen.
[right][snapback]858666[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


It's almost as silly as claiming that the Church was founded at the Council of Trent.

[Theoketos]

Here is a list of the Manuscripts that I know of.

# aleph -- S, Cod. Sinaiticus (q.v.) (fourth century; 43 leaves at Leipzig, 156 together with N.T. at St. Petersburg) contains fragments of Gen. and Num.; I Par., ix, 27-xix, 17; Esd. ix, 9-end; Esth.; Tob.; Judith; I and IV Mach.; Isa.; Jer.; Lam., i, 1-ii, 20; Joel; Ab.-Mal.; the Poetical Books; the entire New Testament; the Epistle of Barnabas and part of the "Shepherd" of Hermas. The text is mixed. In Tobias it differs much from A and B. Its origin is doubtful. Two correctors (Ca and Cb) are of the seventh century. Ca tells us at the end of Esth. that he compared this manuscript with a very early copy, which Pamphilus testified had been taken from and corrected according to the Hexapla or Origen.
# A, or Cod. Alexandrinus (fifth century; in British Museum) contains complete Bible (excepting Ps. 1-20-lxxx, 11, and smaller lacunæ) and includes deuterocanonical books and fragments, the apocryphal III and IV Mach., also I and II Clem. Its origin is Egyptian and may be Hesychian. It differs much from B, especially in Judges. Two scribes wrote the manuscript. The corrector belonged to about the same time.
# B, or Cod. Vaticanus (q.v.) (fourth century; in the Vatican) contains complete Bible. The Old Testament lacks Gen., i, 1-xivi, 28; I and II Mach.; portions of II Kings, ii; and Psalms, cv- cxxxvii. The New Testament wants Heb., ix, 14; I and II Tim.; Titus.; Apoc. Its origin is Lower Egyptian. Hort thinks it akin to the text used by Origen in his Hexapla.
# C, or Cod. Ephræmi Rescriptus (q.v.) (fifth century palimpsest, in National Library, Paris) contains 64 leaves of Old Testament; most of Eccl.; parts of Ecclus.; Wisd.; Prov. and Cant.; 145 out of 238 leaves of New Testament.
# D, or The Cotton Genesis (fifth century; in British Museum) contains fragments of Gen.; was almost destroyed by fire in 1731, but had been previously studies.
# E, or Cod. Bodleianus (ninth or tenth century; in Bodl. Libr., Oxford) contains Heptateuch, fragments.
# F, or Cod. Ambrosianus (fifth century; at Milan) contains Heptateuch, fragments.
# G, or Cod. Sarravianus (fifth century; 130 leaves at Leyden; 22 in Paris, one in St. Petersburg) contains the Hexaplaric Octateuch (fragments) with some of the asterisks and obeli of Origen.
# H, or Cod. Petropolitanus (sixth century; in Imperial Libr., St. Petersburg) contains portions of Numbers.
# I, or Cod. Bodleianus (ninth century; in Bodl. Libr., Oxford) contains the Psalms.
# K, or Cod. Lipsiensis (seventh century; in Univ. of Leipzig) contains fragments of Heptateuch.
# L, or The Vienna Genesis (sixth century; in Imperial Libr., Vienna) contains incomplete Genesis, written with silver letters on purple vellum.
# M, or Cod. Coislinianus (seventh century; in National Library, Paris) contains Heptateuch and Kings.
# N-V, or Cod. Basiliano-Venetus (eighth or ninth century; partly in Venice and partly in Vatican) contains complete Gen., Ex., and part of Lev., and was used with B in the critical edition of the Septuagint (Rome, 1587).
# O, or Cod. Dublinensis (sixth century; in Trinity College, Dublin) contains fragments of Isaias.
# Q, or Cod. Marchalianus (sixth century, in Vatican) contains Prophets, complete; is very important, and originated in Egypt. The text is probably Hesychian. In the margins are many readings from the Hexapla; it also gives many Hexaplaric signs.
# R, or Cod. Veronensis (sixth century; at Verona) contains Gr. and Lat. Psalter and Canticles.
# T, or Cod. Zuricensis, the Zürich Psalter (seventh century) shows, with R, the Western text; silver letters, gold initials, on purple vellum.
# W, or Cod. Parisiensis (ninth century; in National Library, Paris) contains fragments of Psalms.
# X, or Cod. Vaticanus (ninth century; in Vatican) contains the Book of Job.
# Y, or Cod. Tauriensis (ninth century; in National Library, Turin) contains Lesser Prophets.
# Z, or Cod. Tischendorf (ninth century) contains fragments of Kings; published by Tischendorf.
# Gamma, or Cod. Cryptoferrantensis (eighth or ninth century; at Grottaferrata) contains fragments of Prophets.
# Delta, or Cod. Bodleianus (fourth or fifth century; Oxford, in Bodl. Libr.) contains a fragment of Daniel.
# Theta, or Cod. Washington (fifth or sixth century, to be in Smithsonian Institution), contains Deut.-Jos., found in Egypt, one of the Freer manuscripts. There are likewise seven uncial Psalters (two complete) of the ninth or tenth century and eighteen rather unimportant fragments listed by Swete (op. cit., p. 140).

[2tim215]

[COLOR=blue][COLOR=blue][COLOR=blue][quote name='musturde' date='Jan 16 2006, 06:19 PM']Exactly Tim, if you wanted to convert us, you'd at least show charity. Maybe pull a Jehova's Witnesses stunt on us and do a full 12 step proccess. I'd personally denounce my evil satanic beliefs if you showed me either girls or food (preferably both).
[right][snapback]858138[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
And Paul rebuked him openly! Gal. 2:11; Acts 15: Mt. 16:16-23; Mk. 8:31-33; Lk. 17:3; I Tim. 5:20; II Tim. 4:2; Tit. 1:13; 2:15 Heb. 12:5; Rev. 3:19