Is There Different Beliefs Among Catholics? Chrislam Movement?

[bbyrd009]

I am not sure you would like being told you had to post in the heretic section, bbyd, because of your rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity?

um, the one that cannot be Quoted in Scripture? Tbh wouldnt bother me a bit, and while i understand, i somewhat object to being relegated to the "Christian" section, myself! (prohibition against Christians starting threads in "other")

But i do agree with your principle there, except as pointed out you are not obnoxious with differing "doctrine" (which wadr i find a generous at best characterization of most RRC stuff anyway, but lets not go there now imo being as we never have needed to in the past). Now we have plenty of obnoxious-with-doctrine Prots here, dont get me wrong, but at least the principle of boundary stones is not neglected; iow i have no objection to a Catholic coming here, in the Christian forum to learn Christianity; but i do, certainly, object to them being deemed Christian, and i gues now what i am going to do is start a discussion based upon why, and unfortunately you guys are not going to like it much i guess.

so while i still have the chance, let me say that if some raging ring-kisser walked into my present cong and started spouting, and five kids who were not mine got stars in their eyes hearing it, i would not utter a peep ok; irl what ppl choose to do is their business, and more power to them imo, long as they are not coercing anyone physically. Now, if one of the kids asked my opinion they would get it, but i would never interfere, as i am a guest there too, not a joiner or a "member"

But we are going to have a discussion about why Catholics and Protestants should, generally speaking, not be allowed to post in each other's forums, and at the end of it either they are going to leave, or i am (pretty much gone already anyway; who needs it?)--and by They i mean the rank offenders, BoL and the like, and not you and your like, dont care if we do it by vote or whatever, and bam do the same for me, dont care--and i hope maybe they get their own subforum, but as i dont own any of this that is not up to me.

And i also hope common sense would prevail, and that even a Catholic who is seeking might be allowed to do so in the Christian section, and v-v. There are plenty of areas where we agree, and i am also not against conciliatory Scripture being forwarded by anyone, in any forum, but aspen, this combative Roman crap that cannot be Supported, i am all the way done with that herenow, ok.

so, im gonna pray about this, and im gonna post a thread that is as thought out as possible, but most likely going to piss any Catholics here somewhat off, ok? If you don't mind ill prolly run it by you and/or amadues first for editing, as i have no desire to deliberately offend anyone, but the Scripture i will be Quoting will be staying in, and if Catholics cannot address them, then oh well and we'll see i guess.

bc i am done being pitted against another believer of any stripe just bc they choose to adhere to a king other than Christ. That is fair to no one. We are being used as fodder bro. ok peace. Not Pax. Not Ever.

 

[bbyrd009]

I agree that rude people should have their own section. Rude Catholics and rude Protestants and rude heretics.

that would be ideal imo, and i think we have a pretty obv standard in those who insist upon using satans dialectic to foward any doctrine, but again not up to me.

 

[bbyrd009]

I have been posting here for more than a decade and I would not like it if I was relegated to a Catholic section.

the point i hoped to make is that we have corresponded for years now and you have never given me cause to feel like you should be anywhere else, aspen, but unfortunately that does not apply to many of your bretheren.

Now i certainly invite you and amadeus to have a pm chat with them if you like, but this forum ostensibly does not allow those who are not Christians to post in the Christian section, and imo it is time for those who insist upon an earthly king--accent on INSIST ok--who also are not Christian by any stretch of the term, to be held to the same standard imo. Pax is a pagan, Roman god, and those who invoke her are pagans, and imo God has no problem with pagans, at all; they just are not Christians, ok.

 

[aspen]

the point i hoped to make is that we have corresponded for years now and you have never given me cause to feel like you should be anywhere else, aspen, but unfortunately that does not apply to many of your bretheren.

Now i certainly invite you and amadeus to have a pm chat with them if you like, but this forum ostensibly does not allow those who are not Christians to post in the Christian section, and imo it is time for those who insist upon an earthly king--accent on INSIST ok--who also are not Christian by any stretch of the term, to be held to the same standard imo. Pax is a pagan, Roman god, and those who invoke her are pagans, and imo God has no problem with pagans, at all; they just are not Christians, ok.

yah, I usually do not preach Catholic doctrine, although I agree with it, so I can see how I may not seem like a Catholic. I was the only regular Catholic member here for years and years, but it is not the case now.

