Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
If the rapture really happens tomorrow . . .; AKA . . . the Good Bye Thread
Topic Started: May 20 2011, 01:21 PM (12,112 Views)
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
My thin skin. That's pretty funny Larry. You've blown several gaskets here already.


This is my last post in this thread.

Yes, YOUR thin skin.

I stated repeatedly - I even BEGAN THE DISCUSSION by stating - that it was not my intention of insulting anyone, or mocking their religion, that I wanted it to be purely a theological discussion. Civil. I prefaced my participation in this precisely because I, as well as anyone else who has paid any attention over the years, was fully aware of your thin skin any time someone mentions the Catholic Church. You get sarcastic and combative right out of the gate. You did that this time as well. I took several punches from you and held my tongue before I finally had taken all I was going to take from you.

So yes, IT - YOUR thin skin. It was only after you had become so condescending, sarcastic, and hostile that I "blew a gasket". I tried my best to keep that from happening. You jumped in it like a pig in slop.

And yes IT, I have answered all of your multiple misinterpretations of scripture. Deal with it.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 24 2011, 10:17 PM
Quote:
 
My thin skin. That's pretty funny Larry. You've blown several gaskets here already.


This is my last post in this thread.

Yes, YOUR thin skin.

I stated repeatedly - I even BEGAN THE DISCUSSION by stating - that it was not my intention of insulting anyone, or mocking their religion, that I wanted it to be purely a theological discussion. Civil. I prefaced my participation in this precisely because I, as well as anyone else who has paid any attention over the years, was fully aware of your thin skin any time someone mentions the Catholic Church. You get sarcastic and combative right out of the gate. You did that this time as well. I took several punches from you and held my tongue before I finally had taken all I was going to take from you.

So yes, IT - YOUR thin skin. It was only after you had become so condescending, sarcastic, and hostile that I "blew a gasket". I tried my best to keep that from happening. You jumped in it like a pig in slop.

And yes IT, I have answered all of your multiple misinterpretations of scripture. Deal with it.
But you haven't answered any of them. You've only asserted that because Jesus said "Repent and believe" and some insistence about what Jesus "obviously" meant by "water and the spirit" and because Paul was using obvious metaphors that his audience would understand, that the Church is wrong. You have not ever put forth a real scriptural argument for what baptism really is in contradistinction to what the Catholic Church says baptism is.

All along I've made it plain that I doubted you can, and you have failed to do so, and now you are leaving while taking cheap parting shots.

As I said earlier, oh well.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Kincaid
May 24 2011, 08:17 AM
(and I don't believe the whole "use the Lord's name in vain" applies to cursing anyway!)
+1
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
All along I've made it plain that I doubted you can, and you have failed to do so, and now you are leaving while taking cheap parting shots.


I know you're doubted that I can, IT. You don't think anyone can. That's your blind spot. But sorry guy, I did not fail to do so. You simply failed to grasp what was said.

And no, I didn't leave with a "cheap parting shot". I gave you a quite accurate description of your behavior in this thread, and I no longer wish to play this game with a child.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 24 2011, 10:17 PM
You get sarcastic and combative right out of the gate. You did that this time as well. I took several punches from you and held my tongue before I finally had taken all I was going to take from you.
That's pretty funny too, Larry. In your " ground rules" you kept it light hearted, even while taking a jab at the Presbys. So when I made a little light hearted throw away comment, which you will undoubtedly need, you came back with your typical vulgar and abusive tirade.

IOW, you didn't hold your tongue at all. And the irony is that you even told us what your own exit strategy would be : "i'm losing the debate so I'll sling dirt".

Indeed, Larry, you did just as you had prophesied. ^_^
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Sorry IT, but I didn't lose the debate. You did.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 24 2011, 11:10 PM
Quote:
 
All along I've made it plain that I doubted you can, and you have failed to do so, and now you are leaving while taking cheap parting shots.


