Shake Off The Dust From Your Feet. ...

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1378793' date='Sep 5 2007, 05:54 PM']Out of seriousness, when do we do number 9? And HSM, didn't HSD just give us a big post sayin not to be mocking?[/quote]
Yes...

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Budge' post='1379239' date='Sep 5 2007, 11:22 PM']One of Jack Chick's latest tracts...

FREE AT LAST; MODS NOTHING ANTICATHOLIC HERE[/quote]
Pity its wrong info.

[Old_Joe]

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1378633' date='Sep 5 2007, 01:39 PM']When is it appropriate for one to shake the dust OFF our feet?[/quote]


When is it appropriate for dUSt to be on people's feet?

dUSt! GET OFF OF OTHER PEOPLE'S FEET!!! TSK. TSK. dON'T YOU KNOW IT'S RUDE TO STAND ON PEOPLE'S FEET!?!

[Budge]

[quote]Pity its wrong info.[/quote]

What do you believe is wrong with it?

Dont you believe Jesus Christ sets people FREE?

Edited September 6, 2007 by Budge

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1379140' date='Sep 5 2007, 08:46 PM']Jack Chick is a good christian man, and since things are coming true in tracts he produced 25 years ago...a good student of Gods Word.

You dont offend me when you pair my name by his. I deeply respect the man and yes I know the world hates him.

I wrote a thank you letter to Jack Chick some years ago. I told him his tracts worked on me. I collected comics as an unbeliever--and included was Jack Chick ones...[the street peracher who witnessed to me also passed on many of his tracts to me.
I write a lot of my own stuff, but why not cut and paste, dont you share Catholic articles here.[/quote]
Whatever.
The world "hates" L. Ron Hubbard too, but that still doesn't mean he's not deluded nutjob or a liar.
Many things in Chick tracts are outright lies and fabrications. (And the fact that he may sometimes post truth as well, does not make his lies any less lies.)

[quote]Atheists while deluded about God, often times are thinkers and do examine things, like religious rip-offs, Mother Teresa wasnt the only one dealt with by them, but Poploff, Benny Hinn ect. I think it is the sign of a cult when they tell you not to trust anything the cult does not write, or official approve "imprintaurs". I believe with Mother Teresa for the folks who wanted to sound the alarm like Sandra Shields, no church wanted to have anything to do with knocking a PR manufactuired ULTRA-ICON off the pedestal so the atheists, UUs, and agnostics were the only people they could turn too. They werent going to go to fundie Christians because their dealings with MT had turned them off what they *thought* was Christianity.
Hmm I dont recall every using the term Anti-Fundie here, or Anti-Protestant.[/quote]
But if a Catholic agrees with a non-Christian on anything in anyway, that is proof-positive that the Church is in league with paganism.

[quote]I dont think any of you hate Jesus, youre just pursuing a false one. In fact many of you are looking for HIm, and I pray you find Him.[/quote]
We worship the same Jesus whom the four Gospels teach about - Who was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried, on the third day He Rose again and is seated at the Right Hand of the Father - and Who founded a Church on the Rock of St. Peter.
Who's [i]your[/i] Jesus?

[quote]There are no sacraments in the Bible--baptism is an ordinance,, no Mass in the book of Acts--imagine that the apostles DID not speak LATIN, how did they ever get those wafers transubstantiated [/quote]
Been there, done that, Budge.
Baptism - in the Bible.
The Mass [i]is[/i] mentioned in the four Gospels, as well as by St. Paul in I Cor. 11:27-32.
And no one (except maybe the most far-out "rad-trad") says the Mass has to be in Latin to be valid.

[quote]You mean like replacing the word LATRIA for worship?[/quote]
God forbid anyone should use any words not in [i]English[/i], the language God Himself spoke as recorded by King James when he wrote the Bible!

[quote]or from the Catholic side, send some middle of the fence poster of some vague religion--who wont even admit to anyone what she is exactly, to post 10 threads on whether cats should drive or why God allows fish to be eaten and not cows during Lent.[/quote]
I don't "send" Dairygirl to post here, nor does anyone else, as far as I'm aware.
Is it too much for Budge to believe that a "middle of the fence poster" can post on an internet message board of her own free will, without some vast sinister Jesuit conspiracy being involved?
(And surely the Vatican's vast Conspiracy of Evil could come up with some cleverer form of deception than that!?)

