ProtestantBusters - Offensive websites - Common in :).

[CatholicXian]

The Bible tell us to look for the fruit. It seems that you have been saying Catholics are producing fruit. Reputation is one of the biggest fruit of Christianity. Why don't you want to talk about it?

I know you have been accusing many of us that we are not producing fruit. Let's talk about catholics fruit.

Catholics ARE producing fruit... look at the numerous religious orders (i.e., Mother Teresa, etc.) who are serving the poor in drastically radical ways that most of us would never even dream of being able to do. There are also numerous ministries at the local level. Just at my parish (a medium-sized Catholic parish), off the top of my head I can think of: Prison Ministry (they visit and preach the gospel to those who are in prison), Respect Life (pro-life group... we pray at an abortion clinic with many other Christians every Saturday morning), St. Vincent de Paul Society (they collect money for the poor/charities), we have a group that helps out at the Catholic homeless shelter/soup kitchen at a neighboring downtown parish, youth group, religious education classes, RCIA (classes for those who are converting), a newer program open to the public for those who want to ask questions about Catholicism, but not necessarily convert, Bible Studies, women's groups (mom's, wives, and a generic women's group), men's groups (dads, husbands, and a generic men's group), the Knights of Columbus (an organization that does numerous charitable works within the local community... and there are probably quite a few more that I can't remember.

You keep bringing up Catholic priests... yet, the total number of priests involved in the abuse cases is RELATIVELY small in comparison to the TOTAL number of Catholic priests in the world. Yes, it's a sad and sickening thing, and steps are being taken to prevent any further scandal. But focusing on that as the fruit of scandal is only paying glory to all the secular media hype. I know several very holy, and pure Catholic priests who have done nothing but preach Christ crucified to their parishes and are deeply saddened by the reputation and slander that people throw upon all priests because of the sins of some. The media is a poor portrayal of the way things actually are.

 

[gingercat]

How about it everyone,

Is she right?

Something is very wrong with your reasoning.

It is very much like Pentecoastals protecting Benny Hinn. :evil:

 

[CatholicXian]

How about it everyone,

Is she right?

Something is very wrong with your reasoning.

It is very much like Pentecoastals protecting Benny Hinn. :evil:

I am not protecting the priests who abused their office. But I am standing up for the NUMEROUS good and holy priests whom you have slandered by defining their office in terms of scandal.


Read the Metro section of any big city newspaper and you will find pastors of all denominations being accused of child abuse. This is not a solely Catholic problem. Thus, you cannot paint all priests with the same slanderous brushstroke, nor can you attribute their personal failings to their denomination (nor office). NO WHERE does Catholicism condone the horrible sins of abuse that took place. I was merely pointing out that 1) as before, you have painted all priests with a dangerously slanderous brush and 2) this sin is not limited by any manner to Catholicism. Does that excuse it? Of course not, but it does refute your attempt to slander priests and pretend it was only a problem within the Catholic Church.

 

[gingercat]

Catholic,

The Bible tells us to expose the evil deeds of darkness. Are you saying that those ugly story we hear so often is not worth mentioning?

It seems that you just don't want to talk about it. You have many victims of those priests who are using His name!!!! :evil:

Where is your compassion for those victims?

 

[CatholicXian]

Catholic,

The Bible tells us to expose the evil deeds of darkness. Are you saying that those ugly story we hear so often is not worth mentioning?

It seems that you just don't want to talk about it. You have many victims of those priests who are using His name!!!! :evil:

Where is your compassion for those victims?

Don't put words in my mouth. I have commented on how horrible and sickening the abuse was. And I am deeply sorry for the victims and cannot imagine having to suffer so terrible a crime.

However, point blank, you are making it a bigger scandal (speaking in totality here) than it truly was. What about all the good and holy priests you've just slandered over and over by referring to the sins of other priests? Where is your compassion for those who are truly serving God and His people with their entire lives?



That said, I agree with Nocturnal_Principle_X. These threads are going no where, and are only (as evidenced) a means to forego charity and point fingers.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

I think perhaps I should lock this thread because it seems it is not going anywhere...if anyone objects, or agrees please PM me with your reasons for keeping it unlocked or locked. Thanks.

As for this:

Noc,

I have a question for you since you are saying we should learn from each other. Have you changed your ideas because of the other denomination or Catholics?

To tell you the truth I don’t know all there is to know about the denomination I am apart of. Thankfully, this semester at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary I am studying Baptist History. So far I have learned among other things that Baptists as it were are not all the same, in fact tracing the origins of Baptists is quite hardâ€â€some theories trace them back to Anabaptists. In any event I honestly do not know that much about the differences among denominations in general. So, I must admit to some degree I would like to see topics about other denominations so I can learn myself.

Now you might ask if I know enough about Southern Baptists to consider myself one. I would say yes because I have read The Baptist Faith and Message 2000, which can be found at http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp. Based on what I have read I would have to say I agree with it. Do I think it is lacking in some areasâ€â€yes. Of course I realize the BFM 200 is in a sense a general summary of beliefs among Southern Baptists.

So, do I agree with every single thing the Southern Baptist convention believesâ€â€no. In fact I imagine my beliefs as a Baptist might be different from other Baptists. In truth this to some degree might be due to the fact that within the Baptist denomination there is a great deal of local church autonomy. What that means is that no one council, convention, society, board or what not has complete control over local churches. Due to this fact there is going to be differences. For example, if one where to study Baptist History they would learn about Particular Baptists and General Baptists. Particular Baptists were called that because they believe in particular atonement, which would make them Calvinistic in their theology. General Baptists on the other hand, were called that because they believe in general atonement, which would make them Arminian in their theology.

In any event I think learning about other’s beliefs is beneficial and will not only help you to be more respectful of others but it will help you to define your beliefs more as well.

 

[Heidi]

How about it everyone,

Is she right?

Something is very wrong with your reasoning.

It is very much like Pentecoastals protecting Benny Hinn. :evil:

I am not protecting the priests who abused their office. But I am standing up for the NUMEROUS good and holy priests whom you have slandered by defining their office in terms of scandal.


Read the Metro section of any big city newspaper and you will find pastors of all denominations being accused of child abuse. This is not a solely Catholic problem. Thus, you cannot paint all priests with the same slanderous brushstroke, nor can you attribute their personal failings to their denomination (nor office). NO WHERE does Catholicism condone the horrible sins of abuse that took place. I was merely pointing out that 1) as before, you have painted all priests with a dangerously slanderous brush and 2) this sin is not limited by any manner to Catholicism. Does that excuse it? Of course not, but it does refute your attempt to slander priests and pretend it was only a problem within the Catholic Church.

The priests who committed pedophile were once thought of as holy too. So how do you know which priests are holy and which are not? Just a guess? :o That's why the bible tells us that only God can judge the hearts of men and why Jesus tells us not to call anyone on earth 'father' for we have one Father and he is in heaven.

 

[CatholicXian]

How about it everyone,

Is she right?

Something is very wrong with your reasoning.

It is very much like Pentecoastals protecting Benny Hinn. :evil:

I am not protecting the priests who abused their office. But I am standing up for the NUMEROUS good and holy priests whom you have slandered by defining their office in terms of scandal.


Read the Metro section of any big city newspaper and you will find pastors of all denominations being accused of child abuse. This is not a solely Catholic problem. Thus, you cannot paint all priests with the same slanderous brushstroke, nor can you attribute their personal failings to their denomination (nor office). NO WHERE does Catholicism condone the horrible sins of abuse that took place. I was merely pointing out that 1) as before, you have painted all priests with a dangerously slanderous brush and 2) this sin is not limited by any manner to Catholicism. Does that excuse it? Of course not, but it does refute your attempt to slander priests and pretend it was only a problem within the Catholic Church.

The priests who committed pedophile were once thought of as holy too. So how do you know which priests are holy and which are not? Just a guess? :o That's why the bible tells us that only God can judge the hearts of men and why Jesus tells us not to call anyone on earth 'father' for we have one Father and he is in heaven.

Funny you mention judging, Heidi, as you seem to sling a lot of judgment around the forums. So I'm glad to see you finally give God His rightful place as Judge.

 

[Heidi]

How about it everyone,

Is she right?

Something is very wrong with your reasoning.

It is very much like Pentecoastals protecting Benny Hinn. :evil:

I am not protecting the priests who abused their office. But I am standing up for the NUMEROUS good and holy priests whom you have slandered by defining their office in terms of scandal.


Read the Metro section of any big city newspaper and you will find pastors of all denominations being accused of child abuse. This is not a solely Catholic problem. Thus, you cannot paint all priests with the same slanderous brushstroke, nor can you attribute their personal failings to their denomination (nor office). NO WHERE does Catholicism condone the horrible sins of abuse that took place. I was merely pointing out that 1) as before, you have painted all priests with a dangerously slanderous brush and 2) this sin is not limited by any manner to Catholicism. Does that excuse it? Of course not, but it does refute your attempt to slander priests and pretend it was only a problem within the Catholic Church.

The priests who committed pedophile were once thought of as holy too. So how do you know which priests are holy and which are not? Just a guess? :o That's why the bible tells us that only God can judge the hearts of men and why Jesus tells us not to call anyone on earth 'father' for we have one Father and he is in heaven.

Funny you mention judging, Heidi, as you seem to sling a lot of judgment around the forums. So I'm glad to see you finally give God His rightful place as Judge.

No, I'm simply telling the truth about the catholic church. They have never rendered to Caesar what is Caesar's and rendered to God wht is God's. They have always been involved in politics which is why, dutring the Middle Ages, that church and state were one in the same. The vatican dictated the movements of all the kings and only King Henry V!!! defied the vatican.