I know you're doubted that I can, IT. You don't think anyone can. That's your blind spot. But sorry guy, I did not fail to do so. You simply failed to grasp what was said.

And no, I didn't leave with a "cheap parting shot". I gave you a quite accurate description of your behavior in this thread, and I no longer wish to play this game with a child.
"a child"... another cheap parting shot, huh? Is that all you have? "i'm losing the debate so I'll sling dirt"

It would have been a debate if you had actually put forth a position, other than "the Catholic Church is wrong".

Good night, Larry.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Statements of fact are not cheap parting shots.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 24 2011, 11:13 PM
Statements of fact are not cheap parting shots.

Given the fact that I'm a fifty year old man, that's just another in a string of your "statements of fact" that are demonstrably wrong. ^_^
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
And I did put forth a position, one that is quite clear to anyone who has ever picked up a bible and read it. I'm sorry that you've spent more time reading the "church fathers" than you have reading scripture. Had you done so, perhaps you would have caught it.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 24 2011, 11:15 PM
And I did put forth a position, one that is quite clear to anyone who has ever picked up a bible and read it. I'm sorry that you've spent more time reading the "church fathers" than you have reading scripture. Had you done so, perhaps you would have caught it.

I have read Scripture far more than I've read the Church fathers -- as the multiple evidence of my actually quoting chapter and verse should evince. The Church fathers are only supplementary to understanding the Word of God, reading what other holy and devout and intelligent people have pondered on as they arrived at so many of the things that you accept without question because they spent the time and energy and life's devotion to understanding the Word of God. They knew scriptures inside and out -- often reading them natively in the original languages of aramaic, greek, hebrew -- in a way that you or I or most scholars today simply cannot.

Assuming that you really believe in the Incarnation, the hypostatic union, and the Trinity, you only do so because they worked out the theology of these mysteries.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Geez.....


You are apparently of the mistaken belief that the only people who "spent the time and energy and life's devotion to understanding the Word of God" have been Roman Catholics. Got some news for ya - there has been a huge number of men and women who are *not* Roman Catholic who have done the same thing, knew the scriptures inside and out, and red them in their native tongue - and come away from it seeing how ridiculous some of the Roman Catholic beliefs are when compared with scripture. So as they say here in the south, that dog won't hunt.

It may also come as a shock to your system to learn that not everything was "worked out" by Roman Catholics.

Now, if you'd like to examine the lives of some of these "church fathers" you hold so dear, just let me know. We can start with Pope Pius II, a depraved sex fiend who openly bragged about the methods he used to seduce women, fathered dozens of illegitimate children, and who encouraged young men and helped them to masturbate.

You quoting scripture does not impress me. What would have impressed me if you had understood the scripture you quoted.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
And yeah, that was a cheap shot. Factual, but a cheap shot. I'm tired of your boorish snobbery.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 24 2011, 11:32 PM
Geez.....


You are apparently of the mistaken belief that the only people who "spent the time and energy and life's devotion to understanding the Word of God" have been Roman Catholics. Got some news for ya - there has been a huge number of men and women who are *not* Roman Catholic who have done the same thing, knew the scriptures inside and out, and red them in their native tongue - and come away from it seeing how ridiculous some of the Roman Catholic beliefs are when compared with scripture. So as they say here in the south, that dog won't hunt.

It may also come as a shock to your system to learn that not everything was "worked out" by Roman Catholics.

Now, if you'd like to examine the lives of some of these "church fathers" you hold so dear, just let me know. We can start with Pope Pius II, a depraved sex fiend who openly bragged about the methods he used to seduce women, fathered dozens of illegitimate children, and who encouraged young men and helped them to masturbate.

You quoting scripture does not impress me. What would have impressed me if you had understood the scripture you quoted.

Uhhhh.. Larry... Pope Pius II lived in the 15th century. He is not a Church father.

I find it strange that you would go after anyone on moral grounds after Kenny tried to attack your Christianity (quite unfairly, I might add) based on your own moral life.

