Has anyone here ever read this document?

[Marymog]

OK, I got to address this point first and foremost before we go any where else.

I am not attacking Catholicism. There is no need for you to "defend" Catholicism when A) no one is attacking it and B) truth of things stand perfectly well on it's own without internet posters "defending" it. Such only breeds contempt against Catholicism or whatever other faith is being "defended".

We just had a conversation last week, wherein you ask me if I wanted someone to go around "defending" what I believe and I told you "no, Truth stands on it's own". Too often "defenders" of truth are like Peter swinging his sword at Malchus. Too often the go around with anti-Christ tactics and when deaf ears.

I want NO part of such "defense" of any faith.

Dear friend. I never said you were attacking Catholicism. I said I am defending Catholicism.

I.E.

You stated that you have a number of disagreements with the Catholic Churches methodology of using history-based epistemological approaches. I simply defended that approach.

Are you suggesting you should be able voice your disagreements about the Church but I shouldn't respond?? You want to articulate your beliefs and disagreements but Marymog should keep her mouth shut? That is what I feel like you are saying.

If you don't use any Christian history on how to interpret scripture are all of your interpretations from your own studies? You don't reference any of the Reformers or Gnostics or Docetism in your studies of scripture? You just read scripture and come up with the Truth all on your own? Is that your methodology of coming to the Truth?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Reiterating: I want NO part of "defending" of any faith.

I don't know what that means. I will gladly defend my Christian faith. Why wouldn't you?

Perhaps you mean you don't want any part of defending denominational doctrines?

Mary

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Dear friend. I never said you were attacking Catholicism. I said I am defending Catholicism.

Unnecessarily. And then end result of such "defense" is never good.

Are you suggesting you should be able voice your disagreements about the Church but I shouldn't respond?? You want to articulate your beliefs and disagreements but Marymog should keep her mouth shut? That is what I feel like you are saying.

I peacefully and respectfully said that I disagreed. Never did I attack you or your beliefs. I actually admire a lot about Catholicism, even if I don't believe it's ultimately Christ's Church. If you want I'm happy to share those admirations with you.

You responded by going into full battle mode of "defend" Catholicism from a nonexistent attack. I didn't appreciate that.

A much better way is a respectful "that's cool Jane. Here's what I believe <...>", and we have a respectful dialogue, honestly interested in listening to each other rather than shouting "defense" at each other. Yes, you listen to me, and I listen to you. We respect each other peacefully.

If you don't use any Christian history on how to interpret scripture are all of your interpretations from your own studies? You don't reference any of the Reformers or Gnostics or Docetism in your studies of scripture? You just read scripture and come up with the Truth all on your own? Is that your methodology of coming to the Truth?

These will be great questions, assuming you're wanting to listen and have a two-way conversation.

If you want me to "defend" my beliefs by shouting "Billy Bo Bob said this and that's the Truth" / "Matthew 65:32 says..." and have you shout back "Pope John Paul said this..." / "Mark 69:37 says..." ...... no. Just no. That's SO pointless and counterproductive. I honestly respect that you're Catholic and feel zero need to make an ass out of myself shouting at you to "defend the faith" and "prove X is right".

Am I making sense here?

 

[Marymog]

Unnecessarily. And then end result of such "defense" is never good.

YOU decide if it is necessary??? Well, I felt it was necessary to defend The Church and her methodology. Scripture tells me to defend the Church:

2 Thessalonians 2:15,
2 Timothy 2:24-25
Colossians 4:5-6
Titus 1:9
2 Corinthians 10:5
2 Timothy 4
1 Peter 3:15

How is the end result of me defending The Church not good?

Mary

 

[Jane_Doe22]

YOU decide if it is necessary??? Well, I felt it was necessary to defend The Church and her methodology.

Defending from a nonexistent attack....
Defending from someone who actually respects a lot about Catholicism, studied it thoroughly, attended many different events, and is happy to respectfully talk about things with you.

....

 

[Marymog]

Defending from a nonexistent attack....
Defending from someone who actually respects a lot about Catholicism, studied it thoroughly, attended many different events, and is happy to respectfully talk about things with you.....