I disagree with your understanding of Catholicism - you have a right to your opinion. I am sure you probably disagree with my opinion about adherence to the doctrine of the Trinity. The problem with your proposed solution however, is that it will isolate everyone here. Also, all Protestant boards need a foil because of the nature of their dialectical religion. Without someone to gang up on this place would be a collection of blog entries

 

[bbyrd009]

horse puckey imo, we have plenty of our own division, aspen

1 Corinthians 15:24 ok not the real, lost 1 Cor but whatever

...after He has DESTROYED all dominion, power and authority see and that is JESUS CHRIST Who said that so if we--and by "we" i mean the CHRISTIANS here, not the Catholics, wadr--are not clear on any of the terms in that SCRIPTURE VERSE then imo we damned well need to be, or i will happily go elsewhere and let yall get preached "Church Fathers" dreck to your heart's content, ok.

so i dont need to start a thread, guess ill get my answer by the replies here, and fwiw im sorry it came to this

 

[aspen]

horse puckey imo, we have plenty of our own division, aspen

1 Corinthians 15:24 ok not the real, lost 1 Cor but whatever

...after He has DESTROYED all dominion, power and authority see and that is JESUS CHRIST Who said that so if we--and by "we" i mean the CHRISTIANS here, not the Catholics, wadr--are not clear on any of the terms in that SCRIPTURE VERSE then imo we damned well need to be, or i will happily go elsewhere and let yall get preached "Church Fathers" dreck to your heart's content, ok.

so i dont need to start a thread, guess ill get my answer by the replies here, and fwiw im sorry it came to this

yah, me too. Your posts have been fairly reasonable up to this point. I am not going to insult you so I guess we are done here....?

 

[epostle]

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (No Salvation Outside the Church) was first taught by the Apostles, and the Church does not have the authority to change it. Paul emphatically and repeatedly talks about ONE BREAD, and ONE BODY, and denounces division as scandalous. If it can be proven that a doctrine did not originate in seedling form from Jesus and the Apostles, in written BOTH/AND oral form, then it is a false doctrine. Calvin and Matt Slick are masters at EITHER/OR thinking. In other words, FALSE DICHOTOMIES. This should explain why we reject Calvinism.

All of use are at various stages of development in our apologetics. We are called to be kind and charitable at all times. Sometimes all of us fail, and sometimes some of us don't.

 

[epostle]

yah, me too. Your posts have been fairly reasonable up to this point. I am not going to insult you so I guess we are done here....?

 

[bbyrd009]

yah, me too. Your posts have been fairly reasonable up to this point. I am not going to insult you so I guess we are done here....?

aspen, you are not the insulting type anyway, and i think it is clear that you are also not the problem here ok, if indeed there even is one. And no offense but as you still identify as Catholic i would not expect you to address the points, which i hope you understand is really the point.

and no offense bro, but you could not insult me if you tried, ok.
You have my permission to do your very best, right now, go ahead
this is a forum, and we are just talking, yeh

So, ive said my say, and would like to post a reply from a pm, and then enjoy the rest of Sabbath if i may:
[\QUOTE]
the heir is under servants and no better than a slave until he inherits, even though he is the kurios of all ok, and i respect your right to recognize an earthly king, should you so desire.

As to the division you want to avoid, fwiw i dont expect it to literally happen anyway, but i do expect to fully manifest its spiritually happening here. I broke a rule imo by even coming into a thread titled "Catholic" to engender a little self-moderating by those who have chosen to ignore a boundary stone, admittedly pitched to you and __________ mostly, that you might confront this yourselves, rather than me feeling compelled to do it. So then do it or dont, and i understand if you dont ok.

As to the trinity issue, i would just ask you one question, that wadr i do not expect you to reply to now, as you have not done so in the past; so, you have accepted a def of Yah "Father/Son/Holy Spirit" as persons, right, regardless of Scripture that clearly states otherwise on the matter, critically deficient to me, but again your right. Only one thing, see, "I said 'you are elohim'" so i would ask where you fit in there

 

[Taken]

i know this is gonna sound weird maybe, but be perfect as I am perfect is not about "sinning" at all imo, but forgiveness

I wouldn't hang it all on "forgiveness", but that does have an element in becoming "perfected".

Jesus had no sin, thus required no forgiveness.
Humans are born in sin, and commit sin, which all hangs on being naturally born WITHOUT belief In God.

