For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty... that no flesh should glory in His presence.... —that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.”
1 Corinthians 1:26-31
Friday, September 03, 2010
Revised: Here's a discussion at VTC on whether I'm nutty
It was nice of Elena to retract her "nut case" terminology. You never retract your extremely insulting falsehoods. You expect others to answer your questions, we do, you don't listen, you continue to think you know about the Catholic faith than we do, you don't answer OUR questions, you don't tell us where your supposedly scripture-only beliefs are found in scripture, etc., etc. That's why someone would be tempted to call you something like that. You've said that it's not about "fairness" - and that's your excuse to not be fair, to continue to use exclusively biased sources and expect others to consider them authoritative. Obviously, one would need to read the actual concordat if it exists to know the truth - but you don't post it. No one in their right mind thinks a video of an anti-Catholic person is a good source. Just like you wouldn't trust a Catholic pope to tell you what is wrong with evangelicalism - a very recent arrival on the Christian scene. You'll say you're not one - but if I operate like you, I'll say yes you are and I know better than you what you are and what you believe. That is not rational discourse.
Christine, I gave you the exact pages that the concordat and it's attending documents were on. You can read them for yourself. I don't remember if the links were in the post or in the comments, but they are there.
Ok, so all Catholic sources are reliable, but no protestant ones are.
So all Catholic sources are reliable but no protestant ones are. You label it 'anti-catholic' and that makes it something you don't have to look at, even if it's true and of concern to those people. Who cares what protestants think or fear?
I notice Elena didn't retract the 'you're a radical extremist anti-catholic bigot' statement. Is that what all protestants are who examine the information and say what they believe?
She didn't retract that statement because it is all too sadly true. You don't examine objective information and you don't examine anything objectively. You don't even claim to, or try to.
Christine, I know you are offended by my statements, but if you keep deliberately insulting me and reducing this to a contest of who wins, I will not engage your comments and will delete them. Stick to the information please, not calling me names and saying I'm losing. I don't agree, because it's not about winning, its about warning. If I didn't believe or hope you all were part of the body of Christ, I wouldn't bother.
By objective sources, I mean actual original documents. I didn't see where you linked to the actual concordat and I couldn't find it anywhere online - just parts of the official document which were positive in nature, from a Christian perspective. It's not about winning it's about rational discourse that sincerely answers questions that are sincerely posed. I actual don't think it's in you to do that, and that you can't help it. So I should really just abandon this as unfruitful from a spiritual angle. Peace to you, and your family.
"Is that what all protestants are who examine the information and say what they believe?" No, however, but then all protestants do not use the methods that you use to come to your beliefs. When one of your conclusions is that the Church is, or will conspire with other "church hierarchies" to persecute Christians, you place yourselve in agreement with a fringe group of Christians. It is a fringe group that finds no real support among legitimate scholars, protestant or otherwise. The supporters of your positions that you love to cite are all members of that same fringe. As an aside, would care to mention some of the "church hierarchies" with whom the Church is conspiring?
John, I think I have said that prophecy shows that this will happen before Christ returns. I didn't say it was happening now. I do think from what the Holy See is doing in treaties with governments, that it is setting up a power structure to rule. If you think that's a joke, then you probably think that the mark of the beast is a joke too, even though it's prophesied and none of God's prophesies will fail. If I think it's right to warn people, then God help me if I don't.
So, if it was SO NICE of her to retract her comment, why don't you retract your header on your post? Elena has apologized yet you still relish in her accusation publicly and leave it up for all to see.
Notice how you tirelessly twist Truth, Jennie, to manipulate what people think. In this case, what you stated was factual, but what you left out made it dishonest because you intentionally lead others to draw false conclusions.
Let me explain. Someone did bring it up to Elena, she realized that she was in the wrong, and she apologized. You say nothing to show that she realized her error and was sorry for the comment. You display no forgiveness on your own part; you simply make it sound as if "HA, the evil Catholic was exposed and only removed the words to cover her own butt. But I will hold this up for the whole world to see what Catholics are really like, because of their evil harlot church."
Leo, You may not have noticed but I put a note in the post to say that Elena had removed the 'nut case' words. Stop accusing and insinuating that I'm being dishonest. I think you're doing it on purpose to discredit me because you can't answer my statements. Elena's 'apology' was more of an accusation that she couldn't help thinking those words when she read my statement.
After rereading her apology, I can agree with you on that point...it was not a clear cut 'I'm sorry for calling you that'...
However, Jennie, you are being dishonest whether knowingly or not. You are presenting one side of the story and you are only presenting the statements you care to. You never really care whether the sources you use are accurate or not; you just care if they come up with some anti-Catholic 'dirt'.
We have repeatedly presented counter arguments and coherent logical scriptural interpretations to support what we say but you don't really care.
You forget that we did not launch an attack against you, your church, your pastor, or how you came to know Jesus Christ. Yet, you persist in telling us what you know about us because of unscientific research. If you believe the Nicene Creed, good...it came from the Church as did most all of the Truth that you hold to.
What you simply cannot seem to grasp is that scripture can be interpreted many different ways. I know where you are coming from because I have gone through those very thoughts in my own mind early in my walk.
Why not redirect your efforts to work with us by being Jesus Christ to this hurting and troubled world?
Actually Leo, I do care very much if the sources I use are accurate. They use quite alot of documentation from Catholic and historical sources. If you have something you want me to read about Catholic doctrine I would be glad to read it, but if I compare it to scripture would you be willing to look at that?
In my own defense - when I re-posted your comment on the Visits to Candyland blog, I wrote that when I read the comment, the words "nut case" popped into my head.
I didn't write, "Jennie is a nut case" with your name and a link to your blog.
I would have been perfectly happy to discuss conspiracy theories a la the DaVinci Code and muse with my fellow readers about how such ridiculous notions get into people's heads.
You outed yourself.
And because one reader wanted to focus on my apparent faux pas, I took it down, apologized, and refocused the discussion.
The point wasn't to offend you Jennie, but to discuss what I consider to be a crazy point of view regarding the church aligning itself with other powers that be to persecute Christians.
And I can't apologize for that - I still think it's nutty.
Bottom line though, if people Google your name or the name of your blog, that posting on VTC will not show up.
Wait a few days and Google Elena and Visits to Candyland, this posting on your blog may.
Which goes with the territory I suppose. I guess if I am asked to defend myself for that, I'll be ready.
Elena is right. We all know how you disagree with our positions and I am sure that you know how crazy and illogical we find your views of the Church to be.
We get into heated discussions because of our passion for Truth and this is an unfortunate periodic result. I know, because there are many times I thought Elena's exact thoughts in my own mind. However, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and we need to love each other...but, sometimes we feel we have turned both cheeks with nothing to show for it...
However, to Elena's point, is it really necessary to highlight the now apologized for disagreement? You and I have also exchanged shots for which we have also apologized and forgotten, at least from my perspective.
Why not do the Christian thing and accept Elena's apology by removing your 'back at you' post? She extended an olive branch and you are now whacking her over the head with it. Otherwise, you are coming across like a member of the 'whore of Babylon' ;-) It's okay to attack our views, but not the person. Believe it or not, Jennie, Jesus loves Elena and me just as much as He loves you...
ELena, I'll change the headline of the post. After all, I did jump in and reveal my name. I think though, that most people who've interacted on both our blogs knew or would guess it was me.
21 comments:
It was nice of Elena to retract her "nut case" terminology. You never retract your extremely insulting falsehoods. You expect others to answer your questions, we do, you don't listen, you continue to think you know about the Catholic faith than we do, you don't answer OUR questions, you don't tell us where your supposedly scripture-only beliefs are found in scripture, etc., etc. That's why someone would be tempted to call you something like that. You've said that it's not about "fairness" - and that's your excuse to not be fair, to continue to use exclusively biased sources and expect others to consider them authoritative. Obviously, one would need to read the actual concordat if it exists to know the truth - but you don't post it. No one in their right mind thinks a video of an anti-Catholic person is a good source. Just like you wouldn't trust a Catholic pope to tell you what is wrong with evangelicalism - a very recent arrival on the Christian scene. You'll say you're not one - but if I operate like you, I'll say yes you are and I know better than you what you are and what you believe. That is not rational discourse.
Christine,
I gave you the exact pages that the concordat and it's attending documents were on. You can read them for yourself. I don't remember if the links were in the post or in the comments, but they are there.
Ok, so all Catholic sources are reliable, but no protestant ones are.
So all Catholic sources are reliable but no protestant ones are. You label it 'anti-catholic' and that makes it something you don't have to look at, even if it's true and of concern to those people. Who cares what protestants think or fear?
I notice Elena didn't retract the 'you're a radical extremist anti-catholic bigot' statement. Is that what all protestants are who examine the information and say what they believe?
She didn't retract that statement because it is all too sadly true. You don't examine objective information and you don't examine anything objectively. You don't even claim to, or try to.
Christine, I know you are offended by my statements, but if you keep deliberately insulting me and reducing this to a contest of who wins, I will not engage your comments and will delete them. Stick to the information please, not calling me names and saying I'm losing. I don't agree, because it's not about winning, its about warning.
If I didn't believe or hope you all were part of the body of Christ, I wouldn't bother.
By objective sources, I mean actual original documents. I didn't see where you linked to the actual concordat and I couldn't find it anywhere online - just parts of the official document which were positive in nature, from a Christian perspective. It's not about winning it's about rational discourse that sincerely answers questions that are sincerely posed. I actual don't think it's in you to do that, and that you can't help it. So I should really just abandon this as unfruitful from a spiritual angle. Peace to you, and your family.
"Is that what all protestants are who examine the information and say what they believe?"
No, however, but then all protestants do not use the methods that you use to come to your beliefs. When one of your conclusions is that the Church is, or will conspire with other "church hierarchies" to persecute Christians, you place yourselve in agreement with a fringe group of Christians. It is a fringe group that finds no real support among legitimate scholars, protestant or otherwise. The supporters of your positions that you love to cite are all members of that same fringe. As an aside, would care to mention some of the "church hierarchies" with whom the Church is conspiring?
