Pope Leo is one of the Catholic Church's biggest problems

55,387 Views | 1013 Replies | Last: 6 hrs ago by Sam Lowry
DallasBear9902
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Folks, here is what the RC''s are trying to run away and hide from by their personal attacks:

If someone, like those of the house of Cornelius, hears and believes the gospel, receives the Holy Spirit, and is water baptized, but dies right afterwards before taking the Eucharist - then according to the literal interpretation of "you must eat my flesh or you have no life in you", is this person or the house of Cornelius saved?

So far there has only been one RC willing to give a direct answer, and his answer was correct, but it proves the point - Jesus' words were not literal. The other RC's, knowing this, have been doing everything they can to dodge it, employing all the usual tactics. Do they really think this makes their huge problem go away? It's been fascinating to watch.

So why won't you RC's just be honest? If you truly have committed to the literal interpretation of Jesus' words, then follow through honestly with the logic - that person and the house of Cornelius would NOT be saved. It's clear, though, that you don't want to say this because, rightfully, you see it as a ridiculous conclusion. So then why not honestly acknowledge that Jesus' words could not be literal? Why not at least acknowledge that your view has a big problem? Why personally attack me or try to change the subject? What is that going to do for your problem??


That's a whole lotta words to dodge the straight forward questions that have been asked of you. You can fool yourself but everyone else sees you are dodging easy questions.

Do you need the questions repeated for you?
DallasBear9902
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

DallasBear9902 said:

Oldbear83 said:

DallasBear9902 said:

Oldbear83 said:

I see what you are doing there, but it's not a perfect fit for the account in Matthew 25.

While you are offended by BusyTarpDuster's tone and style (I don't find it appropriate myself), it does not speak to what he has done with the talents God gave us for His work. And I believe we all face some criticism in terms of getting distracted and doing what we want instead of God's work.




Sure, that is fair. There is no perfect analogy.

The problem I see here, is the matter of getting the person to actually consider what you post. Some people are great for conversation, even productive and enjoyable debate.

Some are just here to fight.

I've been a bit of both as a member here, trying to be more of the useful sort these days.


I think, most of us should agree, discipleship is the end point of fraternal correction. I sort of invert the issue. If your methods aren't resulting in discipleship, then I think the problem is with your methods, not God's truth.

Methods may have absolutely nothing to do with it. The problem can be that the other person simply rejects truth.


"It's everyone else's fault" is one heck of a cope.

Can you stop dodging my questions above?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DallasBear9902 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

DallasBear9902 said:

Oldbear83 said:

DallasBear9902 said:

Oldbear83 said:

I see what you are doing there, but it's not a perfect fit for the account in Matthew 25.

While you are offended by BusyTarpDuster's tone and style (I don't find it appropriate myself), it does not speak to what he has done with the talents God gave us for His work. And I believe we all face some criticism in terms of getting distracted and doing what we want instead of God's work.




Sure, that is fair. There is no perfect analogy.

The problem I see here, is the matter of getting the person to actually consider what you post. Some people are great for conversation, even productive and enjoyable debate.

Some are just here to fight.

I've been a bit of both as a member here, trying to be more of the useful sort these days.


I think, most of us should agree, discipleship is the end point of fraternal correction. I sort of invert the issue. If your methods aren't resulting in discipleship, then I think the problem is with your methods, not God's truth.

Methods may have absolutely nothing to do with it. The problem can be that the other person simply rejects truth.


"It's everyone else's fault" is one heck of a cope.

Can you stop dodging my questions above?

No one is stupid enough to think I'm dodging anything from you. On the other hand, your constant dodging of the huge problem that's been exposed about your belief, that's been painfully obvious. Quit fooling yourself. You're just making yourself look worse.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DallasBear9902 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Folks, here is what the RC''s are trying to run away and hide from by their personal attacks:

If someone, like those of the house of Cornelius, hears and believes the gospel, receives the Holy Spirit, and is water baptized, but dies right afterwards before taking the Eucharist - then according to the literal interpretation of "you must eat my flesh or you have no life in you", is this person or the house of Cornelius saved?