Just sayin'.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
My point is, you place too much emphasis on your church and not enough emphasis on its purpose.

Your church says it's the "only true church". It's not. You seem to be of the opinion that your church hung the moon. I was just showing you that it didn't.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
And since you made a distinction between popes and "church fathers", let me again remind you that the apostles did not start the Roman Catholic Church. They started the church in Rome, quite a different thing from the monstrosity it became, and thank God, isn't any longer.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 24 2011, 11:38 PM
My point is, you place too much emphasis on your church and not enough emphasis on its purpose.

Your church says it's the "only true church". It's not. You seem to be of the opinion that your church hung the moon. I was just showing you that it didn't.

The purpose of the Church is to lead all people to salvation. That is why Jesus founded the Church on the apostles. That is what the Church has been doing (badly at times, and always in the hands of sinners) for 2000 years. St Peter was a sinner. St Paul was a sinner. Pope Pius II was a sinner. You and I are both sinners. So? The very reason for the Church is that we are all sinners and we all need God's forgiveness, his mercy, his grace, and his salvation. And we all need the Holy Spirit and we all need strength and we all need to become holy. That is the purpose of the sacraments, that is the purpose of all the teaching that the Church holds. That is all the Church is about, and that is all the Church has ever claimed to be about.

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 24 2011, 11:40 PM
And since you made a distinction between popes and "church fathers", let me again remind you that the apostles did not start the Roman Catholic Church. They started the church in Rome, quite a different thing from the monstrosity it became, and thank God, isn't any longer.

you keep "reminding me" but you don't give me any actual evidence, and you seem to just ignore or dismiss out of hand all the evidence to the contrary.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 23 2011, 10:09 AM
Let me introduce you to the *real* early church:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christians
You think this is the true Church? What books of the bible did they accept and read? Where are all of their writings that argue to the Incarnation, or the hypostatic union, or the Trinity?

All of these ideas, while grounded in the scriptures, were hammered out by the Church fathers in the first several centuries of Christianity.

The Catholics and the Orthodox share this body of thought by these very people who determined which books really were to be considered "divinely inspired" = "the Bible" and what the correct theological formulations for the Incarnation, the hypostatic union, the Trinity, the sacraments, the structural organization of the Church and the disciplines of the Church were to be.

You are claiming that there is some other "real" Church other than the apostolic Church claimed by the Catholics and the Orthodox -- but where is any record of their influence on the theology and the canon of Scriptures that you accept as being "Christian"?

You insist that the Catholic Church is not a true Church, yet all of your scriptures and all of your theology was worked out through that organization (with deference to the later split between the Catholics and the Orthodox), even if you reject parts of it. Where is the evidence of other organizations that held councils to work out the theology that you hold as authentically Christian? Who exactly were these people, and how did they organize themselves, and how did they understand "baptism" and "infant baptism" and "eucharist" etc.?

Do you have any real sources for this?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
May 24 2011, 08:33 PM
You keep missing the point that Jesus saves us. The Catholic teaching is that Jesus saved us generally through his passion, death and resurrection, and he saves us personally and individually as well as corporately through the waters of baptism ...
Compare to the following:

You keep missing the point that Ronald Reagan and Congress granted amnesty to all the illegal aliens who entered the US before 1982 and resided in the US continuously. Ronald Reagan and Congress granted amnesty to this class of aliens generally through the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, and the INS made those aliens legal personally and individually through registration and adjudication following the IRCA.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Sounds like you guys were arguing "authority" v. "process."

"Authority" comes from one source: E.g., [1] immigration "amnesty" through Congress passing an Act, [2] Christian spiritual "pardoning of sins" through Jesus dying on a cross.

"Process" is just going through the steps and demonstrating that you satisfy the requirements: E.g., [1] filling out immigration forms in triplicates and showing proof of entry before 1982 and proof of continued residence since, [2] professing acceptance of Jesus as savior and dunked in water.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Now - you tell me how an infant is going to repent - or are you next going to tell me that you don't think it's necessary to repent of your sins to be saved.


