You may as well speak in LEET.
When asked to address questions relating to Jesus and scripture, you are quick with an authoritative answer.
When asked to address situations involving spousal beat-downs and divorce, you vacillate.
Translation: your commitment to the spirit of the thread, while once sincere, jumped the shark.
I'm sure you can find details on Wikipediea, if you have it in you to search for answers to your questions.
You forgot one... How about I was too busy at work until now? I didn't vacillate; I answered what I could.
(plus I had a soccer game today).
Mmmm ... Soccer moms.
Oops, wrong forum.
Where on earth did you pull this from? Sorry to be the one to inform you, but there ARE people who got saved who beat their wives. Their spouses believe they have married a wonderful Christian man.
Or is your claim that a Christian woman would not divorce an abusive spouse to save herself and possibly her children?
As for my questions- I simply asked for clarification. You said emphatically that your father would ONLY married a divorced person if it was due to sexual infidelity- so I asked- what about an abusive relationship? It was a simple question, wanting to find out if in actuality there were other cir stances besides adultery in which your church deemed remarriage acceptable. Your continued claims that the victim must not be Christian are downright insulting to every person (male or female) who has been the victim of spousal abuse. I certainly hope that you have no interest in the ministry.
Herein points very clearly to your problem in this thread- see I am seeking clarification on your beliefs. You are instead in here to bash the Catholic church.
Anytime someone brings up an issue, you insult back with some outlandish claim like celibacy causes pedophilia or abused women are not Christians.
See, I did not realize this thread was a compe ion to see who could find the most fault with the other's church. I mistakingly thought it was a forum for mature adult discussion on the topics. My bad. Instead of addressing the question that is asked, you turn it onto the other person. You really should ask Jesus to help you with your blatant passive-aggressive personality disorder.
Ok... whatever. I'm done with you.
That is the problem when you want to address a 'philosophical' issue without clearly defining the terms.
I still maintain that the 'generalization' I made is valid. Somehow you conveniently skipped over the "this is by no means the rule but certainly isn't the exception." Go ahead hammer away.
BTW Women in such relationships, who are Christian, should rely on the power of prayer to transform the life of their husbands. It's a decision they made. If things don't get better. Subject the abusive partner to the authorities.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-31-2006 at 11:57 AM.
Please....... Your motives were clear. I wasn't born yesterday so don't try and turn this around. IF and when I disagree with Catholic doctrines, should by no means imply that my disagreement was directed as a personal insult to you. I am en led to my own personal beliefs; just like yourself.
Just remember that I wasn't the one who perceived imaginary solicitation, outright conversion attempts, or misdirected insults. That was all you.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-31-2006 at 01:18 PM.
You do not know me nor my motives. I assure you- I have discussed issues of this sort with many people more knowledgeable than you. Your talking in circles doesn't impress me. Your continually trying to turn the subject back on the person who asks the questions does not work with me.
I asked a simple question that you still have not answered and when I pressed for an answer you turned to insulting me. I am beginning to see the pattern of a man with a problem with a woman who doesn't hang on his every word like it came directly from the mouth of God.
Most interesting is that this thread was started by someone who wanted information about the Catholic Church and yet you came in here with your half-truths and blatant propaganda about things that were not even correct representations of Catholic teachings.
Thanks for proving my diagnosis.Ok... whatever. I'm done with you.
Just let it go.
I clearly stated (ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS) that my beliefs are personal, and by no means perfect.
I answered your questions and still you retorted with a response that I hadn't. You asked me what my father would do. I answered and it still wasn't enough. You then insisted.... quite stubbornly I should add... so again, without addressing your other lies above (cause all people have to do is go back and read the thread)... let it go.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-31-2006 at 12:06 PM.
I'm just starting.
hmmmm right.... like I was saying your motives are very clear... Your defense of the Catholic Church... though admirable, is not necessary.
I meant I'm just starting with my comments about you. I have actually exercised great restraint while I have watched a man who is such a self-proclaimed Christian hurl blatant insults at other Christians, brag about himself, and act as if he is better than other people- (remember the whole I have not sinned as much as they have). You have denigrated and insulted women whose husbands beat them. You have repeated lie upon lie after being told by people that what you were saying was untrue, but the truth does not matter to you. It you whose motives for coming into this thread in the first place are very clear.
And you still have not answered my questions about abuse-- are these women not Christians- are they not Christian in your view for divorcing their abusive husbands
Or do you- I suppose- hold onto the notion that if these women were obeying their husbands like they are supposed to that they wouldn't be getting a beating in the first place.
He doesn't know; you are talking in hypotheticals. The fact that they were beaten and divorced doesn't make them any more, or less, Christian. Pheno suggests that in such a marriage, it is possible, if not probable, that both (as in either/or, not sum total) parties were not Christian from the outset.
You're just making stuff up now, trying to pick a fight.Or do you- I suppose- hold onto the notion that if these women were obeying their husbands like they are supposed to that they wouldn't be getting a beating in the first place.
I know the answers to your questions from Pheno in this thread. Why don't you?
That's nice.
No not really. Me calling a practice or a doctrine blasphemous, should not be taken as a personal insult to you. You have very big 'victim' issues.... <--- now that would be an insult.
It's all relative. What? Am I not allowed to state my position anymore? To quote from the Word of GOD? If I have stated anything with an air of authority it's because I believe that the inherent authority of GOD's Word cannot be superceded by anyone... not because I claim to be superior. I'm still a lowly servant in the LORD's Kingdom... so I don't see how you would misconstrue that.... Oh wait, because it suits your argument to declare it so.
Oh... how convenient that you would miss the point of the comparison altogether...
