Christian Forums

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:52:46

Quote from: da525382 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:42:26

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:34:02

Quote from: da525382 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:29:23

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:45
1. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

No, you are a Catholic because you are a follower of the Catholic Church, a great difference.

I am a Catholic because I am a follower of Christ.  And you are right, there is a big difference.

You logic thereby fails.  If you were a follower of Christ you would not be Catholic.

Someday you may get it....

Thank you anyway, but I have already.  

Hi All,

The Church of England an Apostolick Catholick Church set the Old and New Testaments as Scriptural Canon when it Authorised the Bible called The King James Version.  It is ours, get off!

The Apocrypha is limited in it's use.  For instruction of manners and examples of life,  "but yet doth it not apply them to establish doctrine; such are these follow!'

Rome kept them in their Canon! With slight variation.  LXX. also makes a good read bearing in mind the quotes of Jesus  are in it not the Hebrew Bible if my memory serves me right.  I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong?.  Sixty-six books and not rising we have the Protestants.

But what it is to have a Church until today who used to know where it was going.  Now we have joined the club some of us in ism's etc.

But never mind isn't the LORD wonderful and The Temples of God have the HolyGhost sitting in some of them!!! ...

Yours in His Everlovingtenderkindness,  or something like that if you are a cult,

Colin.

Quote from: jmg3rd on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:53:22

Quote from: da525382 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:42:26
You logic thereby fails.  If you were a follower of Christ you would not be Catholic.

I know it can be a thin line in such discussions, and we all often find ourselves on either side (accuser/accused) of it.  But I do think this is awfully close to breaking the rule of questioning another poster's Christianity. 

I agree. This thread needs some Moderation. The Catholic/Protestant sticky thread doesn't seem to be doing the job.

Quote from: charlie on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 10:57:52

Quote from: jmg3rd on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:53:22

Quote from: da525382 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:42:26
You logic thereby fails.  If you were a follower of Christ you would not be Catholic.

I know it can be a thin line in such discussions, and we all often find ourselves on either side (accuser/accused) of it.  But I do think this is awfully close to breaking the rule of questioning another poster's Christianity. 

I agree. This thread needs some Moderation. The Catholic/Protestant sticky thread doesn't seem to be doing the job.

Why is it when Catholics promote their doctrine here its tolerated or even embraced, but when someone voices objections it suddenly needs to be moderated?

Quote from: CSloan on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 11:01:14

Quote from: charlie on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 10:57:52

Quote from: jmg3rd on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:53:22

Quote from: da525382 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:42:26
You logic thereby fails.  If you were a follower of Christ you would not be Catholic.

I know it can be a thin line in such discussions, and we all often find ourselves on either side (accuser/accused) of it.  But I do think this is awfully close to breaking the rule of questioning another poster's Christianity. 

I agree. This thread needs some Moderation. The Catholic/Protestant sticky thread doesn't seem to be doing the job.

Why is it when Catholics promote their doctrine here its tolerated or even embraced, but when someone voices objections it suddenly needs to be moderated?

Read the forum rules here for the answer to your question:
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=13977.0

If one breaks the rules, moderation is appropriate. It's that simple. 

I would draw particular attention to the following rules:

Quote1.2 You will not directly call another member or his or her religious organization a "cult

Quote from: charlie on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 11:18:59
However, this rule does not protect the statement of da525382 quoted above for obvious reasons. He is not objecting to a Catholic teaching. Rather, he is categorically stating that Catholics are not Christians. Against the rules, and worthy of moderation.

This comment made by broach implies that if your not catholic, your not a Christian; so whats the difference?

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:451. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

Quote from: CSloan on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 11:25:43

Quote from: charlie on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 11:18:59
However, this rule does not protect the statement of da525382 quoted above for obvious reasons. He is not objecting to a Catholic teaching. Rather, he is categorically stating that Catholics are not Christians. Against the rules, and worthy of moderation.

This comment made by broach implies that if your not catholic, your not a Christian; so whats the difference?

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:451. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

I feel like a kindergarten teacher here, but I'll answer.

Broach made a positive statement, da, a negative one. Broach made a statement about himself, da525382 made one about someone else. Broach said that he himself was a Catholic because he was a follower of Christ, which does not necessarily imply that someone else is not a follower of Christ simply because they are not Catholic. da525382 specifically told Broach that he was not a follower of Christ because he was a Catholic.

I'll illustrate:

"I am eating because I am hungry" does not mean that everybody who is not eating is not hungry. Nor does broach's statement impugn the Chrisitanity of non-Catholics (at least, not necessarily. You'd have to look at other things he says to determine if he might be suggesting that non-Catholics are not Christian)

"If you had passed your tests, you would not have to take that course again" does mean that everybody who fails their tests has to retake the course. In the same way, da525382 claims that anyone, including broach, who is Catholic, is not Christian.

I have to agree with Charlie on this.

Quote from: charlie on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 11:58:27

Quote from: CSloan on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 11:25:43

Quote from: charlie on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 11:18:59
However, this rule does not protect the statement of da525382 quoted above for obvious reasons. He is not objecting to a Catholic teaching. Rather, he is categorically stating that Catholics are not Christians. Against the rules, and worthy of moderation.