So far there has only been one RC willing to give a direct answer, and his answer was correct, but it proves the point - Jesus' words were not literal. The other RC's, knowing this, have been doing everything they can to dodge it, employing all the usual tactics. Do they really think this makes their huge problem go away? It's been fascinating to watch.

So why won't you RC's just be honest? If you truly have committed to the literal interpretation of Jesus' words, then follow through honestly with the logic - that person and the house of Cornelius would NOT be saved. It's clear, though, that you don't want to say this because, rightfully, you see it as a ridiculous conclusion. So then why not honestly acknowledge that Jesus' words could not be literal? Why not at least acknowledge that your view has a big problem? Why personally attack me or try to change the subject? What is that going to do for your problem??


That's a whole lotta words to dodge the straight forward questions that have been asked of you. You can fool yourself but everyone else sees you are dodging easy questions.

Do you need the questions repeated for you?

So you want to play this game? What does that say about your position?

Okay, lets play. I asked my questions before you did (it's on record). I'll answer any question that you think I didn't answer after you answer me first.
DallasBear9902
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

DallasBear9902 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Folks, here is what the RC''s are trying to run away and hide from by their personal attacks:

If someone, like those of the house of Cornelius, hears and believes the gospel, receives the Holy Spirit, and is water baptized, but dies right afterwards before taking the Eucharist - then according to the literal interpretation of "you must eat my flesh or you have no life in you", is this person or the house of Cornelius saved?

So far there has only been one RC willing to give a direct answer, and his answer was correct, but it proves the point - Jesus' words were not literal. The other RC's, knowing this, have been doing everything they can to dodge it, employing all the usual tactics. Do they really think this makes their huge problem go away? It's been fascinating to watch.

So why won't you RC's just be honest? If you truly have committed to the literal interpretation of Jesus' words, then follow through honestly with the logic - that person and the house of Cornelius would NOT be saved. It's clear, though, that you don't want to say this because, rightfully, you see it as a ridiculous conclusion. So then why not honestly acknowledge that Jesus' words could not be literal? Why not at least acknowledge that your view has a big problem? Why personally attack me or try to change the subject? What is that going to do for your problem??


That's a whole lotta words to dodge the straight forward questions that have been asked of you. You can fool yourself but everyone else sees you are dodging easy questions.

Do you need the questions repeated for you?

So you want to play this game? What does that say about your position?

Okay, let's play. I asked my questions before you did. I'll answer any question that you think I didn't answer after you answer me first.


What game is being played?

I'm just asking that you be honest with yourself and stop dodging questions. What is so hard about that?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Folks, do you see what RC's have to resort to in order to argue their beliefs?

What does this tell you?
DallasBear9902
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Folks, do you see what RC's have to resort to in order to argue their beliefs?

What does this tell you?


Now you are dodging three questions.

I don't know why you can't be honest.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ok, so far there hasn't been any honest engagement with a Roman Catholic about the issue I raised. Is there ANY honest Roman Catholic out there who can have a good faith discussion with me? Are the bad faith RC's here really representative of your Church??

Here it is again:
If someone, like those of the house of Cornelius, hears and believes the gospel, receives the Holy Spirit, and is water baptized, but dies right afterwards before taking the Eucharist - then according to the literal interpretation of "you must eat my flesh or you have no life in you", is this person or the house of Cornelius saved?
DallasBear9902
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Ok, so far there hasn't been any honest engagement with a Roman Catholic about the issue I raised. Is there ANY honest Roman Catholic out there who can have a good faith discussion with me? Are the bad faith RC's here really representative of your Church??


Will you ever answer the three simple questions asked of you?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DallasBear9902 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Ok, so far there hasn't been any honest engagement with a Roman Catholic about the issue I raised. Is there ANY honest Roman Catholic out there who can have a good faith discussion with me? Are the bad faith RC's here really representative of your Church??