So I would say, we are all naturally born, (IN SIN), BECAUSE we are all naturally born, WITHOUT belief in God, or a COMMITMENT to that belief.

Which is to say: SIN is the term that Defines, Disbelief IN God.

WHEN a man repents for having had DISBELIEF/ (SIN)...he is forgiven (BY GOD) of his SIN.

WHEN a man Confesses his "heartfelt" Belief IN God...he is BY THE CONFESSION...then (BY GOD) "Perfected".

Which is to say:
The man IS WILLINGLY giving his life TO GOD.
God accepts the mans "whole life", body, soul, spirit...
And God does all the WORK, per blessinga and gifts, forward to that man;
that IS....ACCORDING to God, sufficient for the man to BE JUSTIFIED...as perfected...
And SEALED unto God
And CLAIMED unto God
And REDEEMED unto God

WE 'WAIT" TO SEE...the fruition.
God is without the barrier of Time, and ALREADY SEE what shall be.

So partly I agree with you.
The Acceptance of God, of a man BEGINS with Forgiveness...
And the Forgiveness all hinges on SIN, that must be Forgiven, before God CAN perfect a man.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[bbyrd009]

Jesus had no sin, thus required no forgiveness.

from your perspective, perhaps, yes, but from others, Jesus broke virtually every Commandment in the Decalogue, and while you post in satan's dialectic, as if you were the arbiter, you are wadr not, and neither am i of course. So, no offense meant, but i have no desire to shred up the rest of your post to no productive end ok

 

[bbyrd009]

so, i hope im not being misunderstood, i am an heir too ok, i hope anyway.
but i come here seeking to have holes punched in my beliefs, big diff, imo

 

[BreadOfLife]

So your church never made the claim that outside of the rcc there is no salvation? You gonna stick with that? The seds after vat 2 had nothing to bark about right? They completely missed the point?

Where did I say this??
The Church has ALWAYS believed in Extra Ecclisiam Nulla Salus (No Salvation Outside the Church).

I said that the Church DEFINED this teaching at the 2nd Vatican Council.
I didn't say that it was a NEW teaching - YOU did.

"As for people who disagree with the Pope – there have ALWAYS been dissidents within the Church – and there always WILL be."
People who disagree with the pope....dissidents. Or don't you remember that?

Uh-huh.
Now, show me where I said that "ANYONE" who disagrees with the Pope is a dissident.

A dissident is one who would disagrees with the Pope on a doctrinal matter - not EVERY matter the Pope holds to.

And this is where we part company again. When you can't keep up you hurl insults. Have a good lie...i mean life.

Then stay honest and don't veer off into dishonest accusations.
That's ALL I ask of those I debate . . .

 

[aspen]

aspen, you are not the insulting type anyway, and i think it is clear that you are also not the problem here ok, if indeed there even is one. And no offense but as you still identify as Catholic i would not expect you to address the points, which i hope you understand is really the point.

and no offense bro, but you could not insult me if you tried, ok.
You have my permission to do your very best, right now, go ahead
this is a forum, and we are just talking, yeh

So, ive said my say, and would like to post a reply from a pm, and then enjoy the rest of Sabbath if i may:
[\QUOTE]
the heir is under servants and no better than a slave until he inherits, even though he is the kurios of all ok, and i respect your right to recognize an earthly king, should you so desire.

As to the division you want to avoid, fwiw i dont expect it to literally happen anyway, but i do expect to fully manifest its spiritually happening here. I broke a rule imo by even coming into a thread titled "Catholic" to engender a little self-moderating by those who have chosen to ignore a boundary stone, admittedly pitched to you and __________ mostly, that you might confront this yourselves, rather than me feeling compelled to do it. So then do it or dont, and i understand if you dont ok.

As to the trinity issue, i would just ask you one question, that wadr i do not expect you to reply to now, as you have not done so in the past; so, you have accepted a def of Yah "Father/Son/Holy Spirit" as persons, right, regardless of Scripture that clearly states otherwise on the matter, critically deficient to me, but again your right. Only one thing, see, "I said 'you are elohim'" so i would ask where you fit in there

well, I am glad you are not offended easily.

