A Faithful Catholic Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 You said it all............I agree with you 100%........you don't need to go to a building, all dolled up like most of the "I am a Sunday Catholic/Christians".......if you are a good living example and do for others you are 100% Catholic or Christian. 1.) I disagree. The Faith handed down by the Apostles is the TRUE FAITH. 2.) Jesus gave SPECIFIC Commands that need to be carried out... 3.) If MOTHER THERESA was an ATHEIST and still helped out all those people, she would not go to heaven, per Christ's words. Good works without Faith is DEAD in terms of Salvation. Likewise, Faith without good works is also dead, per St. James. Being just "good" doesn't get you to heaven. You can be an atheist and do good things. Those that have total ignorance of the Gospels, Salvation is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 This is my quote, in part: "Those throat cutters DENY the DIVINITY of Christ. What I say will PALE in comparison to what they will face in front of Jesus and His condemnation of them!" Who do you think "THOSE" were in reference to? Those mentioned in MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT I made. Those throat cutters who attacked Christian Pilgrims to the Holy Land because they WERE CHRISTIAN. My summary: You forgot my original statement that was referring to and the context. My prediction: You: So what. I did not forget your original statement or context. The additional sentence still does not explain why you used the present tense -- "deny?" Or are you just in the habit of referring to dead people from history as if they are currently living? Or are you just ignorant? Or are you just refusing to admit you use the term for all "mooslims" -- today as well as yesterday's people? Example: If I wanted to explain that Hitler hated the Jews, which sentence would apply: 1. Hitler hates the Jews. 2. Hitler hated the Jews. Nice try at once again side-stepping, AFC. But, you simply cannot deny you used the present tense in referring to "mooslims." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 Nice try at once again side-stepping, AFC. But, you simply cannot deny you used the present tense in referring to "mooslims." How the heck did I side step this time? You use that word way too loosely. There are only TWO times I have ever used the word "mooslims": 1.) My original statement. 2.) A statement in REFERENCE to that original statement. I have never used the word "MOOSLIMS" other than those that attacked, sliced throats, raped women, and otherwise harmed Christian Pilgrims. You are trying to say I said ALL Muslims are "mooslims" Nope. Only the ones that attacked those innocent Christians. A failed attempt. Another hater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 How the heck did I side step this time? You use that word way too loosely. There are only TWO times I have ever used the word "mooslims": 1.) My original statement. 2.) A statement in REFERENCE to that original statement. I have never used the word "MOOSLIMS" other than those that attacked, sliced throats, raped women, and otherwise harmed Christian Pilgrims. You are trying to say I said ALL Muslims are "mooslims" Nope. Only the ones that attacked those innocent Christians. A failed attempt. Another hater. How exactly did I "fail?" You have yet to explain why you would use the present tense to describe "mooslimns?" You are the one failing, and quite miserably. It's a simple question. Why did you phrase it as "they deny" instead of "they denied." Why are you refusing to explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Athiest Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 I new brought up that awful word. Those that hate me did. I wasn't necessarily referring to you, don't worry you have nothing to hide. Anyway take care Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 How the heck did I side step this time? You use that word way too loosely. There are only TWO times I have ever used the word "mooslims": 1.) My original statement. 2.) A statement in REFERENCE to that original statement. I have never used the word "MOOSLIMS" other than those that attacked, sliced throats, raped women, and otherwise harmed Christian Pilgrims. You are trying to say I said ALL Muslims are "mooslims" Nope. Only the ones that attacked those innocent Christians. A failed attempt. Another hater. Liar, liar, pants on fire. The post referenced was your response to Jon asking you why you insist on using the term "prosts." In the middle of your response to THAT, you bring up the "crap" (your word) about your usage of the word "mooslims" not being a big deal because they "deny" Christ and "will" have to answer to Jesus. Last I knew, the word "deny" and "will" indicate the present and the future. So, if you were talking about Muslims from years past who are already dead, why would they be "denying" anything anymore and what is taking Jesus so long to address it with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest weed Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 How the heck did I side step this time? You use that word way too loosely. There are only TWO times I have ever used the word "mooslims": 1.) My original statement. 