I made the comment to show that Popes don't have a higher place in GOD's kingdom simply because someone has given them the le of Pope. One sin alone is enough to separate us from GOD. So the point of having more or less sin is rather moot -- we are all sinners. My comparison then of 'my slate of sin' to that of certain popes (such as Gregory IX or Innocent III) was still rather poignant in that I've never sanctioned the murder of people --- an obvious and rather weighty distinction.
But here's the catch....
The amount of sin is irrelevant. Again, it was all to show that they, much like us, are sinners completely undeserving of being addressed with phrases like "Holy", "Majesty", or "Holy Emperor". But no, apparently all you could focus on was the fact that I could even dare to compare myself to former leaders of your ins ution... as if they were untouchable.
But don't let that stop you from jumping to conclusions.
Only as perceived by you. Not explicitly stated by me.
One opinion doesn't trump another. So I don't see how what you just wrote holds any merit. Just because someone offers up a counter argument doesn't make it so. Again, for the umpteenth time I've stated repeatedly that my views are not perfect. So I don't know why you keep harping on this point -- the more you continue to do this, the more you will make a mockery of your own allegation.
Just because you read more into peoples posts than is actually there doesn't mean that your opinions are true.
Oh they are. But that wasn't the particular scenario you described the first time around. You just can't warp it at your every whim to suit your arguments. Build a cir stancial matrix and define the bounds of the argument then maybe we can discuss, otherwise you will continue to put words in my mouth.
No, don't suppose. That is exactly what I'm talking about. That is not a proper way of conversing or debating.
But that's it... I gain nothing by addressing your stubborn allegations nor will anything good come out of it.
So if you want to propagate your opinions about me, go ahead. Just realize that half the things you have claimed about me have all been fabrications and distorted viewpoints as produced in your head. I never stated my position as you did above. Funny how that works.
Good day.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-31-2006 at 01:31 PM.
I am not the only one to point out your continued calling of other people Pharisees.
You have very big "abuser" issues.
That's not an air of authority based upon God- but upon you, and your supposition that because someone is Catholic that they have not read the Bible.
Then why say you have sinned less than someone else?
These are not issues of opinion to which I refer- they are issues of the FACTUAL teachings of the Church about infallibillity. It has been explained to you more than once that what you claim the Church teaches is not what it teaches and yet you continue to repeat it.
I'm still waiting for the answer to my question.
This certainly won't bode well for you... But, OK.... have it your way.
"Your comments remind me of...." was a valid analogy. Your questions were trying to solicit more than just the answer.
My other references to pharisees were not directed at you. They were directed at the RCC's tendency of giving equtative value to certain traditions and GOD's Word -- and in some instances allowing other traditions to supercede it... But typical of you to personalize the comment.
Much like when I and others disapproved of practices that have given Mary more standing than she deserves -- stated as an opinion. You turned it around and suggested that we were no one to question the faith of millions. So even though we felt that calling Mary "our Queen" was a blasphemous notion, your 'personalization' of said criticism severely distorted the view.
It's in the eye of the beholder I guess.
Again the suppositions, and reading more into a post than is actually there... I never stated that Catholics dont' read the Bible.
Here was the full quote in context:
The emphasis was not placed on me having read the Bible several times... it was placed on the fact that the Bible never states that our communion with GOD requires a middle man, aside from Christ, for mediation...
Re-read the above post.... yeah, the one you quoted from. The answer is in there.
Really... your reading comprehension has been a major contributor to much of this bickering.
-- That some popes called Mary our "Queen"....
-- Others have alluded to Mary having a "redemptive" role...
-- The church has made the practice of celibacy mandatory when in reality the condition is not meant for everybody...
-- Pope Benedict recently recanted the church's belief in child purgatory....
-- The RCC claims that Mary was "sinless"...
-- The RCC claims that Mary was "assumed" into Heaven...
I'm sorry if most of the above notions were not officially proclaimed as "infallible teachings" -- But to me... they are very much doctrines. Some even to the point that they have pervasive and significant implications on other doctrines. Again, it is my opinion that the RCC convolutes the simple message of the Gospel. But for the millionth time... that does not mean that I believe that Catholics are not able to have genuine fellowship with GOD. Millions of them do. Many unfortunately, have instead been blinded by earthly traditions.
Again it's already been answered. That you are not taking the time to read the posts properly is not my fault.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-31-2006 at 06:27 PM.
PERFECT example. It has been pointed out to you more than once in that discussion that limbo was NEVER an official doctrine of the Catholic Church- and yet you continue to repeat it as if it was. You have also made many snide remarks meant as jabs at infallibility in discussions to which it does not even apply.
It was the VERY FIRST thing you said in the paragraph. It was obviously intended to give your view greater weight.The emphasis was not placed on me having read the Bible several times.
You also don't seem to get in your smugness that there is a reason for every statement that someone makes- repeatedly to brag about your reading, your study, your lesser sinfulness is not in any way in line with the humility that Christ preached. I guess that you are simply blind to your own pomposity.
And don't worry- my reading comprehension is fine- I'll be happy to compare my GPA with yours.
What the heck? That's hilarious.
The wisdom of this World is foolishness with God -Corinthians-
Well stated. Were I to read these threads without alcohol, I might respond with similar words.
I'm done arguing with you. This could go on all night back and forth, back and forth, starting with your latest spew of lies above
You go ahead and do what you want...
And there is no need to enter the childish "mine is bigger than yours" fray; I could care less about GPA's at this point in life.
Sour grapes still???
This discussion has degraded into the proverbial spitting contest, time for me to step out as well.
Please continue to cherry pick what you respond to, and don't.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