This comment made by broach implies that if your not catholic, your not a Christian; so whats the difference?

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:451. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

I feel like a kindergarten teacher here, but I'll answer.

Broach made a positive statement, da, a negative one. Broach made a statement about himself, da525382 made one about someone else. Broach said that he himself was a Catholic because he was a follower of Christ, which does not necessarily imply that someone else is not a follower of Christ simply because they are not Catholic. da525382 specifically told Broach that he was not a follower of Christ because he was a Catholic.

I'll illustrate:

"I am eating because I am hungry" does not mean that everybody who is not eating is not hungry. Nor does broach's statement impugn the Chrisitanity of non-Catholics (at least, not necessarily. You'd have to look at other things he says to determine if he might be suggesting that non-Catholics are not Christian)

"If you had passed your tests, you would not have to take that course again" does mean that everybody who fails their tests has to retake the course. In the same way, da525382 claims that anyone, including broach, who is Catholic, is not Christian.

Your condescendance is unnecessary.

I think this is purely a matter of perspective, and since you seem to be a sympathizer I feel you are being biased. I don't believe eating or taking tests are fitting analogies to describe this situation.

As you said, broach's statement is about himself; and this didn't apply to anyone else. The same could be said about da525382; since his statement was directed at broach; it didn't include anyone else. If we are not free to speak about other people and our convictions concerning their beliefs, then we have no business sharing our own.

This is MHO, take it for what you will.

Quote from: CSloan on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 12:35:32As you said, broach's statement is about himself; and this didn't apply to anyone else. The same could be said about da525382; since his statement was directed at broach; it didn't include anyone else. If we are not free to speak about other people and our convictions concerning their beliefs, then we have no business sharing our own.

I don't wish to belabor the point.  But, there is quite a difference.

Someone could ask me why I am a part of the church fellowship where I am.  Someone could ask the same of you.  We could answer, "because I am a follower of Jesus Christ."  Is there something wrong with that answer?

Should the person asking assume that means that if they aren't a part of the same church fellowship, then they aren't a follower of Jesus Christ?  Of course not.  They might infer that.  But, that doesn't necessarily mean that you or I intentionally implied it.

However, if someone tells you in no uncertain terms that "if you were a follower of Jesus Christ, then you would not be a part of the church fellowship where you are"... that's a whole different ballgame.

Quote from: CSloan on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 12:35:32
As you said, broach's statement is about himself; and this didn't apply to anyone else.

True.

Quote from: CSloan on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 12:35:32
The same could be said about da525382; since his statement was directed at broach; it didn't include anyone else.

The same cannot be said at all. They were directed at someone else, namely, broach. In addition, they necessarily applied to all Catholics. If you can't see this for yourself and with other people's help, then something else is clouding your view of the discussion. My suspicion is that it is your zeal to expose Catholicism as a false religion which causes you to reflexively agree with fellow critics of Catholicism, whatever they might say.

Quote from: CSloan on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 12:35:32
If we are not free to speak about other people and our convictions concerning their beliefs, then we have no business sharing our own.

I agree up to the point of breaking forum rules which you so far have abided by, albeit barely, and which da525382 has broken. If he wants to say absolutely anything he wants to about anyone (e.g. Catholics aren't Christians), he should start a blog and post a link.

We have some differences of perspective and opinions, which is understandable. I don't wish to argue or sow discord, and I'm certainly not here to try and change the rules. I would rather just share my views and get along peaceably.

But with the recent advent of catholic propaganda, I am finding this increasingly difficult.

As far as I can tell, a handful of Catholics (2, maybe 3?) have posted in defense of their faith, which for some reason unknown to the rest of us, has come under increasing attack on this board in the last couple of weeks.  They have done so in a respectful tone and have attempted to correct many of the falsehoods--outright lies--that have been posted against their church.  Do we need to be reminded of the praise heaped on Jack Chick tracts last week?  If I find the most vociferous anti-church of Christ or anti-Baptist (or whatever faith some of you may be) person out there, and I talk about what a good guy he is, I would expect you to become defensive and try to correct the errors I was espousing.

Of course, I suppose the two or three Catholics here could just follow what James Rondon has suggested/urged and get lost, leaving you guys to create whatever fictions you want to create.  (I wonder if James could make people who disagree with him feel any more unwelcome, btw.)

Quote from: don has a plan on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 15:21:46
As far as I can tell, a handful of Catholics (2, maybe 3?) have posted in defense of their faith, which for some reason unknown to the rest of us, has come under increasing attack on this board in the last couple of weeks.  They have done so in a respectful tone and have attempted to correct many of the falsehoods--outright lies--that have been posted against their church.  Do we need to be reminded of the praise heaped on Jack Chick tracts last week?  If I find the most vociferous anti-church of Christ or anti-Baptist (or whatever faith some of you may be) person out there, and I talk about what a good guy he is, I would expect you to become defensive and try to correct the errors I was espousing.

Of course, I suppose the two or three Catholics here could just follow what James Rondon has suggested/urged and get lost, leaving you guys to create whatever fictions you want to create.  (I wonder if James could make people who disagree with him feel any more unwelcome, btw.)