Will you ever answer the three simple questions asked of you?

You first, with the questions I asked you.

The forum will ride out your current tantrum and await your answer...
DallasBear9902
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

DallasBear9902 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Ok, so far there hasn't been any honest engagement with a Roman Catholic about the issue I raised. Is there ANY honest Roman Catholic out there who can have a good faith discussion with me? Are the bad faith RC's here really representative of your Church??


Will you ever answer the three simple questions asked of you?

You first, with the questions I asked you.

The forum will ride out your current tantrum and await your answer...


Why are you making this about me and personally attacking me? All I ask is for answers to three easy questions. Will you not honestly engage? Don't make this about me. Just answer the questions.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hold on, folks, the tantrum will be over soon....
DallasBear9902
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Hold on, folks, the tantrum will be over soon....


Still dodging with personal attacks.

BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm actually glad you're doing this. Bookmarked.
DallasBear9902
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

I'm actually glad you're doing this. Bookmarked.


Acceptance is the final coping stage. So are you now ready to answer the simple questions?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DallasBear9902 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

I'm actually glad you're doing this. Bookmarked.


Acceptance is the final coping stage. So are you now ready to answer the simple questions?

Waiting on you....

DallasBear9902
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

DallasBear9902 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

I'm actually glad you're doing this. Bookmarked.


Acceptance is the final coping stage. So are you now ready to answer the simple questions?

Waiting on you....


Sweet! Here are the questions for you to answer:

1. If your self-congratulatory, pat-yourself-on-the-back, needlessly confrontational methods aren't discipling anyone, then what is the point?

2. Seriously, what's the point of living in your fantasy land where you enjoy some kind of self-granted prophetic powers to know what others truly believe and know?

3. What game are we playing?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Everyone knows you're just playing games in order to dodge my questions. You're not fooling anyone, you're just making an idiot of yourself.

Waiting.....
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
[ The Holy Spirit right now ]

'Hey guys? I'm right over here. Can you stop arguing with each other and maybe listen?'

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Once again, who knows? Only God knows who is saved. How can you know what is in someones heart? That is between then and God. If they repent for their sins and belief God is merciful, so yes. If they are going through the motions putting on a show for prideful recognition but dont believe then no.

How can you say you know? That is pretty arrogant.
DallasBear9902
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Everyone knows you're just playing games in order to dodge my questions. You're not fooling anyone, you're just making an idiot of yourself.

Waiting.....


So you're back to dodging questions?
DallasBear9902
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

[ The Holy Spirit right now ]

'Hey guys? I'm right over here. Can you stop arguing with each other and maybe listen?'



I hear you, OB. But he's the one the staked out the position that correction of error is more important than respectful dialogue. I'm just trying to meet him with his preferred ground rules.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

[ The Holy Spirit right now ]

'Hey guys? I'm right over here. Can you stop arguing with each other and maybe listen?'


curious how many here actually converse with the Holy Spirit..
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Oldbear83 said:

[ The Holy Spirit right now ]

'Hey guys? I'm right over here. Can you stop arguing with each other and maybe listen?'



curious how many here actually converse with the Holy Spirit..

In my experience, where the Holy Spirit speaks we should not be the ones speaking.

Certainly not talk over the HS, as some seem wont to do.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Maybe the HS is asking Busy for ruling on something? Afterall he knows all...
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hey guys.... you do know that the question is still being avoided, right?

Do you really think people don't notice?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DallasBear9902 said:

Oldbear83 said:

[ The Holy Spirit right now ]

'Hey guys? I'm right over here. Can you stop arguing with each other and maybe listen?'



.... But he's the one the staked out the position that correction of error is more important than respectful dialogue.

You're kidding, right?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So clearly, the RC's have no answer for their dilemma regarding the literal interpretation of John chapter 6 and the house of Cornelius. Therefore, it should in the least raise the question in RC minds whether the literal interpretation is correct, if they're willing to be honest. Combining this with these facts:

  • eating human flesh and drinking blood was against the Law, therefore a sin;
  • Jesus would not have been the perfect sacrifice if he sinned by commanding his disciples to break the Law;
  • Jesus still referred to the wine as "the fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29)
  • Judas Iscariot ate the bread and drank the wine, which would mean he was saved to eternal life according to the literal interpretation: "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." But Judas was not saved. So if Jesus' words were literal, then he lied.
  • the disciples in Acts 15 instructed Gentile believers to abstain from blood.
..then it becomes pretty clear that the belief that Jesus' words "you must eat my flesh" were literal in meaning and involved transubstantiation of the Eucharist bread is simply not tenable. And wouldn't it make sense then, for Augustine to have understood this, thus leading him to hold to the symbolic meaning as his writings cleary indicate?
DallasBear9902
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Catholicism believes in ecumenicalism. That such Christian charity is often unreciprocated is mildly disappointing. And while we would love to see our protestant brothers and sisters return home to Rome, we understand that God's judgement is ultimately God's judgment, and not ours to render. And so even though many of us have concerns with parts of protestant theology, we comfortably rest knowing that God will ultimately sort it out in the end and I personally don't spend too much time getting worked up about the excesses I see in protestant denominations (the new woke branch of Methodists comes to mind, right away).

My priest is the Pastoral Administrator of something that could be thought of as akin to a Catholic mega church. Many of you would recognize the administration and ministry set up in our parish as not too dissimilar from what you find in your own churches. Having spent 4 years at Baylor, I see the similarities, but new families lacking exposure to protestant churches are often "wowed" at the differences between our church from other Catholic parishes. Our priest is in a loose informal council with mega church pastors throughout our area. They meet regularly to bounce ideas off each other, tackle common problems, etc...

A new mega pastor gets brought into the group. The new guy's mega church is known to have a great ministry in addressing a certain societal ill and our priest asks if he can borrow their materials until our parish can develop its own programming. New guy gets uncomfortable and tells our priest something like, "don't get me wrong, I believe it is theoretically possible for Catholics to get to Heaven...." Our priest responds jokingly, "don't worry, I too believe it is theoretically possible for Protestants to get to Heaven...." Apparently this turns into a record scratch moment, the rest of the meeting is extremely tense and the new guy leaves the group.

So my only sincere criticism of protestants is this: they can dish it out but they can't take it. They will cavalierly throw out that your salvation is in jeopardy, gleefully condemn you to hell, and generally act belligerently. But the moment you mirror their accusations and behavior back at them they are brutally offended, at minimum. Many of them lack the spiritual toughness and confidence to respond in a cool manner.

In this thread we have a poster who when confronted with his own belligerent behavior blithely added more accusations to the list, and concluded with "but am I right?". The implication being that the Christian virtues of charity and prudence have no meaning to this poster. Yet the moment he is confronted with his very own posting style and bad-faith tactics, he completely crashes out and can't take the very medicine he dishes he out. We all saw it.

Protestants' second greatest sin was their enthusiastic embrace of the French Revolution. For many years I thought they genuinely miscalculated and bought into the liberalism the Jacobins were pushing (and have since unleashed on the rest of the world) because French protestants thought liberalism would protect them from persecution by the Catholic state. I've come to understand my conclusion was incorrect. I now think the meanness, judgement and condemnation of the Jacobins was the point, and that is why the French protestants embraced it. And so it is with our dear friend in this thread who we can all see crashes out the moment you mirror his style back at him. He can dish it out but he certainly can't take it. He escalates his meanness and engages in name calling moments after whining about being called much tamer names. You see, the meanness, judgement and condemnation are the point and his insecurities make him crash out when he faces what he dishes out. And we all have seen it with our own eyes.
BigGameBaylorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ironically, this thread has forced me to reexamine my beliefs and I am happy to say I will be doubling down on my Catholic faith!
Sic 'em Bears and Go Birds
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:


TOTAL dodge again.

Even if you want to insert the fact that they also took the Eucharist (which is nowhere in the text), that would have no bearing whatsoever on the question. The question is whether a person, if like the house of Cornelius hears the gospel and believes, receives the Holy Spirit, and gets water baptized, but dies before taking the Eucharist - would they be saved, in light of your literal interpretation of John 6? And by the way - if Jesus was being literal in John 6 and therefore you can't be saved without the Eucharist, don't you think the story of the house of Cornelius would have included it? Oops, did the Holy Spirit overlook this?

Only one Roman Catholic has answered the question. Why can't you?
It's not a dodge. The question has been answered ad nauseum.

I'll answer your question when you answer mine ...

When a baby or child under the age of reason dies BEFORE they say the sinner's prayer or come to believe in Jesus (or whatever you think that it takes for them to be saved), do they go to heaven?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:


TOTAL dodge again.

Even if you want to insert the fact that they also took the Eucharist (which is nowhere in the text), that would have no bearing whatsoever on the question. The question is whether a person, if like the house of Cornelius hears the gospel and believes, receives the Holy Spirit, and gets water baptized, but dies before taking the Eucharist - would they be saved, in light of your literal interpretation of John 6? And by the way - if Jesus was being literal in John 6 and therefore you can't be saved without the Eucharist, don't you think the story of the house of Cornelius would have included it? Oops, did the Holy Spirit overlook this?

Only one Roman Catholic has answered the question. Why can't you?

It's not a dodge. The question has been answered ad nauseum.

I'll answer your question when you answer mine ...

When a baby or child under the age of reason dies BEFORE they say the sinner's prayer or come to believe in Jesus (or whatever you think that it takes for them to be saved), do they go to heaven?


It is a complete dodge, and you're only fooling yourself by claiming it isn't. The whole forum outside of brainwashed Catholics knows it is a dodge.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:



In this thread we have a poster who when confronted with his own belligerent behavior blithely added more accusations to the list, and concluded with "but am I right?". The implication being that the Christian virtues of charity and prudence have no meaning to this poster. Yet the moment he is confronted with his very own posting style and bad-faith tactics, he completely crashes out and can't take the very medicine he dishes he out. We all saw it.


We watched a Catholic not be able to handle the obvious truth in front of them, and who still could not answer the question because it showed he was wrong, and so he had to lash out by throwing a tantrum and doing everything he could to divert attention away from that. Your very long post here is just an extension of this. You still can't/won't address the glaring issue that confronts your church's beliefs. This is what the rational, intelligent people in this forum know happened.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DallasBear9902 said:

Catholicism believes in ecumenicalism.

Yes, we know.

Ecumenism is straight from the Devil.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:


TOTAL dodge again.

Even if you want to insert the fact that they also took the Eucharist (which is nowhere in the text), that would have no bearing whatsoever on the question. The question is whether a person, if like the house of Cornelius hears the gospel and believes, receives the Holy Spirit, and gets water baptized, but dies before taking the Eucharist - would they be saved, in light of your literal interpretation of John 6? And by the way - if Jesus was being literal in John 6 and therefore you can't be saved without the Eucharist, don't you think the story of the house of Cornelius would have included it? Oops, did the Holy Spirit overlook this?

Only one Roman Catholic has answered the question. Why can't you?

It's not a dodge. The question has been answered ad nauseum.

I'll answer your question when you answer mine ...

When a baby or child under the age of reason dies BEFORE they say the sinner's prayer or come to believe in Jesus (or whatever you think that it takes for them to be saved), do they go to heaven?


It is a complete dodge, and you're only fooling yourself by claiming it isn't. The whole forum outside of brainwashed Catholics knows it is a dodge.

It's not a dodge. The question has been answered.

You are dodging my question (which I'll slight amend) ...

When a baby or child under the age of reason dies BEFORE they say the sinner's prayer or come to believe in Jesus (or whatever you think that it takes for them to be saved), do they go to hell?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.