I am just going to get this out of the way at the beginning of this post; it seems to me that you are asking me to explore basic tenets of Catholic doctrine, as if it has never occurred to me to do so before now - correct? It seems a bit oblivious on your part, to assume that I blundered my way into Mass and just never wandered out. I’ve been a Catholic for many years now, which has included times of worship, listening to God, thanksgiving, addiction, love, and continuous study.

now, I’ve reached a point in my walk with Christ that involves a greater degree of application - studying is still important, but all that study, points directly towards loving God and neighbor so there is only so long that you can devote the majority of your time to it without connecting with others and loving outwardly

I am not sure if I am supposed to thank you for risking all the heresy of a Catholic thread to reach down into the fiery furnace to rescue Amadeus and I from the Hell of false doctrine/belief or if you are just being dramatic? I’ve never claimed to understand your posts very well, let alone your doctrine. Honestly, I really thought, with your strange conspiracy theories and gnostic leanings that we had a connection - at least both of us have experienced push back for our beliefs here. I mean, come on Byrd, you just posted that Jesus committed personal sin - how can you see yourself as a guardian of orthodoxy?

so your recent, strong stance against Catholicism, which I admit I have seen in flashes here, before, have been a bit of a shock for me. There are lots of people who disagree with Catholicism on this board, but they have been pretty straightforward about it. There are also the very few people here who are actually anti-Catholic in the sense that they would resort to violence to prove the Church wrong - I just ignore them. It is here, that I worry that not only have you ‘come out’ as a strong opponent towards the church, but have become quite angry about it.

here is the bottomline for me, I believe all people who choose to confess their sins to God and trust in His plan for salvation are headed towards Heaven. I believe that one of the last dividing lines between orthodox Christianity and psuedoChristian systems of belief is the doctrine of the Trinity - all cults have screwed with this critical doctrine and ended up in a ditch. If you are interested in an in-depth conversation about the Trinity, we can probably pick from some of the hundreds of Trinity focused threads on this board and continue the discussion. The issue of course is that you reject most of Christian history and every thing about the doctrine - you also have an array of re-interpretations of Trinitarian verses. Our friends in the SDA church have done a fine job of muddy this water, so there is a lot of material out there.

Now, honestly, I am not sure I am interested in participating or even reading a review of the literature on Trinitarian doctrine. So, if you are interested, I will have to decided if this is how I want to spend my time. The Trinity is such a foundational doctrine, it is like becoming fixated on the safety course at a new job instead of moving to the responsibilities of the job.

just as a reminder, to the dismay of some of the Catholics here, I also attend a Quaker church. I do so for the spiritual focus and the adult education, along with the fellowship. Quakers have a bad reputation for rejecting the Trinity because they refuse to define God. They do not reject the doctrine, outright, however - they remain open to experiencing God without concern for formulas. Doctrines are often questioned amongst Quakers and I find this refreshing.

also, do me a favor by listing the points you would like me to address - it helps me organize. You can leave out the Trinity points - we can address them in another thread

Peace

 

[bbyrd009]

so your recent, strong stance against Catholicism

obv you are not hearing me, aspen; i have no objections, whatsoever, to Catholicism bro. This is not about Catholicism or Catholics at all. This is about lack of respect for others' beliefs, that will never agree with yours, and the fence you broke through to be posting here; note that you are a Catholic, but your "faith" (as a noun, of course, narf) is listed as "Christian," right? And see this did not change overnight, it has been like that for ever yeh, and i have never even mentioned this before now, have i.

Now, how about if i walked in to your cong and started calling myself a Catholic, how would that be accepted aspen. Lets not kid ourselves ok, i would first be subjected to friendly but direct questions, and inquiries would surely be made based upon my answers, and if i refused to reply i would be rejected at the very least, and certainly not able to participate in your idolization of Communion, now isnt that about right?

So, we can dance around here with you refusing to address the issue as long as you like, but i think despite any intentional or unintentional obfuscations--gotta be a simpler word there, hmm--in my posts, im pretty sure i made my both my appreciation and my concerns pretty clear bro. I do not have anything "against" Catholics, at all.

Now, when you address the point we can proceed if you like, but wadr i have better things to do than play Dodge Boys with someone in denial ok, no offense meant, bc i can be a worm too, dont get me wrong

so, you might wonder whether i am hard to understand at times bc you dont want to understand, or even why you are not replying to my tag to you re pj, maybe, k

 

[aspen]

obv you are not hearing me, aspen; i have no objections, whatsoever, to Catholicism bro. This is not about Catholicism or Catholics at all. This is about lack of respect for others' beliefs, that will never agree with yours, and the fence you broke through to be posting here; note that you are a Catholic, but your "faith" (as a noun, of course, narf) is listed as "Christian," right? And see this did not change overnight, it has been like that for ever yeh, and i have never even mentioned this before now, have i.