Larry, do you believe that an infant who dies without having been baptized is excluded from the kingdom of God? Or, for that matter, an older child who dies before they're of adequate age to "decide for themselves" whether to profess faith in Christ and be baptized? In short, do *you* believe that it is necessary to repent of your sins in order to be saved?

None of these who have died have had an opportunity to "repent of their sins," and they would therefore be denied entry to heaven based on the theology implied in your quote above.

So what exactly do you think baptism is? Is it just a symbolic act? And if so, just what does it symbolize? Is it more than symbolism; is it actually a means of bestowing God's grace in some regard, and if so, in what regard? Where does it fit into the scriptural understanding of salvation? What is your scriptural rationale for your answers to these questions? In other words, what is your theology of baptism? That's what I'd said earlier you need to lay out before any other subsequent conversation can make any sense at all.

Because I have done so in my own beliefs, I can answer those kinds of questions, and make scriptural arguments for why I do. In fact, to answer your question above, it's precisely because I have engaged in that theological exercise that I can say I have no doubt that an infant, or any child below the age of reason, is indeed saved without having repented of their sin.

Now, I don't really care to hear your answers to the questions I posed to you. I'm not going to debate those points with you. I'm just saying that you need to actually have done that exercise, and to be able to offer a reasoned and scriptural argument for your answers.

That's where IT has so completely and thoroughly cleaned your clock in your conversation with him that it's almost comical. I don't even agree with all of his conclusions, but he has done the theological work and offers scriptural evidence to support them. You haven't, as he has correctly pointed out. You came out of the gate swinging, claiming that the Roman Catholic understanding of baptism - in particular, the idea of infant baptism - was not scriptural. After repeatedly refusing to rise to IT's challenge to you to show scripturally why the position was wrong, he proceeded to begin to lay out a detailed scriptural rationale for his beliefs. You never offered any significant rebuttal to it, nor did you offer any similar detailed scriptural argument to support your own beliefs beyond, if I recall, one single passage of scripture. In the end, you finally threw up your hands in frustration and defeat, saying,

Quote:
 
Oh crap, I don't have the time or the patience to deal with each one of them, it's enough to say that not one of those verses have a damned thing to do with what Paul was telling the church in Rome.


No, it isn't enough. In fact, it's the exact opposite of making an actual argument. It's an admission that you haven't really made a point by point rebuttal against, or a point by point argument for, anything - regardless of how many times you claim, "Yes, I have; you just can't understand me."

I don't agree with all of IT's positions, but I respect that he has done the theological legwork to understand his theology of baptism, and to explain it scripturally to others. He has shown you that you have a somewhat mistaken understanding of the Roman Catholic understanding of salvation and how baptism is connected to it. I understand IT's position, and even if I hadn't done a similar theological exercise, I'd have understood his position based on his explanation here - and even at the points where I'd disagree with him, I would see and understand his scriptural argument for those points.
Edited by Dewey, May 25 2011, 05:57 AM.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Alright, alright, alright.......I told myself "If this gets to page 21, I'll read it."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
May 24 2011, 09:29 PM
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

If I were a Christian, that point alone would convince me that the RCC is blowing smoke and Larry's interpretation is more accurate. You can proclaim the gospel all you want to an infant but he/she won't get it. After all, babies are not born to any creed regardless of their parents affiliation. Infants are are truly innocent of any of this adult centred controversy.

Truth be known, the modern Catholic Church probably only baptises infants so that they can wring a committment out parents and godparents (the latter *should* both be RC but at least one *must* be a confirmed RC) that the infant will be raised in the Catholic faith. An early recruitment tactic.

Nothing to do with beatitude or washing away the sin of Adam as we were taught by the Roman church in catechism class.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Luke's Dad
May 20 2011, 01:23 PM
So, how potentially rancorous do you guys see this thread becoming?
Eh, it'll fizzle out pretty quick is my guess.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply