tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post1592415648594197100..comments2024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:00Comments on NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Protestantism's Adulterous AffairNickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comBlogger105125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-56333246023403932212021-10-09T21:26:07.631-07:002021-10-09T21:26:07.631-07:00I simply could not go away your web site prior to ...I simply could not go away your web site prior to suggesting that I extremely enjoyed the standard info a person supply for your guests?<br />Is gonna be back ceaselessly in order to check out new posts<br /><a href="https://www.racesite.pro/" title="경마사이트" rel="nofollow">경마사이트</a> <br /><a href="https://www.racesite.info/" title="경마" rel="nofollow">경마</a><br /> <br />Racesite Prohttps://pbase.com/racesiteinfo11/profilenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-68905382279438642802017-08-13T17:33:32.554-07:002017-08-13T17:33:32.554-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-50281890598235364452016-05-24T10:17:57.402-07:002016-05-24T10:17:57.402-07:00My ex wife decided to have an affair and didn'...My ex wife decided to have an affair and didn't want to patch things up. Period. Seven years later she's still living with the guy she had the affair with.<br /><br />I had to divorce her because she was just living in another area of the house and seeing him.<br /><br />I tried to patch it up for the benefit of our son, but she didn't care. I did nothing and was faithful. <br /><br />I cried for three months straight knowing that I would have to move out and not live with my son (then 9 years old) anymore.<br /><br />What choice did I have? Is it fathomable that Jesus, who is God Incarnate, never could figure out that conditions like this could exist?<br /><br />Maybe that's why He was quoted as giving the slimmest of outs for people who had no other choice.<br /><br />It's always easy to read it the way you want and then to sit there and take that stance when you never face such a harsh reality.<br /><br />So, yes, I eventually met someone else, got remarried by a Lutheran Orthodox priest who traces their Holy Orders back to the original 12...<br /><br />My ex is still living with that guy and they are ruining my son because they are really bad people.<br /><br />I now have a beautiful faithful wife and a beautiful baby daughter and my son visits.<br /><br />Jesus was trying to make a distinction from the Jewish tendency, at the time, to treat divorce as somewhat trivial. He wasn't, I do not believe, trying to force abandoned and cheated on people into being bonded to abusers forever.<br /><br />So, shame on those who "interpret" His words that way.<br /><br />Walk in my shoes and then revert to your scholarly hobby.<br /><br />I wonder how many poor people had to endure lifetimes of misery because they feared this interpretation and the judgement it entailed.<br /><br />Pathetic.<br /><br />So, suffice to say I'm a happy ex Catholic. I want to part of a church that would treat me that way when I did nothing wrong.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-57830345785269649992016-02-23T23:54:27.788-08:002016-02-23T23:54:27.788-08:00This article tells us how God feels about divorce ...This article tells us how God feels about divorce overall. The man, who hates and divorces his wife, commits a sin. That is why, divorce is a sin!Hope that no one will go wrong! Never give up and believe in yourself. Yours forever, <a href="http://writ-ing.services/" rel="nofollow">paper writing service</a><br />paulsmith198914@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01097862152097877690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-76766744362427434872016-01-11T14:01:10.092-08:002016-01-11T14:01:10.092-08:00After 6 moths of Broken marriage, my husband left ...After 6 moths of Broken marriage, my husband left me with two kids, I felt like ending it all, i almost committed suicide because he left us with nothing, i was emotionally down all this while. Thanks to a man called Dr Aisabu of Aisabu temple which i met online. On one faithful day, as I was browsing through the internet, I came across several testimonies about this particular man. Some people testified that he brought their Ex lover back, some testified that he restores womb,cure cancer,and other sickness, some testified that he prayed to stop divorce and get a good paid job so on. He is amazing, i also come across one particular testimony, it was about a woman called Shannon , she testified about how he brought back her Ex lover in less than 2 days, and at the end of her testimony she dropped his email. (aisabulovespell@gmail.com) After reading all these, I decided to give it a try. I contacted him via email and explained my problem to him. In just 48hours, my husband came back to me. We resolved our issues, and we are even happier than ever. DR Aisabu you are a gifted man and thank you for everything you had done in my life. If you have a problem and you are looking for a real and genuine spell caster, Try him anytime, he is the answer to your problems. you can contact him on aisabulovespell@gmail.com !kesbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081379870600566147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-59792490535005337602013-08-16T04:44:56.209-07:002013-08-16T04:44:56.209-07:00I definitely enjoying every little bit of it. It i...I definitely enjoying every little bit of it. It is a great website and nice share. I want to thank you. Good job! You guys do a great blog, and have some great contents. Keep up the good work. <a href="http://www.texastwostepdivorce.com/" rel="nofollow">Filing For Divorce in Texas</a><br /><br />Sammyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13182526765240519199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-45757437354780064802013-07-21T02:26:40.150-07:002013-07-21T02:26:40.150-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09988824537426226265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-41493011986776463152013-05-28T01:18:38.522-07:002013-05-28T01:18:38.522-07:00Going through a divorce can be difficult, especial...Going through a divorce can be difficult, especially if the separating spouses have been married for some time or have tried their best to salvage the relationship. However, if irreconcilable differences have arisen or if one of the spouses has been unfaithful, then a <a href="http://www.fischervanthiellaw.com/articles/the-benefits-of-divorce/" rel="nofollow">Benefits of Divorce</a> may be a blessing for both parties. Despite this new direction their lives have taken, and the emotions that can accompany a divorce, for many divorcing couples, separating is the best option and brings with it a host of benefits.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01013931123037774998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-19791267104937951132010-08-09T20:29:59.523-07:002010-08-09T20:29:59.523-07:00Hi Isahel my friend!
I already agreed to the deb...Hi Isahel my friend! <br /><br />I already agreed to the debate, so I'm not backing out. Based on his Opening Essay, I'm personally saddened since I was hoping for a more robust Essay to interact with, yet his first Essay was only 1/4 the allowed size.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-49649262602080252892010-08-08T07:03:44.712-07:002010-08-08T07:03:44.712-07:00Nick, I heard that you're going to have a deba...Nick, I heard that you're going to have a debate against Soliman. He is not a good debater we had exchanges before in our blogs. If you ask him tough questions he will not give you a direct answer rather he will accuse of various logical fallacies. I know you can beat him in Sola Scriptura debate. I've debated (though an informal one) him on that before, he is not a worthy opponent. Ask him to prove the Canon of Scriptures using the principles of Sola Scriptura he'd be like a snake trying to escape. God Bless!Isahelhttp://catholiceternaltruth.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-43009527024601175082010-08-06T09:55:15.628-07:002010-08-06T09:55:15.628-07:00While I understand the point, and this might surpr...While I understand the point, and this might surprise people, I think Rho was actually well within line and his "rights" to post here. I know from personal experience things get heated at times, and it's not easy to come into Catholic or Protestant "territory" alone and try to answer multiple folks at once. So, whatever shortcomings any of his posts had, I didn't detect any maliciousness or flooding of the combox. <br /><br />After a while, threads have a greater tendency to spiral off topic anyway.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-62716940585255614402010-08-05T21:05:13.651-07:002010-08-05T21:05:13.651-07:00Nick, if you want to avoid the problems that Rho c...Nick, if you want to avoid the problems that Rho caused on this post, I've got a cople of helpfll suggestions for you.<br /><br />Read Titus 3:9-10. It's one thing to allow a Protestant or any other non-Catholic to comment as long as they're not trying to use them to teach or preach against the Church and its doctrines. But when it becomes plain to see that their agenda is to hold the church up to ridicule, they should be warned to cease and desist. If they fail to comply, put them on a ban list.<br /><br />David Armstrong had problems with Rho's Beggers All buds a few years back. He doesn't any more. You should go to his website to see how he handled it. It couldn't hurtSteve "scotju" Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17864544146213840928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-17231327496386274252010-08-05T16:04:08.190-07:002010-08-05T16:04:08.190-07:00It funny that I actually agree with Rhology on som...It funny that I actually agree with Rhology on something. I think his example makes a very strong case for a moderated combox. It's impossible to have any kind of constructive dialogue when the only responses you receive are one-liners and complete deconstruction of everything you say, so as to obscure any point you make.<br /><br />I certainly won't jump in that kind of mud.costrowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08924527983856388624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-69897292566624686602010-08-05T11:38:57.720-07:002010-08-05T11:38:57.720-07:00Don't worry about closing it, Nick. I'll ...Don't worry about closing it, Nick. I'll stop commenting. <br /><br />Thanks for hosting it. Not everyone is courageous enough to have an unmoderated combox.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-45611847972403133382010-08-05T11:23:45.428-07:002010-08-05T11:23:45.428-07:00This discussion seems to be going nowhere and is a...This discussion seems to be going nowhere and is at the point of flooding our email inboxes of unnecessary updates. I'm on the fence as to whether to close this comment box or to hold out and hope a new Protestant will read the main article and comment.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-87751052384586821642010-08-05T10:09:44.817-07:002010-08-05T10:09:44.817-07:00Rho, I went to your link. Dozie simply said The Je...Rho, I went to your link. Dozie simply said The Jews have too much influence over church policies, and we Catholics have been too willing to accomindate them. That is a true statement. You calling Dozie a Jewbaiter and a race hater is a lie. And your buddy James White has the gall to claim we Catholics will do anything to serve Mother Rome? Sounds to me you'll do anything to serve Grampa Geneva!Steve "scotju" Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17864544146213840928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-79616582166690671252010-08-05T09:45:28.862-07:002010-08-05T09:45:28.862-07:00scotju,
You're an emotional wreck, man. Go ba...scotju,<br /><br />You're an emotional wreck, man. Go back, calm down, and read what I said again. I didn't say all RCs are Jew-haters or race-baiters, did I? But some certainly are. <br /><br /><br /><i>I happen to be of Jewish descent.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/02/hard-to-comment-on-this-one.html?showComment=1233629040000#c6884236593814437794" rel="nofollow">Then I fully expect that you will call out, rebuke, and distance yourself from Dozie, given that he is precisely as I described him</a>. <br /><br /><br /><i>I'll never darken the door of one of your churches. It would be like going to a KKK meeting.</i><br /><br />1) Unless you rebuke Dozie with more force than what you've used to rebuke me, your lack of desire to go to a Reformed church wouldn't surprise me - those are mostly for those who enjoy consistency and biblical fairness.<br />2) Which fairness you in no way extend, by comparing them to a KKK meeting. What rubbish.<br /><br /><br /><br />costrowski,<br /><br /><i>After this round of unpleasant exchanges I think it's fair to conclude that Rhology CANNOT give a positive case for his epistemology. </i><br /><br />I prefer to think it's fair to conclude that you don't want to recognise when one has been given. And it's a bit "unpleasant" too to read disingenuous comments like this. <br />I have also offered you the chance to make your own positive case, and you have of course declined. I suppose we should also conclude that you cannot. And, as you said, this lack of an explanation underscores Nick's point that RCC is completely subjective and relativistic.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-56124436888185429352010-08-05T08:51:18.571-07:002010-08-05T08:51:18.571-07:00I think everyone can now see that Rhology has not,...I think everyone can now see that Rhology has not, and refuses to give a POSITIVE epistemic case for his canon. His evasions are manifest. The only case he provided is comprised almost entirely of a negative case, along with ad hoc and tu quoque arguments. After this round of unpleasant exchanges I think it's fair to conclude that Rhology CANNOT give a positive case for his epistemology. This lack of an explanation underscores Nick's point that protestantism is completely subjective and relativistic. <br /><br />I guess I'll probably bail out of this discussion at this point since I have no intention of engaging in a mudslinging fest,or spend all day sifting through red herrings.costrowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08924527983856388624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-72669384859030391302010-08-05T08:46:12.764-07:002010-08-05T08:46:12.764-07:00Rho, your slanderous and libelous remark about Cat...Rho, your slanderous and libelous remark about Catholics being "Jew baiting and race hating" was uncalled for. One, it had nothing to do with the topic of this post. Two, I've never seen any posts on this site that dealt with Judaism, Jews, or Israel unless it was discussing the Old Testament. Third, the Catholic Church has always had Jewish members since day one. Hmmm, they must not have known about that "Jew baiting" and "race hating" stuff. Fourth, how dare you presume that Dozie or anyone else who posts on this blog is a Jew Baiter or a race hater without proof! It would be like me calling every white Baptist a KKK member just because a lot of them were Kluxers. Fifth and finally, I happen to be of Jewish descent. I come from a Marrano family that's been in this country since the 1600's. One member of my family knew several of the founding fathers. I mention my Jewish descent for several reasons. One, I don't find the Catholic church to be "Jew Baiting" or "race hating". The CC has always been multi-ethnic from the get-go. Two, more Jews have converted to the Catholic church than any of the broken off branches of the Protestant churches. Hmmm, they must