[quote]What lack of evidence?[/quote]
You've yet to show where Sola Scriptura is proclaimed in the Bible.
(I believe there was a whole thread on that, where you couldn't be budged to answer - but I'll let someone less lazy than myself dig it up.)

[quote]Things are convienient when your authorities mandate and define their OWN authority isnt it?
All of them nah....

but the ones the Catholic Church holds up as leaders to emulate, sure {thats if you can even trust the words they attribute to them}
UUs and early deceivers...nah... I dont think even the early deceivers taught that Buddhist and Hindus could be Christians without "knowing it", that was made up later...[/quote]
So perhaps you could name [i]one[/i] Christian from the first centuries of the Church after the Bible who was not a "deceiver"?
Maybe we could start from there . . .

[quote]I havent emailed anyone here.

I dont think Ive even left very many comment on any profiles...maybe twice?

Im the one thats got people chasing me over debates I left 3 months ago.[/quote]
I haven't emailed you either, nor do I intend to.
Remember, my post is just a tongue-in-cheek response to the "Catholic Apologetics Technique" list you are so fond of posting here - and it's really no more silly or inaccurate than the original.

Asking that you engage in debate rather than hit-and-run attacks is hardly "stalking."

Edited September 6, 2007 by Socrates

[Budge]

[quote]Whatever.
The world "hates" L. Ron Hubbard too, but that still doesn't mean he's not deluded nutjob or a liar.
Many things in Chick tracts are outright lies and fabrications. (And the fact that he may sometimes post truth as well, does not make his lies any less lies.)[/quote]

I think its sad how you pawn eveyrone off as a "nutjob" that you disagree with.

Also if someone is sharing their sincere beliefs about a religion that is not LYING even if you believe said beliefs are wrong.

[quote]But if a Catholic agrees with a non-Christian on anything in anyway, that is proof-positive that the Church is in league with paganism.[/quote]

Hey I only post from articles and admit they are wrong about things. The Vatican has them over for interfaith pow-wows , thats definitely YOKING TOGETHER.

I still think the very fact the Catholic Church is deeply involved with a UU founded interfaith organization {WCRP} is of deep concern.


[quote]We worship the same Jesus whom the four Gospels teach about, and Who founded a Church on the Rock of St. Peter.
Who's your Jesus?[/quote]

You think you follow the same Jesus the four gospels teach about, I have some more hope for the less gung-ho Catholics who are more proto-Prots, but all of you who bow to the wafer and believe it is Jesus, you are following a false christ.

And if your standing on any other Rock but Jesus Christ, youre on sinking sand, no matter how great of a man Peter was.

[b]1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
[/b]
[quote]The Mass is mentioned in the four Gospels, as well as by St. Paul in I Cor. 11:27-32.[/quote]

Nothing like Catholic Masses through history and today...

no Latin, no ceremony, everyone breaking bread together...
[quote]And no one (except maybe the most far-out "rad-trad") says the Mass has to be in Latin to be valid.[/quote]

Well that wasnt til the 1960s, so....before hand it did have to be said in Latin...

[quote]God forbid anyone should use any words not in English, the language God Himself spoke as recorded by King James when he wrote the Bible![/quote]

Who cares if its in another language, the fact of the matter is, its a word used to cover, what is being done.
[quote]I don't "send" Dairygirl to post here, nor does anyone else, as far as I'm aware.
Is it too much for Budge to beleive that a "middle of the fence poster" can post on an internet message board of her own free will, without some vast sinister Jesuit conspiracy being involved?
(And surely the Vatican's vast Conspiracy of Evil could come up with some cleverer form of deception than that!?)[/quote]

Well it wouldnt be the Vatican just bored person here.

She still hasnt answered my question as to what religion she is?

It is very interesting to me how her confusion is so willingly tolerated here, none of you ever seem to correct her even as to Catholic teachings.
[quote]You've yet to show where Sola Scriptura is proclaimed in the Bible.
I believe there was a whole thread on that, where you couldn't be budged to answer - but I'll let someone less lazy than myself dig it up.)[/quote]

Theres no Magisterium in the Bible either. {Jesus preached call no man MASTER {Magisterium}

Im sorry you dont see scripture as the main authority you should invest yourself in....love for Gods Word is a fruit of salvation.

The Catholic Church's biggest curse to the world is chaing scripture away from people's hearts.

[quote]So perhaps you could name one Christian from the first centuries of the Church after the Bible who was not a "deceiver"?
Maybe we could start from there . . .[/quote]

Name them? You think that the world loved true Christians and made them all "famous"? The real saints are those who died unknown all but to God. Rome has advanced the deceivers for centuries.

Even today most of the celeb pastors and more even outside of Catholicism are wolves in sheep's clothing, I doubt that has changed much. Why do you trust in people, that won the adulation and love of the world when Jesus taught the complete opposite.

Look at the Pope, cover of Time magazine, loved by the world also. Thats doesnt bode well.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]She still hasnt answered my question as to what religion she is?[/quote]

actually i did. in another thread. there's several posts to you that are not addressed back to me. i realize you are busy, i can tell with all these posts, so i don't take too much beef with it.

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=72449&st=40&start=40"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...40&start=40[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=72107&st=60&start=60"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...60&start=60[/url]

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Budge' post='1379286' date='Sep 6 2007, 04:01 AM']Theres no Magisterium in the Bible either. {Jesus preached call no man MASTER {Magisterium}[/quote]

I'm confused - maybe I'm reading this post incorrectly. You say that the Bible is the sole source of authority, all Socrates was asking was where that could be found in the Bible. For if the Bible is indeed the sole source of authority, one would think it would say so. But your post makes it sound like you're saying both sola Scriptura and the Magisterium are unbiblical, which is contradicting what you have previously said about the Bible (that is, that sola Scriptura is valid). So my question here is if you are saying that neither is in the Bible. Or if I read your post incorrectly, please forgive me - I'm not entirely awake yet this morning.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Archaeology cat

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Budge' post='1379286' date='Sep 5 2007, 11:01 PM']I think its sad how you pawn eveyrone off as a "nutjob" that you disagree with.

Also if someone is sharing their sincere beliefs about a religion that is not LYING even if you believe said beliefs are wrong.[/quote]

Um, no. Lying in lying. The culpability of the lie might change if the person unknowingly spreads it. But unless you believe in various "truths" and that everyone can decide for themselves what is true, than spreading a falsehood is lying.

[quote]no Latin, no ceremony, everyone breaking bread together...[/quote]
right... I forgot... rock bands and power point sermons were what they had in the catecombs....

[quote]Well that wasnt til the 1960s, so....before hand it did have to be said in Latin...[/quote]
Why do you refuse to understand that small t traditions can change? Just because it [i]was[/i] always said in Latin does not mean that it was theologically necessary. And it wasn't always said in Latin. The first masses were in Greek. So what?



[quote]Well it wouldnt be the Vatican just bored person here.

She still hasnt answered my question as to what religion she is

It is very interesting to me how her confusion is so willingly tolerated here, none of you ever seem to correct her even as to Catholic teachings.[/quote]

Oh, pulease.... Dairy has been here longer than I have. I'm memeber number 737. So, which of the previous 736 members are you accusing of having a second account and posting as her? The fact is, I can rarely make heads or tails out of her posts (sorry dairy), but that doesn't mean that other members do not dialogue with her. And, yes, as she has mentioned, she did answer you question in another post.

[quote]The Catholic Church's biggest curse to the world is chaing scripture away from people's hearts.
Name them? You think that the world loved true Christians and made them all "famous"? The real saints are those who died unknown all but to God. Rome has advanced the deceivers for centuries.[/quote]

So, let me get this right... Any ancient Christian that anyone may have heard of is a false Christian? The True Christians no one heard of..... So much for a City on a Hill.

[Mary-Kathryn]

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1378633' date='Sep 5 2007, 02:39 PM']Just curious in the case of Budge and others I have come across and their EFFORTS to convince us to leave the Church, when is it appropriate for one to shake the dust OFF our feet? With her every post to DISCREDIT the CHURCH she does nothing but STRENGTHEN my FAITH in the BRIDE of CHRIST.