It's not my intention, nor James to make anyone feel unwelcome. But I have felt just as much attack from these so-called peaceful catholics as you accuse others or myself of delivering. If I have so much disagreed with their doctrines or teachings, I have been combated relentlessly.

The truth is this is NOT a catholic forum, and they are going to meet with disagreements. As ravenlorre suggested that moderators just silence people who disagree, that is just another tactic to promote their doctrine without allowing others to object.

By the way, people agreement or disagreement with Jack Chick is neither here nor there. If people don't like his tracts, then don't read them.

QuoteBut I have felt just as much attack from these so-called peaceful catholics as you accuse others or myself of delivering.

Can you point to threads they have started that praise anti-church of Christ writers?  Can you point to threads they have started with the specific intent of challenging your faith and proving it wrong?  I would be interested in reading such threads, if they exist; surely these would demonstrate this unbearable persecution the two Catholics on the board have leveled against you.

Quote from: don has a plan on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 15:59:07

QuoteBut I have felt just as much attack from these so-called peaceful catholics as you accuse others or myself of delivering.

Can you point to threads they have started that praise anti-church of Christ writers?  Can you point to threads they have started with the specific intent of challenging your faith and proving it wrong?  I would be interested in reading such threads, if they exist; surely these would demonstrate this unbearable persecution the two Catholics on the board have leveled against you.

You have missed my entire point, this is NOT a catholic forum. Catholic doctrine will not be received on a protestant forum. If these catholics want to share their doctrines without anyone arguing, they should find themselves a catholic forum.

My understanding was that this isn't either a Catholic forum or a Protestant forum, but is simply a Christian forum.  See the Nicene Creed adaptation in the forum rules.

12 pages and lately it has degenerated into personal attacks.  There were some posts that crossed the line, but the cat is out of the bag, and I don't want to heavily edit.

If you don't like the doctrines of X group, debate the doctrines using scripture.  This goes for both "Catholics" or "Protestants" or "Non-Denominational" types. 

This thread is locked, if another moderator wants to unlock it fine, but I think there has been enough childish behavior in this thread already.

I will leave it locked for now, Gary, but since I was mentioned, and since my words were twisted, I am going to make one more post in order to set the record straight...

Quote from: don has a plan on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 15:21:46
Of course, I suppose the two or three Catholics here could just follow what James Rondon has suggested/urged and get lost, leaving you guys to create whatever fictions you want to create.  (I wonder if James could make people who disagree with him feel any more unwelcome, btw.)

Please do not twist my words, don. It makes me feel less than welcome.

For the record, here is my actual post:

Quote from: James Rondon on Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 17:33:08
Some of you have branded CSloan as "anti-catholic". Just an FYI, the majority of posters on GCM would hardly be considered "pro-catholic", or more particularly, "pro-Roman Catholicism". If you're looking for a "Roman Catholic" discussion forum, you really need to look elsewhere.

Here is a follow-up to that post, in reply to a post by spurly, after the discussion veered into a discussion of Roman Catholicism:

Quote from: James Rondon on Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 12:54:04

Quote from: spurly on Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 09:39:07
How did this discussion of cults turn into a discussion of the Catholic Church?  I don't believe that was the intent of the opening post at all!

It seems that most of the discussions here, lately, have deteriorated into discussions of Roman Catholicism. As I said before, this is not a Roman Catholic Forum. If someone is looking for a Roman Catholic Forum, they need to look elsewhere.

And here is a post where I reply to Mike, elaborating on the previous two posts:

Quote from: James Rondon on Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 19:25:47

Quote from: mike on Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 15:35:25

Quote from: James Rondon on Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 12:54:04

Quote from: spurly on Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 09:39:07
How did this discussion of cults turn into a discussion of the Catholic Church?  I don't believe that was the intent of the opening post at all!

It seems that most of the discussions here, lately, have deteriorated into discussions of Roman Catholicism. As I said before, this is not a Roman Catholic Forum. If someone is looking for a Roman Catholic Forum, they need to look elsewhere.

James,
You are a moderator, and I am not, so my opinion certainly counts for less.
However, I think that we are enriched by civil and learned discussion with other believers in Jesus, regardless of their denomination or undenomination.
I would like the few Catholics and remaining Orthodox posters here to feel welcome.

Their presence here, and seemingly every thread that they participate on deteriorating into a discussion of Roman Catholicism are not the same thing. I value your opinion. But I also value the integrity of this forum. They are welcome here. But this is not, nor will it become a Roman Catholic Forum. Thus, my statement.

The thread will not be shut down.  If we discarding every thread where some folks got testy, there wouldn't be much on here.  People can learn from the mistakes that are here and grow.

Does this mean that you are going to unlock the thread, or are you saying that you are not going to delete the thread? I kind of lost you there, especially since you were the one that just locked it...

Quote from: James Rondon on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 16:42:00
Does this mean that you are going to unlock the thread, or are you saying that you are not going to delete the thread? I kind of lost you there, especially since you were the one that just locked it...

I was responding to a post that got deleted asking to delete the entire thread.  Sorry for the confusion.