2.) A statement in REFERENCE to that original statement. I have never used the word "MOOSLIMS" other than those that attacked, sliced throats, raped women, and otherwise harmed Christian Pilgrims. You are trying to say I said ALL Muslims are "mooslims" Nope. Only the ones that attacked those innocent Christians. A failed attempt. Another hater. Smoke weed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 How exactly did I "fail?" You have yet to explain why you would use the present tense to describe "mooslimns?" You are the one failing, and quite miserably. It's a simple question. Why did you phrase it as "they deny" instead of "they denied." Why are you refusing to explain? All Muslims deny Jesus. Those mooslims that attacked Christian pilgrims are the ones I have a beef with. They are murderers and throat slicers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 I wasn't necessarily referring to you, don't worry you have nothing to hide. Anyway take care Oh, ok. People just misquote me and read into things. You take care as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 Liar, liar, pants on fire. You are the one that lies. The post referenced was your response to Jon asking you why you insist on using the term "prosts." or was it the word BORE? In the middle of your response to THAT, you bring up the "crap" (your word) about your usage of the word "mooslims" not being a big deal because they "deny" Christ and "will" have to answer to Jesus. Last I knew, the word "deny" and "will" indicate the present and the future. So, if you were talking about Muslims from years past who are already dead, why would they be "denying" anything anymore and what is taking Jesus so long to address it with them? All Muslims, then and NOW deny Jesus Christ. They just reduce Him to a mere prophet. Those that sliced the throats of the pilgrims are MOOSLIMS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Matters Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 Here we go again AFC, blow it out your ears, don't you ever get tired of being such a know it all?.. I'm a Christian, sure don't need your babble. You, You're a reading fool taking literally the words that came from where? You haven't a clue what you read is the truth, it is what you're told is the word and you follow it blindly. If you so need to believe what you continually preach from the pages of the bible then do so but keep it to yourself, how utterly boring you must be spouting the so called word like a machine. I'm sure you stand outside the Abortion clinics, just the type, like you make a difference as you think you do here, you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest allah Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 All Muslims deny Jesus. Those mooslims that attacked Christian pilgrims are the ones I have a beef with. They are murderers and throat slicers. looks like you stepped in it this time. the fact is all muslims acknowledge jesus. his name appears in the quran many times. he is recognized as a prophet, but not a savior. you are 100% wrong. let's see you lie your way out of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 looks like you stepped in it this time. the fact is all muslims acknowledge jesus. his name appears in the quran many times. he is recognized as a prophet, but not a savior. you are 100% wrong. let's see you lie your way out of that. No kidding. You deny Jesus was any type of Saviour, BUT A MERE PROPHET. Muhammad is FAR less than Jesus. :blink: :blink: Muhammad never claimed he was God. Jesus did, rightfully so. Muhammad "married" a nine year old....I don't have to type the words going through my mind right now! :angry: :angry: The koran is a book written by one man at one time. Big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 double post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 double post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest allah Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 No kidding. You deny Jesus was any type of Saviour, BUT A MERE PROPHET. Muhammad is FAR less than Jesus. :blink: :blink: Muhammad never claimed he was God. Jesus did, rightfully so. Muhammad "married" a nine year old....I don't have to type the words going through my mind right now! :angry: :angry: The koran is a book written by one man at one time. Big deal. as opposed to the bible? trust me , only one liar wrote the bible. as for allah and jesus, neither one of them existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Geo Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 Yes, I agree, Uncle Geo ... let's be specific. Most of us have tracked A Faithful Catholic through 185 pages (yes pages) that I know of for certain. Perhaps we can be qualified to "make a judgment referring to his previous posts" ... 185 pages of posts and replies ... 