Now, how about if i walked in to your cong and started calling myself a Catholic, how would that be accepted aspen. Lets not kid ourselves ok, i would first be subjected to friendly but direct questions, and inquiries would surely be made based upon my answers, and if i refused to reply i would be rejected at the very least, and certainly not able to participate in your idolization of Communion, now isnt that about right?

So, we can dance around here with you refusing to address the issue as long as you like, but i think despite any intentional or unintentional obfuscations--gotta be a simpler word there, hmm--in my posts, im pretty sure i made my both my appreciation and my concerns pretty clear bro. I do not have anything "against" Catholics, at all.

Now, when you address the point we can proceed if you like, but wadr i have better things to do than play Dodge Boys with someone in denial ok, no offense meant, bc i can be a worm too, dont get me wrong

ok I think I understand. You object to anyone who is not a Christian calling themselves a Christian and pretending to be a sheep, when actually they are a wolf, picking off true believers....ok

I am sure you see the irony here....

1. Telling a Catholic they are not Christian is like a Mormon telling a Protestant that they are not Christian. Indeed, like European settlers in America, denying their European roots, Sola Scriptura followers love to deny their Catholicity. When a group usurps key doctrines and scripture assembled by another group and then declares themselves to be true believers that have nothing to with the group they came out of it really can be hard to watch.....

2. Catholic doctrine meets the definition of this board’s definition of Christianity - yours does not.

3. based on our relationship to this board and the community I have been here awhile, you are a newcomer. If anyone ‘walked into a congregation’ pretending to be something they are not, it is not me

 

[aspen]

not that anyone should have to suffer BoL for this long w/o seeing some evidence of change imo. How many times does he get to call everyone else liars?

Based on his posts, BOL places doctrine over people. We disagree on this point. I also think rudeness is a betrayal of Christ’s sacrifice - it is repugnant

 

[bbyrd009]

I am sure you see the irony here...

aspen, i am maybe just not in the mood or something, but i do notice you are consistently avoiding replying to the meat of any post in order to forward your pov. You are playing "nevermind that, what about this" bc actually addressing my post would expose your bs here bro.

Idc even a little what you call yourself irl; but obv if i walked into your congregation--unlike any other protestant cong i might walk into--i would not be welcome as a brother, but an unknown, a guest at best. Now you can pull seniority here if you like, but obv that in no way addresses my concerns, which have been made plain long ago, but since i am apparently so hard to understand i will state them again for you, so that you can then completely ignore it and post another wormy post that makes you feel a little better for a monute;

you have moved a boundary stone to get here, and the above scenario along with countless others makes plain that we do not share the same doctrines, yet you have no regard or respect for our beliefs whatsoever, when push comes to shove, and have only usurped the title Christian in order to justify yourself to yourself.

So, ive made my point crystal clear long tome ago, and of course none of you want to go anywhere near it bc you can not, so wadr i am done here, and ill just let you go back to jerking off yourself amd anyone else who wants to entertain you bro k. goodnight

 

[bbyrd009]

Based on his posts, BOL places doctrine over people. We disagree on this point. I also think rudeness is a betrayal of Christ’s sacrifice - it is repugnant

inviting experienced Christians to "the wedding feast of the lamb" is condescending and sophomoric at best, yes, and foisting Catholic dogma on us as if it were Christian is worse. I recognize that you do mot do this, but then i thought i had made that clear. Your fellows are being dicks, and i am now done with my attempts to remediate in this manner ok, i just had to try, knew it was pointless already. goodbye

 

[aspen]

you have moved a boundary stone to get here, and the above scenario along with countless others makes plain that we do not share the same doctrines, yet you have no regard or respect for our beliefs whatsoever, when push comes to shove, and have only usurped the title Christian in order to justify yourself to yourself.

I clearly addressed this issue. I guess you do not like my response. As far as calling my posts ‘bs’, it sounds like I am being called to agree with you or my posts are ’wormy’ - whatever that means.

Catholics are Christians. We are the original Christians. I believe all people who believe in the Trinitarian God, confess their sins and trust is Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, are Christian. I am respectful towards people here, especially when I see Christ within their posts.

there have been waves of rude people who have stormed in here over the years - atheists, Calvinists, and now, Catholics......it is what happens here

clear enough?