I never said you were attacking. I was pointing out how your theory is wrong. ;)

I respect your opinions....I just don't agree with them.

you didn't answer my questions: YOU decide if it is necessary???

How is the end result of me defending The Church not good?

Mary
edited

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I never said you were attacking. I was pointing out how your theory is wrong. ;)

I respectfully state my opinion and respectfully acknowledge yours.
You then inform me that mine is wrong and your right.

That's HUGE difference.

I respect your opinions....I just don't agree with them.

Any respect you might have is not remotely conveying here. Rather, I'm feeling very attacked and overlooked.

you didn't answer my question: YOU decide if it is necessary???

Defense is needed against an attack. You yourself acknowledged that I'm not attacking you or Catholicism.

 

[Marymog]

I respectfully state my opinion and respectfully acknowledge yours.
You then inform me that mine is wrong and your right.

That's HUGE difference.

Any respect you might have is not remotely conveying here. Rather, I'm feeling very attacked and overlooked.

Defense is needed against an attack. You yourself acknowledged that I'm not attacking you or Catholicism.

In post #123 you peacefully and respectfully disagreed with me. When you disagree with someone is that not saying they are wrong?

Mary

 

[Jane_Doe22]

In post #123 you peacefully and respectfully disagreed with me. When you disagree with someone is that not saying they are wrong?

Mary

Approach matters.

I respect your view, even though I disagree with it. I am in no way trying to change your view or rub "you're wrong" in your face.

You immediately wen to try to change my view and prove me "wrong". Even literally used the "I was pointing out how your theory is wrong" line. That's attacking, not respecting.

 

[Marymog]

If you want me to "defend" my beliefs by shouting "Billy Bo Bob said this and that's the Truth" / "Matthew 65:32 says..." and have you shout back "Pope John Paul said this..." / "Mark 69:37 says..." ...... no. Just no. That's SO pointless and counterproductive. I honestly respect that you're Catholic and feel zero need to make an ass out of myself shouting at you to "defend the faith" and "prove X is right".

Am I making sense here?

Yes, that makes sense.

You say you want to have a conversation but I can't see were you are answering my legitimate questions. I ask those questions so I can get a baseline of how our conversation should go while showing each other respect. You KNOW that I am going to use scripture, Catholic teaching, Christian history, tradition, Apostolic Fathers and Early Church Fathers to articulate my beliefs. That is my baseline. What is yours? I still don't know.

When you say you are "going to the source of all Truth: God Himself and ask Him. Not by going to sinners, or the recounts of sinners doings (aka history), or pedestaling men's logic, etc. By humbling asking God and listening His answer." it sounds to me like you are relying on yourself to properly interpret scripture and come into full knowledge of the Truth. You don't rely on other men, their writings and their conclusions.

Does that make sense?

Sooooo are you going to answer the previous questions? If you don't use any Christian history on how to interpret scripture are all of your interpretations from your own studies? You don't reference any of the Reformers or Gnostics or Docetism in your studies of scripture? You just read scripture and come up with the Truth all on your own? Is that your methodology of coming to the Truth? (I am looking for your method of knowledge)

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Approach matters.

I respect your view, even though I disagree with it. I am in no way trying to change your view or rub "you're wrong" in your face.

You immediately wen to try to change my view and prove me "wrong". Even literally used the "I was pointing out how your theory is wrong" line. That's attacking, not respecting.

Let me try this again because I don't see an answer to my question:
When you disagree with someone is that not saying they are wrong? A simple yes or no will do :)

Mary

 

[quietthinker]

Thank you quietthinker. I assume you are saying it is obvious who the false prophets and deceivers are.

Is it obvious to you? If so, can you name a few of them? Historical and current.

Mary

There is no value in pointing fingers. Like i said, those who know, know

 

[Marymog]

There is no value in pointing fingers. Like i said, those who know, know

Got it.....Just as I thought....You are unable to back up your statement. Thank you for your time.