'specifics' on which to form an impression. Do you assume that the 'Guest' you have just addressed only dropped in today? Perhaps you are a new arrivalyourself in threads involving A Faithful Catholic. Your present call sign seems to suggest that. There is something antisocial about A Faithful Catholic's approach to people that has not endeared him to many. He has antagonized a lot of people a lot of times. Needlessly. In that respect he's his own worst enemy. No matter what message he pushes now, whether Religion or Rock n' Roll it would be the same. That's what attracts the negativity you deplore. Do you really believe that A Faithful Catholic has a better grasp of everything than those whom he scorns? Jon, I just stumbled back on this ... I'm not trying to prolong argument, but I think it's important to express my opinion, flawed as it may be, regarding AFC positions. I happen to be Catholic. And as a Catholic I take exception to many of the prejudicial statements I read here. That being said, I recognize the right of each person to have their own opinion even while believing in the fullness of my Faith. It is also my belief, that in matters of Faith, AFC gives an accurate account of Catholic doctrine. (I only wish I could be so knowledgeable.) I am not new to this board, only my "call sign" has changed ... I've been around for quite a while, but what I'm seeing now is the opportunity for civil discourse and an exchange of ideas descending into unprofitable bickering and arguing all because someone feels "antagonized" by the way someone else posts. It's a senseless response and serves no purpose other than to invite a continuing and similar sniping remark, ad nauseum. (e.g. 30 pages of "I got you for using this or that word"... "No you didn't" ... what a waste!) And you, Jon, should know better. I've read many of your posts and admire your grasp of so many subjects but you keep on getting sucked into this vortex of picayune squabbling. Why? Only you can answer that but it would be so much more rewarding to read your thoughts on the "higher" topics. ( I admit that is selfish on my part ... sorry) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 All Muslims deny Jesus. Those mooslims that attacked Christian pilgrims are the ones I have a beef with. They are murderers and throat slicers. But your quote on Post 199 in the other thread does say "they deny" and "they will." Those phrases would make no sense if they were in reference to dead people. ???? :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 No kidding. You deny Jesus was any type of Saviour, BUT A MERE PROPHET. Muhammad is FAR less than Jesus. :blink: :blink: Muhammad never claimed he was God. Jesus did, rightfully so. Muhammad "married" a nine year old....I don't have to type the words going through my mind right now! :angry: :angry: The koran is a book written by one man at one time. Big deal. And the teachings of Jesus were written and interpreted by various men and is still being interpreted in different ways by various faiths. Then you get a fanatic like AFC posting how everyone else is wrong, wrong, wrong. No wonder people turn away from organized religion. If Jesus is coming some day, you all better run because I think he is royally pissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 I did not forget your original statement or context. The additional sentence still does not explain why you used the present tense -- "deny?" Or are you just in the habit of referring to dead people from history as if they are currently living? Or are you just ignorant? Or are you just refusing to admit you use the term for all "mooslims" -- today as well as yesterday's people? Example: If I wanted to explain that Hitler hated the Jews, which sentence would apply: 1. Hitler hates the Jews. 2. Hitler hated the Jews. Nice try at once again side-stepping, AFC. But, you simply cannot deny you used the present tense in referring to "mooslims." We are still waiting for your answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 If they were Catholics, would I say anything to them? Nope. Would I call a Jew a prot? Would I call a muslim a Jew? Those words I used describe people's beliefs, not themselves. What an ignorant set of questions, A Faithful Catholic! OF COURSE no one would call a Jew a 'prot'. OF COURSE no one would call a Muslim a Jew. OF COURSE no one would call glove a shoe, either! SO WHAT!! You're just stating the painfully obvious as if it means something. It doesn't. NOT A THING! All you succeed in doing is to insult the intelligence of normal readers with empty word-play. Would you call a Catholic a 'prot'? Those words I used describe people's beliefs, not themselves. Rubbish! Those words describe the PEOPLE themselves ... NOT their 'beliefs'. The words that describe their BELIEFS you have yet to even MENTION!! Don't you know that the BELIEF of the Jews is 'JUDAISM'? Don't you know that the BELIEF of Muslims is 'ISLAM'?? Have YOU ever heard of a BELIEF called 'prot'?? Has ANYONE ever heard of a BELIEF called 'prot'?? Yet you said the word 'prot' describes a BELIEF! Those words I used describe people's beliefs, not themselves. Do you now want to "use a word to describe" your false statement? Do yourself a favor and describe for