I have noticied in her last posts that she seems to be LOSING IT and EGGING US ON and more determined to prove her case.

It is obvious that she is on a MISSION and this HATRED for the CHURCH has CONSUMED her BEING.[/quote]


Budge does not come and stay just to keep poking at everyone. Budge stays for a much deeper reason than perhaps even she can admit. Let time do its work. The excellent answers will continue to dispel all the myths. I truly believe that Budge will make an awesome Catholic.

[Starets]

I also respect Jack Chick. It was through reading one of his tracts that I began the process of becoming Catholic in the first place. i found an historical inaccuracy in one of his tracts.

He claimed in one of his 80's tracts that the sign Constantine had his soldiers paint on their shields wasn't a cross but the "ankh" symbol. he even said that archeological evidence backed him up. so I did a bit of fact checking. I looked up the relevant section of K S Latourette's History of Christianity, which is one of the standard reference works on the subject, even if a bit dated. turns out that yes there was some shields with the "ankh" symbol but that the vast majority of the shields did indeed have a cross painted on them. That got me thinking. If he can bewrong about something that is so easy to doublecheck, maybe he's wrong about other things.

Then of course I found out that his main source of information about Catholicism in the first place, Alberto Rivera, was a fraud.

There were many other steps along the way, and many years passed between that and my reception into the Chruch, but that started the process going.

[Budge]

[quote]turns out that [b]yes there was some shields with the "ankh" symbol[/b] but that the vast majority of the shields did indeed have a cross painted on them.[/quote]

So he was right about some of the shields having an "ankh" symbol?

Seems that would speak more for him then against him.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1379286' date='Sep 5 2007, 10:01 PM']I think its sad how you pawn eveyrone off as a "nutjob" that you disagree with.

Also if someone is sharing their sincere beliefs about a religion that is not LYING even if you believe said beliefs are wrong.[/quote]
Well, I never thought I'd live to see you speak in defense of the founder of a blatantly pagan cult/extortion ring such as the "Church of Scientology." (Though sadly, with your posts, I suppose nothing should surprise me anymore).

You yourself have had much harsher things to say about those whose beliefs [i]you[/i] disagree with - specifically Catholics, including the Popes.
Your criticism of me for calling the late Mr. Hubbard a "nutjob" (though "con man" is probably a more accurate description) is about as hypocritical as they come.

[quote]Hey I only post from articles and admit they are wrong about things. The Vatican has them over for interfaith pow-wows , thats definitely YOKING TOGETHER.

I still think the very fact the Catholic Church is deeply involved with a UU founded interfaith organization {WCRP} is of deep concern.[/quote]
Again, we've been over this before. This "yoking together" and "deeply involved with the UU" talk is your own accusations, which have been shown to be lacking in substance.
I don't beleive the UU is right about much of anything, so again your accusations concerning our beliefs are baseless.
And when I defend against your anti-Catholic attacks, I use Scripture, facts, and common sense. I don't go digging up some atheist-secularist rant against "fundamentalist Christians," though we all know they're quite easy to find these days.

[quote]You think you follow the same Jesus the four gospels teach about, I have some more hope for the less gung-ho Catholics who are more proto-Prots, but all of you who bow to the wafer and believe it is Jesus, you are following a false christ.

And if your standing on any other Rock but Jesus Christ, youre on sinking sand, no matter how great of a man Peter was.

[b]1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
[/b][/quote]
Again, been there, done that.
It is quite clear both linguistically, and from the context of the passage (Matt. 13:16:19), that Christ gives Simon the new name "Peter" or "Rock," (a re-naming always has great significance in the Bible), and that he is the "Rock" upon which Christ builds his Church, entrusting Peter personally with the Keys of the Kingdom.
(This has already been argued in-depth on other threads, so look one up if want to debate this further.)
Jesus Christ, of course, remains the true Head of His Church.