Mary

 

[Stumpmaster]

Silly me.....I should have just googled it before I asked. Definition of HULLO Thank you for answering :)

Dogma is a set of doctrines or beliefs concerning faith or morals that are formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed. Are you saying that you and the people you fellowship with don't have a set of beliefs/morals that you abide by? If someone in your group said abortion is not murder the rest of you just look at them and say "You can believe that. We have no set beliefs here." Another speaks up and say's "I support gay marriage and am getting married to my partner". Your response is "OK....We have no moral judgment in our group. See ya' at the wedding"!!! Now I could go on and on and on with many more examples but I think you get the gist of what I am asking?

A denomination has a hierarchy to it: Pope, cardinals, bishops, deacons priest OR Lead Pastor, Pastor, associate Pastor OR Bishop, deacons, elders and lay people etc etc. The men of the New Testament set up a hierarchy for The Church and the men at the top of the hierarchy were to train and appoint other men who were then to train and appoint other men (2Timothy 2:2). Do you feel comfortable practicing your faith in a way that is opposite of what the men who walked and talked with Jesus practiced?
Mary

Hi Marymog,
Re. dogma, formal statements, authorative proclamations as per your post above:
1Co 2:1-5
(1) And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
(2) For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
(3) And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
(4) And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
(5) That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

Mary, Our number is made up of those like you who have struggled with different denominations and their inherent bias on things. I choose to fellowship with genuine Bible-believers, whose faith stands on the Word of God, so if there is an issue it is dealt with according to the word of God, not by some man-made manual with hundreds of clauses and sub-clauses of legalise and contrived conditions from dress-code to financial obligations and membership prerequisites. This stuff is the pharisaical dung that Paul gave up.

Re. hierachy, heavy shepherding and domination.
Mat 20:25-28
(25) But Jesus called them unto him, and said, You know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
(26) But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
(27) And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
(28) Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Paul loathed hierachy. He constantly spoke of yokefellows, fellowservants, fellowsoldiers, and the like.
Peter warned against hierachical domination. I could write more on this but I have no more time at the moment, other than to say that the hierachical religious pyramid system is pagan in origin and bears no resemblance to the servanthood of Christ and what He taught on the matter.

1Pe 5:1-3
(1) The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
(2) Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
(3) Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

 

[quietthinker]

Got it.....Just as I thought....You are unable to back up your statement. Thank you for your time.

Mary

Denial Marymog, will justify itself at every opportunity. It's the only way the construct can survive.
It matters little the image men present to men, God will sort out the truth of the matter at the appointed time.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Yes, that makes sense.

You say you want to have a conversation but I can't see were you are answering my legitimate questions. I ask those questions so I can get a baseline of how our conversation should go while showing each other respect. You KNOW that I am going to use scripture, Catholic teaching, Christian history, tradition, Apostolic Fathers and Early Church Fathers to articulate my beliefs. That is my baseline. What is yours? I still don't know.

When you say you are "going to the source of all Truth: God Himself and ask Him. Not by going to sinners, or the recounts of sinners doings (aka history), or pedestaling men's logic, etc. By humbling asking God and listening His answer." it sounds to me like you are relying on yourself to properly interpret scripture and come into full knowledge of the Truth. You don't rely on other men, their writings and their conclusions.

Does that make sense?

Sooooo are you going to answer the previous questions? If you don't use any Christian history on how to interpret scripture are all of your interpretations from your own studies? You don't reference any of the Reformers or Gnostics or Docetism in your studies of scripture? You just read scripture and come up with the Truth all on your own? Is that your methodology of coming to the Truth? (I am looking for your method of knowledge)

Mary

(brief response here, cause I got to get to bed)

Mary, I apologize if the reason I had held off answering wasn't clear. My bad in that regard, I shall try to be very forward here.

I do indeed want respectful discussion, but I was given the strong impression you want to have a yelling-at-each-other match to "prove" what was right and "defend" the Truth. As previously stated, I have zero interest in such "defense"-- I'm not going to participate in such a conversation. I am also put off by the fact that you claim you feel the need to "defend" against a person who's very respectful of your faith.

Now, after these last few comments I'm beginning to consider the possibility if you may indeed be interested in a respectful conversation rather than trying to convince me that you're right. But I'm not certain of that. Partially because of your responses, but largely due to the fact I worked a long day and haven't had much time to think things over yet.

Unfortunately I don't have the time now to consider possibilities as deeply as I would like or to respond to your questions to the extent I am comfortable with (see earlier concerns about not want to be in a "defense" match or someone trying to "prove" they are right). I will try to later tomorrow, when I finally get some free time. Sorry about the delay.

 

[bbyrd009]

Mary, I apologize if the reason I had held off answering wasn't clear.

it was crystal clear btw

 

[Marymog]

Denial Marymog, will justify itself at every opportunity. It's the only way the construct can survive. It matters little the image men present to men, God will sort out the truth of the matter at the appointed time.

HI qt,

You are the one who said "It is obvious to those who know, those who watch and see." If it is so "obvious", as your theory suggest, then I assumed you would have the courage to point out the deceivers, false teachers and those who introduce false doctrines that are amongst your fellow Christians. You obviously don't have any empathy toward your fellow Christians if you have no desire to warn them about the false teachers that are obvious to you. I'm not sure why you lack this empathy, but I assume you have your reasons. There is no reason for God to sort it out at the appointed time if you already know who they are.

I would recommend you read Ephesians 5:11 and 1Timothy 5:20 and see if you have a change of heart

Mary

 

[quietthinker]

HI qt,

You are the one who said "It is obvious to those who know, those who watch and see." If it is so "obvious", as your theory suggest, then I assumed you would have the courage to point out the deceivers, false teachers and those who introduce false doctrines that are amongst your fellow Christians. You obviously don't have any empathy toward your fellow Christians if you have no desire to warn them about the false teachers that are obvious to you. I'm not sure why you lack this empathy, but I assume you have your reasons. There is no reason for God to sort it out at the appointed time if you already know who they are.

I would recommend you read Ephesians 5:11 and 1Timothy 5:20 and see if you have a change of heart

Mary

Have you ever considered that you might be one of the false teachers with your continued defence of the RC system ?
However, I don't expect you take this onboard as the paradigm you have won't allow it.

The Spirit speaks to those willing to hear, they need not justify their position to those who lampoon or misrepresent them just as Jesus remained silent in his judgement.

One of the things those in error cannot possibly understand is that having a connection with Jesus is not an intellectual exercise.

 

[Marymog]

Hi Marymog,
Re. dogma, formal statements, authorative proclamations as per your post above:
1Co 2:1-5
(1) And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
(2) For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
(3) And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
(4) And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
(5) That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

Mary, Our number is made up of those like you who have struggled with different denominations and their inherent bias on things. I choose to fellowship with genuine Bible-believers, whose faith stands on the Word of God, so if there is an issue it is dealt with according to the word of God, not by some man-made manual with hundreds of clauses and sub-clauses of legalise and contrived conditions from dress-code to financial obligations and membership prerequisites. This stuff is the pharisaical dung that Paul gave up.

Re. hierachy, heavy shepherding and domination.
Mat 20:25-28
(25) But Jesus called them unto him, and said, You know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
(26) But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
(27) And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
(28) Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Paul loathed hierachy. He constantly spoke of yokefellows, fellowservants, fellowsoldiers, and the like.
Peter warned against hierachical domination. I could write more on this but I have no more time at the moment, other than to say that the hierachical religious pyramid system is pagan in origin and bears no resemblance to the servanthood of Christ and what He taught on the matter.

1Pe 5:1-3
(1) The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
(2) Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
(3) Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

Thank you Stumpmaster.

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the billions of Christians that attend denominational churches don't appreciate your suggestion that we are not "genuine Bible-believers" and that our faith DOES'NT stand on the Word of God. That, IMO, is very condescending of you. I hope you can find it in your heart to apologize.

It sounds to me like you and your church create doctrine on the fly when there is an "issue". Since you don't write it down in a manual, like us non-Bible believers do, it sounds like you are practicing oral tradition which means you practice the same thing the Catholic Church practices/preaches. ;)

It would behoove you to read 2 Thessalonians 2:15 before you make such a statement about the "dung that Paul gave up" for he preached OPPOSITE of what you believe. Read Ephesians 4:11-15 to learn what he said about DOCTRINE. Your suggestion about Peter warning against hierarchical domination is foreign to me, scripture and 2,000 years of Christian history. I look forward to you SCRIPTURAL evidence.

Mary