what it is, before others do! The bottom line right here is that you use the word 'prot' TO DESCRIBE PEOPLE, just as the words 'Jew' and 'Muslim' DESCRIBE PEOPLE, not their beliefs. Which brings your pathetic little dance full circle back to where we started ... the BELIEF of 'Protestants' is Christianity. There is no such thing as a 'prot' except in your vocabulary of SPITE! If you try the "prots is shorthand" lie again I will dance you around the ballroom about it again and again until you learn to be civil and use the same name Protestants call themselves ... just like the rest of us use the same name for Catholics that Catholics call themselves. Are you ready for another twenty pages on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 Jon, I just stumbled back on this ... I'm not trying to prolong argument, but I think it's important to express my opinion, flawed as it may be, regarding AFC positions. I happen to be Catholic. And as a Catholic I take exception to many of the prejudicial statements I read here. That being said, I recognize the right of each person to have their own opinion even while believing in the fullness of my Faith. It is also my belief, that in matters of Faith, AFC gives an accurate account of Catholic doctrine. (I only wish I could be so knowledgeable.) I am not new to this board, only my "call sign" has changed ... I've been around for quite a while, but what I'm seeing now is the opportunity for civil discourse and an exchange of ideas descending into unprofitable bickering and arguing all because someone feels "antagonized" by the way someone else posts. It's a senseless response and serves no purpose other than to invite a continuing and similar sniping remark, ad nauseum. (e.g. 30 pages of "I got you for using this or that word"... "No you didn't" ... what a waste!) And you, Jon, should know better. I've read many of your posts and admire your grasp of so many subjects but you keep on getting sucked into this vortex of picayune squabbling. Why? Only you can answer that but it would be so much more rewarding to read your thoughts on the "higher" topics. ( I admit that is selfish on my part ... sorry) Uncle Geo, I know you mean well. That's why I was gentler with you before and I see no reason yet to deviate from that. A more substantial exchange of ideas was the way these threads began in good faith. Then a few things started going astray in ways that had many of us bewildered at first, myself included. It took a little time to re-calibrate to realize what is really going on here. One of many things that antagonizes is that A Faithful Catholic sidesteps. Earlier this was his response to questions of substance but as it went on one by one the rest of us lost faith in meaningful discussions because of the disrespect of having serious questions ignored and sidestepped in ways that trivialized the inquirer. That grew increasingly irksome and offensive. Add to that the fact that there seems to be no such thing as a 'discussion' worthy of that description with someone who just chants rote responses out of a recipe book inflexibly. A Faithful Catholic tolerates no elbow room to actually examine issues raised like thinking adults. I see no evidence that anyone here doubts A Faithful Catholic's prodigious knowledge. But is knowledge enough? Uncle Geo, you come across as someone who actually does understand the world of difference that exists between knowledge and thought. Maybe you can prevail on your fellow traveler in Faith to recognize that distinction too, and to be prepared to give it some exercise. We have yet to see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 The bottom line right here is that you use the word 'prot' TO DESCRIBE PEOPLE, just as the words 'Jew' and 'Muslim' DESCRIBE PEOPLE, not their beliefs. The words MUSLIM, JEW, and PROTESTANT describe PEOPLE'S FAITH PRACTICES and BELIEF SYSTEMS, not the people themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 One of many things that antagonizes is that A Faithful Catholic sidesteps. I don't Jon. People think I side step when I give them an answer that they didn't like or expect . It has become the "catch all" phrase. I see no evidence that anyone here doubts A Faithful Catholic's prodigious knowledge. But is knowledge enough? There is no knowledge greater than the "fear of God." Uncle Geo, you come across as someone who actually does understand the world of difference that exists between knowledge and thought. Maybe you can prevail on your fellow traveler in Faith to recognize that distinction too, and to be prepared to give it some exercise. We have yet to see that. I know the difference, but FAITH can never be overruled by thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumby Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 The words MUSLIM, JEW, and PROTESTANT describe PEOPLE'S FAITH PRACTICES and BELIEF SYSTEMS, not the people themselves. Jon -- I believe you will need music for this dance. I have a wide selection available. Let me know your preference and I will crank it up for you. :lol: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.