And still today, the pope interferes with Caesar. But of course, you'll again deny Christ's words in favor of the pope. The catholics also make up their own bible and declare Mary of virgin when the bible says nothing about Mary's perpetual virginity and immaculate conception.

So the facts are against the catholic church, plain and simply. But nevertheless, you'll continue to deny Christ in favor of the pope. That's called heresy. And if you say you don't deny Christ's words, that is simply another lie because I've seen you do it in your persistent disagreement with Jesus not to call anyone on earth 'father' and your claims that we are supposed to erect carved images of humans and Mary's immaculate conception. So your persistent disagreement with the bible in favor of the pope speaks for itself. It is by your words that you will be judged.

 

[CatholicXian]

Heidi, I do not deny Christ, nor His words!

It is your OPINION that I do-- and your judgment means nothing to me... you are not God, Heidi.

Priests are "father" in the sense that Paul is "father"... and in the same sense that both Stephen and Paul called the Jewish leaders present in Acts of the Apostles "father". If you still have issues with the title after being presented with the reasoning from Paul, then you must also take issue with Paul, Heidi. Was Paul denying Christ by calling himself father, or by calling the Jewish leaders father? What about Stephen? Two great biblical examples have been presented to you, and you have no answer except to ignore it. You won't be able to ignore it forever, Heidi.

 

[Heidi]

Heidi, I do not deny Christ, nor His words!

It is your OPINION that I do-- and your judgment means nothing to me... you are not God, Heidi.

Priests are "father" in the sense that Paul is "father"... and in the same sense that both Stephen and Paul called the Jewish leaders present in Acts of the Apostles "father". If you still have issues with the title after being presented with the reasoning from Paul, then you must also take issue with Paul, Heidi. Was Paul denying Christ by calling himself father, or by calling the Jewish leaders father? What about Stephen? Two great biblical examples have been presented to you, and you have no answer except to ignore it. You won't be able to ignore it forever, Heidi.

So you believe Jesus when he tells us not to call anyone on earth 'father'. Is that correct? And you believe him when he says among men born of women there is no greater one than John the baptist. Is that correct?

And Paul is the father of the gospel because he wrote most of the NT, not our biological or heavenyly father. Did any present-any priests write the epistles? Are any of them our heavenly or biological fathers? :o So your comparison of Paul to preists does not apply and you have no justification for calling any religious leader 'father' and in fact are told not to do so.

So how can you say you believe Jesus when you specifically defy his statemensts above? :o You speak out of both sides of your mouth. "For by your words you will be acquitted and by your words you will be condemned." Those are Christ's words, not mine. I suggest you believe them.

 

[CatholicXian]

When Paul wrote his letters, they were not part of the NT... the NT wasn't put together for almost 200 more years. Furthermore, Paul didn't know his letters would be compiled with other letters, and 4 Gospels to form the NT.

 

[Heidi]

When Paul wrote his letters, they were not part of the NT... the NT wasn't put together for almost 200 more years. Furthermore, Paul didn't know his letters would be compiled with other letters, and 4 Gospels to form the NT.

The gospel was given to Paul by a direct revelation of Jesus which he put down in writing through his letters. Just because it wasn't put togther in the form of a book does not mean it wasn't given to Paul's recipients through words and letters! The gospel is not pages in a book! It is the revelation of God to his chosen!

There is simply too much about the bible that you don't understand, catholic. No wonder you argue with Jesus! I suggest you first understand what he's saying before you even dare to attmpt to refute either Jesus or Paul!

 

[CatholicXian]

I am not arguing with Christ, Heidi. I am arguing with YOU. And you most certainly are not Christ.

And you were the one who brought up the NT, Heidi. Now you want to take that back? Okay, so we're back where we were before. You have issues with Paul and Stephen calling each other and other Jewish leaders "father" as recorded in the NT. Why? (and even if you want to fall back on Paul's authorship of several NT letters, you are still left with Stephen calling the Jewish leaders "father" in Acts 7:2)

 

[Heidi]

I am not arguing with Christ, Heidi. I am arguing with YOU. And you most certainly are not Christ.

And you were the one who brought up the NT, Heidi. Now you want to take that back? Okay, so we're back where we were before. You have issues with Paul and Stephen calling each other and other Jewish leaders "father" as recorded in the NT. Why? (and even if you want to fall back on Paul's authorship of several NT letters, you are still left with Stephen calling the Jewish leaders "father" in Acts 7:2)

Nope. You are calling Paul a liar when you say the gospel wasn't around until the 3rd and 4th centuries when Paul clearly says he was preaching the gospel during his ministry.

So when you are caught in a lie, then lying about your lie only makes you look more foolish, catholic. So you're right, there's no point in conversing with someone who can't be honest in the first place.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Just a reminder of the following (I posted it earlier):

I think perhaps I should lock this thread because it seems it is not going anywhere...if anyone objects, or agrees please PM me with your reasons for keeping it unlocked or locked. Thanks.