Christine,
I put this link in a comment on the Concordat post at 7:41 pm on Aug. 23:
http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?org_id=849&kb_header_id=755
It links to the texts of all the documents for the Slovakian Concordat.
John, I think I have said that prophecy shows that this will happen before Christ returns. I didn't say it was happening now. I do think from what the Holy See is doing in treaties with governments, that it is setting up a power structure to rule. If you think that's a joke, then you probably think that the mark of the beast is a joke too, even though it's prophesied and none of God's prophesies will fail. If I think it's right to warn people, then God help me if I don't.
Please enlighten me on your understanding of the "mark of the beast," just so I can fully appreciate your warning.
So, if it was SO NICE of her to retract her comment, why don't you retract your header on your post? Elena has apologized yet you still relish in her accusation publicly and leave it up for all to see.
Notice how you tirelessly twist Truth, Jennie, to manipulate what people think. In this case, what you stated was factual, but what you left out made it dishonest because you intentionally lead others to draw false conclusions.
Let me explain. Someone did bring it up to Elena, she realized that she was in the wrong, and she apologized. You say nothing to show that she realized her error and was sorry for the comment. You display no forgiveness on your own part; you simply make it sound as if "HA, the evil Catholic was exposed and only removed the words to cover her own butt. But I will hold this up for the whole world to see what Catholics are really like, because of their evil harlot church."
Leo, You may not have noticed but I put a note in the post to say that Elena had removed the 'nut case' words. Stop accusing and insinuating that I'm being dishonest. I think you're doing it on purpose to discredit me because you can't answer my statements.
Elena's 'apology' was more of an accusation that she couldn't help thinking those words when she read my statement.
John, I guess we'll know it when we see it, since God mercifully warned us by putting it in scripture.
Jennie,
After rereading her apology, I can agree with you on that point...it was not a clear cut 'I'm sorry for calling you that'...
However, Jennie, you are being dishonest whether knowingly or not. You are presenting one side of the story and you are only presenting the statements you care to. You never really care whether the sources you use are accurate or not; you just care if they come up with some anti-Catholic 'dirt'.
We have repeatedly presented counter arguments and coherent logical scriptural interpretations to support what we say but you don't really care.
You forget that we did not launch an attack against you, your church, your pastor, or how you came to know Jesus Christ. Yet, you persist in telling us what you know about us because of unscientific research. If you believe the Nicene Creed, good...it came from the Church as did most all of the Truth that you hold to.
What you simply cannot seem to grasp is that scripture can be interpreted many different ways. I know where you are coming from because I have gone through those very thoughts in my own mind early in my walk.
Why not redirect your efforts to work with us by being Jesus Christ to this hurting and troubled world?
Actually Leo, I do care very much if the sources I use are accurate. They use quite alot of documentation from Catholic and historical sources.
If you have something you want me to read about Catholic doctrine I would be glad to read it, but if I compare it to scripture would you be willing to look at that?
In my own defense - when I re-posted your comment on the Visits to Candyland blog, I wrote that when I read the comment, the words "nut case" popped into my head.
I didn't write, "Jennie is a nut case" with your name and a link to your blog.
I would have been perfectly happy to discuss conspiracy theories a la the DaVinci Code and muse with my fellow readers about how such ridiculous notions get into people's heads.
You outed yourself.
And because one reader wanted to focus on my apparent faux pas, I took it down, apologized, and refocused the discussion.
The point wasn't to offend you Jennie, but to discuss what I consider to be a crazy point of view regarding the church aligning itself with other powers that be to persecute Christians.
And I can't apologize for that - I still think it's nutty.
Bottom line though, if people Google your name or the name of your blog, that posting on VTC will not show up.
Wait a few days and Google Elena and Visits to Candyland, this posting on your blog may.
Which goes with the territory I suppose. I guess if I am asked to defend myself for that, I'll be ready.
Jennie,
Elena is right. We all know how you disagree with our positions and I am sure that you know how crazy and illogical we find your views of the Church to be.
We get into heated discussions because of our passion for Truth and this is an unfortunate periodic result. I know, because there are many times I thought Elena's exact thoughts in my own mind. However, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and we need to love each other...but, sometimes we feel we have turned both cheeks with nothing to show for it...
However, to Elena's point, is it really necessary to highlight the now apologized for disagreement? You and I have also exchanged shots for which we have also apologized and forgotten, at least from my perspective.
Why not do the Christian thing and accept Elena's apology by removing your 'back at you' post? She extended an olive branch and you are now whacking her over the head with it. Otherwise, you are coming across like a member of the 'whore of Babylon' ;-) It's okay to attack our views, but not the person. Believe it or not, Jennie, Jesus loves Elena and me just as much as He loves you...
ELena,
I'll change the headline of the post. After all, I did jump in and reveal my name. I think though, that most people who've interacted on both our blogs knew or would guess it was me.
There, I've also removed my comment from the post. I want to keep the link to the discussion.
Maybe, maybe not. The gals at the STC blog have quite a few prophecy anti-Catholic blogs in their side bar that they blog about regularly.
Jennie,
Thank you...you will receive graces for having done that.
;-)
Post a Comment