[quote]Nothing like Catholic Masses through history and today...

no Latin, no ceremony, everyone breaking bread together...
Well that wasnt til the 1960s, so....before hand it did have to be said in Latin...[/quote]
Your own assertions, again.
As for Latin, that only applied to the Latin Rite. There were (and remain) a number of other ancient Rites of the Church, with Liturgies said in Greek and other languages, whose masses were always recognized as valid by the Church.
The first masses would have been in Aramaic or Hebrew. No knowlegable Catholic claims they were in Latin.
And if you truly study the Mass, much of it has its roots in Old Testament Jewish worship - the Mass being the perfect fulfillment of the Law.

Here you only betray your own ignorance.

[quote]Who cares if its in another language, the fact of the matter is, its a word used to cover, what is being done.[/quote]
You'd have to show where this word was being used, but I'd bet it was being used to clarify rather than confuse, as some words have more precise meaning in the language in which they were originally used than in English.
It seems you're just grasping for anything you hope to be able to use as a weapon of accusation.

[quote]Well it wouldnt be the Vatican just bored person here.
She still hasnt answered my question as to what religion she is?

It is very interesting to me how her confusion is so willingly tolerated here, none of you ever seem to correct her even as to Catholic teachings.[/quote]
I've argued with and corrected Dairy plenty of times myself, though I must admit more often than not I can't figure out what in tarnation she's trying to say.
If you have an issue with Dairygirl, take it up with her, and stop blaming everyone else.
This discussion of Dairygirl is irrelevent to the issues here, and is just diversionary babble.

[quote]Theres no Magisterium in the Bible either. {Jesus preached call no man MASTER {Magisterium}
Im sorry you dont see scripture as the main authority you should invest yourself in....love for Gods Word is a fruit of salvation.

The Catholic Church's biggest curse to the world is chaing scripture away from people's hearts.[/quote]
You are the one who claims that Scripture Alone can be used as the basis for any doctrine, so the burden of proof is on you to show where this doctrine of Sola Scriptura is found in Scripture.

This "chasing scripture away from people's hearts" talk is nonsense - bait and switch tactic, I see.
We Catholics have provided plenty of Scripture here which you have ignored or tried to "explain away" when it contradicts your own personal beliefs.

[quote]Name them? You think that the world loved true Christians and made them all "famous"? The real saints are those who died unknown all but to God. Rome has advanced the deceivers for centuries.

Even today most of the celeb pastors and more even outside of Catholicism are wolves in sheep's clothing, I doubt that has changed much. Why do you trust in people, that won the adulation and love of the world when Jesus taught the complete opposite.

Look at the Pope, cover of Time magazine, loved by the world also. Thats doesnt bode well.[/quote]
So you've admitted you cannot name one single non-Catholic "true Christian" from the first centuries of the Church's history, nor can you provide any form of evidence of their existence.
I guess those Evil Papists wiped out any trace of their existance as soon as the Bible was finished, along with all the Leprechauns and flying unicorns.
An argument with zero evidence to support it is weak indeed.

And most of the famous early Christians (whom you dismiss as "deceivers) were hardly "loved by the world", but suffered painful deaths as martyrs (by pagan Rome, nonetheless).

Being famous and known by the world is not necessarily the same as being of the world, or "loved by the world" either.
Jesus Christ was a pretty famous guy, as were John the Baptist, and St. Paul.

And the Popes, while famous, are frequently attacked by secularist liberals for their religious and moral teachings, as surely you must be aware.

(But it seems you want to have it both ways - when secularists vehemently attack and hate Catholics, that is proof of how evil Catholics are, but then you turn around and attack Catholics for being "loved by the world." - Again, no consistancy whatever; just whatever is handy at the moment to bash the Church with.)

Edited September 7, 2007 by Socrates

[jeffpugh]

1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

This passage actually refers back to Moses striking the rocks on the desert, bringing forth lifegiving water. Jesus has referred many times to himself as living water. I know this, because I used to hang around some prots who would emphasise this and send around tracts and stuff. It's good stuff, full of hope. I think I still have one kicking around. I should see how sound it is before I say anything more either way though...


And so, if prots are "yoked to rome" because of our interest in interreligious dialogue, then does that make Budge unyoked to the Word if she's associating with Atheists to try and bring us down? Sounds about right to me.

[Budge]

Associating with atheists?

Because I quoted from an article?

Thats yoking?

You dont even know what "unequally yoked" even means do you?