be too smart to believe your slanders and libels Rho. Third, in spite of the antagonism that has existed between the Jewish community and the church since day one, the church has always welcome sincere converts among the Jews as members of the body of Christ. I'm one of those members. Forth, the church always did it's best to keep Jew-hatred among Catholics and anti-Christianism amomg Jews in check. The church told the Christians that the Jews were not to be molested in their synagogue services, (the only exception to this rule is if it became public knowledge that anti-christian blasphemies and actions were commited during services) they were not to be harrassed on the streets, their homes or their graves were not to be broken into, and they were not to be forced into converting to the faith. the church authorities told the Jews not to be blaspheming the name of Christ, the BVM, the saints, or the church in public. They were not to have Christian servants or slaves, (Jews were known to force converison upon Christian servants) They were not supposed to proselyte Christian into becoming Jews, they were not to take usury from Christians in a business deal, and not to fake converison to Christianity for illegal or subversive purposes. When both sides abided by the rules, it was possible to have civil relationships. Of course, when foolish people from either side broke these rules, relations were strained, and sadly, sometimes violence erupted. When it got to this point, the priest and the bishops did their best to calm things down, even to the extent of offering shelter to the Jews. When things calmed down, the clergy would rebuke and demand punishment for the wrongdoers. Of course, if the Jews were found in the wrong, it usally meant heavy fines, and possibly exile.<br /><br />In conclusion Rho, I find your remark about Jew-hating and race baiting to be slander and libel against the Catholic church and the decent people who post here. And your behavior and that of your fellow Calvinist/Reformed on other subjects is one good reason why I'll never darken the door of one of your churches. It would be like going to a KKK meeting.Steve "scotju" Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17864544146213840928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-60184316328229925092010-08-05T08:44:47.144-07:002010-08-05T08:44:47.144-07:00rather I gave my POSITIVE position for RC epistemo...<i>rather I gave my POSITIVE position for RC epistemology</i><br /><br />OK.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>You asked me to prove the RC is infallible, but this has nothing to do with your POSITIVE epistemic position which I have yet to see.</i><br /><br />Am I the only one who has to give a positive epistemic case?<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>You seem to have a preference for less than courteous language, such as this:<br />“Please see here, and please remember it this time.”</i><br /><br />I said 'please' twice. But tbh, I'm getting tired of you asking the same question over and over again. I find constant re-asking the same question less than courteous, myself.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>The link you provided is only a link to this particular topic on this particular blog. I don’t find this helpful.</i><br /><br />I am sorry to hear that. It is, however, the answer to your question. <br />This is just another sign of how the RC epistemology does not answer the problem of the individual fallible interper. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>I haven't found it.</i><br /><br />Then I guess we're done talking, if I can tell you the same thing 3 times and you won't take it into acct. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>This is not a POSITIVE position of your epistemology</i><br /><br />If you'd read (and remembered) <a href="http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/07/protestantisms-adulterous-affair.html?showComment=1280936892730#c8732907107391664265" rel="nofollow">my original statement of my position</a>, a great deal of my argument is the impossibility of the contrary, and the fact that we do agree that God has spoken in His Word. That's a given, so where do we go from there? <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>as my original comments asked, one that avoids the ad hoc and tu quoque pitfalls.</i><br /><br />1) My position is hardly ad hoc. Up to you to make an argument that it is.<br />2) Revealing tu quoques are part of my toolbox <b>to show the untruth of the Roman position</b>. I <b>presuppose</b> the truth of the Word of God b/c it is irrational not to do so; I do not prove my epistemic position. How could one possibly prove that his thoughts are thoughts? I don't think you're really wrestling with the implications of your question.<br /><br />Peace,<br />RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-19883571947282363492010-08-05T08:35:59.662-07:002010-08-05T08:35:59.662-07:00Rhology,
Please remember that I asked you to give...Rhology,<br /><br />Please remember that I asked you to give the POSITIVE position of your epistemology and. I didn’t introduce the concept of infallibility into your POSITIVE position; rather I gave my POSITIVE position for RC epistemology. I hope I explained this well enough for you to understand what I mean. <br /><br />You asked me to prove the RC is infallible, but this has nothing to do with your POSITIVE epistemic position which I have yet to see.<br /><br />You seem to have a preference for less than courteous language, such as this:<br />“Please see here, and please remember it this time.”<br />The link you provided is only a link to this particular topic on this particular blog. I don’t find this helpful. If you want me to have a better understanding of your position I think it would help if you provided a concise POSITIVE position of your epistemology. <br /><br />As for your 3 points:<br />1)“I did identify the church” – I haven't found it.<br /><br />2)“How do you explain the fact that the modern RCC is not interchangeable with the early church? If you deny this fact, I'm afraid there's little more that can be said to get thru to you. The modern RCC is quite different from the early church, and this is not up for question or debate; it is simply fact.” – This is not a POSITIVE position of your epistemology, so I can only see it as a distraction at this point. <br /><br />3)“Why have you not attempted to provide any of the 3 canons I asked about earlier?” – This is not a POSITIVE position of your epistemology, so I can only see it as a distraction at this point.<br /><br />Therefore I charitably ask you once again to provide me with a POSITIVE case for your epistemology, and as my original comments asked, one that avoids the ad hoc and tu quoque pitfalls.costrowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08924527983856388624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-11581676832735039502010-08-05T07:35:17.387-07:002010-08-05T07:35:17.387-07:00How about just asking me to clarify something?
OK...<i>How about just asking me to clarify something?</i><br /><br />OK. Why did you introduce the concept of "infallible" after you'd already asked me the question? How do you expect someone in my position to react when you do that?<br /><br /><br /><i> my reference to infallibility was used to explain Catholic epistemology.</i><br /><br />Yes, but that's not how you set up the question <b>to me</b>. <br /><br /><br /><i>all I did was give it and identify the historical Church, just as I asked you to do.</i><br /><br />Please prove that the RCC is infallible.<br /><br /><br /><i>seems to me to be the only logical position because without this identifiable church you have no connection to a “beginning”, or knowledge of the correct canon itself. </i><br /><br />1) I did identify the church.<br />2) How do you explain the fact that the modern RCC is not interchangeable with the early church? If you deny this fact, I'm afraid there's little more that can be said to get thru to you. The modern RCC is quite different from the early church, and this is not up for question or debate; it is simply fact.<br />3) Why have you not attempted to provide any of the 3 canons I asked about earlier?<br /><br /><br /><i>Could you give me that information again?</i><br /><br /><a href="http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/07/protestantisms-adulterous-affair.html?showComment=1280940125268#c7584379044647491611" rel="nofollow">Please see here, and please remember it this time.</a>Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-17103746016735625702010-08-05T07:28:27.573-07:002010-08-05T07:28:27.573-07:00Rhology,
First, let me ask if we could stop with ...Rhology,<br /><br />First, let me ask if we could stop with the insults (accusation of bait-and-switch)? How about just asking me to clarify something? <br /><br />Second, there was no bait-and-switch because my reference to infallibility was used to explain Catholic epistemology. Since I never asked you to explain RC epistemology I committed no bait-and-switch. Of course I’m sure you disagree with my epistemic position, but all I did was give it and identify the historical Church, just as I asked you to do.<br /><br />Thirdly, my point that one must point to an historically identifiable church in order to posit this same church as receiving the canon from God seems to me to be the only logical position because without this identifiable church you have no connection to a “beginning”, or knowledge of the correct canon itself. The only connection seems to be a tenuous ad hoc decision to identify with an unidentifiable group that you think agrees with you, and thus my previous use of singular personal pronouns. (At this point, please remember that instead of making accusations I asked if I accurately summarized your position.) In addition to this, your explanation violates what I originally asked for because it posits an ad hoc decision to identify the contents of the canon as being divinely protected yet denies an infallible church (the typical protestant, including reformed position), without any explanation of the basis of this distinction. <br /><br />Lastly, you claim that you did indeed point to an historically identifiable church. Perhaps I missed it. Could you give me that information again?costrowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08924527983856388624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-22183413124335512192010-08-05T05:22:40.312-07:002010-08-05T05:22:40.312-07:00Jae,
Nowhere in Scripture it says or even slightl...Jae,<br /><br /><i>Nowhere in Scripture it says or even slightly imply for any individidual to interpret as BEST as he could and based this on one's own capability....very unBiblical indeed!</i><br /><br />1) Did you interp that as best as you could? Or did you interp it with less than your best effort?<br />2) Please let me know how an individual can avoid doing interpretation. <br />3) How would you know whether it's unbiblical if you had not done some interpretation of the Bible?<br /><br /><br /><i>Rho said, "Opinions are to be distinguished from facts on the one hand and articles of faith on the other."</i><br /><br />Actually, I was just spoof-quoting one of the RCs on this combox to make a point. I am not the originator of this sentence.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (Magisterium) SAYS, IT IS A GRAVE SIN TO COMMIT AN ACT OF ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTION</i><br /><br />MANY ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS SAY ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTION IS OK. <br />OTHER RCS ARE FULLY IN FAVOR OF BABY-MURDER. <br />CLEAN YOUR HOUSE AND THEN COME TALK TO ME ABOUT 'UNITY'.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Where does it say that any bishop, priest , 80% of catholics who disagree and disobedient to this plain teaching or whomever you quote says otherwise or say that this teaching becomes VOID, where?</i><br /><br />For those actually paying attention and not just reacting from emotion, I never said that. Rather, I used the fact that many RCs dissent from official RC dogma w/o consequence, AND that this destroys the "we're unified and you're not" argument that you're also using. Reading comprehension, Jae. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>You couldn't even agree with your "fathers" teaching viz. Luther, Calvin and Wesley</i><br /><br />1) I've asked you before why I should care what they said. I'll ask you again. <br />2) Where have I referred to any of them as "fathers"? A direct quote will be sufficient, thanks.<br />3) Pop quiz - is, say, Calvin my final authority? Yes or no?<br /><br /><br /><br />costrowski,<br /><i>If one can't point to an historically identifiable church that received the knowledge of the canon from God, then one can't point an anonymous unidentifiable church to prove one's epistemology</i><br /><br />1) I did point to one.<br />2) Make your argument why this statement is true. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>The well known Catholic position is that God provided an infallible, historically identifiable Church.</i><br /><br />Nice bait-and-switch. Why throw in "infallible" in this statement when that's not what you asked me before? <br /><br /><br /><br />Dozie,<br /><i>how did/does Rhology know the extent of the canon?</i><br /><br />the Holy Spirit's work in the church throughout time.<br />Now, how do YOU know the canons I asked for from RCC? You have three to choose from. Go for it.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>did he become a Christian and accepted the "Christian" canon as presented to him by “John Doe”?</i><br /><br />I have no idea what this means. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>When Rhology writes of “His People”, does he have in mind individuals or a group of people? </i><br /><br />A group of people. You know, "the people of God", like I said. <br />And yet, groups are composed of individuals. <br />Kinda like the group "Jew-hating, race-baiting Roman Catholics" is composed of Dozie and other individuals. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Precisely how did God make “His self-revelation known to His people”</i><br /><br />Gradually, over time, in the hearts and minds of people and local churches, to the effect that they, though fallible, were guided subtly and providentially to recognise certain books as inspired and others as not-inspired. Just like the OT people of God. Did the OT people of God have an infallible Magisterium? No. <br /><br />Peace,<br />RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-50823230384409890732010-08-04T20:45:09.079-07:002010-08-04T20:45:09.079-07:00"We trust our omnipotent, loving God to make ..."We trust our omnipotent, loving God to make His self-revelation known to His people."<br /><br />Perhaps a few questions will help Rhology think through the questions of the Catholic canon.<br />Of course, the question is not about the character or nature of God no matter how pious Rhology wants to sound. The question is: how did/does Rhology know the extent of the canon? Did the omnipotent God reveal the canon to Rhology while Rhology was an unbeliever? Did Rhology have chance to investigate and resolve competing claims for canonicity before he became a Christian? Or, did he become a Christian and accepted the "Christian" canon as presented to him by “John Doe”? If Rhology did not come to “Christianity” with his own canon would he have any canon other than that which was decided for him by the Catholic Church? When Rhology writes of “His People”, does he have in mind individuals or a group of people? Precisely how did God make “His self-revelation known to His people”?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com