Born again......adults

[LexKnight]

I ask because there is a fine line between trying to teach someone and lead them to the Truth & partaking in bicker rabble. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself, and also even a fool, when silent, is considered wise.

[Ladonia]

So 24 pages, has anything productive been produced here lately?

No, not really. Charges and counter-charges - God is surely disappointed in us. But  what  I'll never understand is why people who despise us so much even want to come here at all. There has not been one conversion of any of us Catholics to a non-orthodox belief system, not one!

[Ladonia]

there's a lot of unbiblical things in the writings of those that catholics call the ecfs.
what you consider 'orthodoxy' is nothing more than the false teachings of the RCC.
and you pick and choose and twist what the ecfs say to support that.

that's why you use their writings instead of God's word.

You have strayed from it, coupling yourselves to teachings by mere men who themselves rejected what God had brought about.   

yes, I have strayed from the RCC false teachings, straight into the truth of God's word.  That was about 38 yrs ago thanks to God for circumcising my heart.

So now, as a catholic, you consider Jesus, Peter, Paul, Timothy, John etc to be 'mere'  men who reject what God 'has brought about'?

It's always amazing to read what catholics reveal about themselves and their beliefs.

No my friend, the "mere men" I speak of are those who were around in the late 1500's and spouting all the gobbledeegook doctrines that you now believe.

You are no Prophet of God and no type of Church leader -  so you are the last person I would go to for any type of Christian truth. The false gospel of Sola Scriptura  has led you astray and all I can say is thank the Lord I never have succumbed  to such a thing.

you need to make up your mind... I don't go by what those in the 1500s taught. unless they taught what God's word teaches. 
I see you've moved on to calling God's word 'gobbledeegook' and a false gospel.  certainly not how I view His word.
be careful, you never know who God might use as a prophet, nor would you recognize one if you heard one.
Hopefully you'll 'succumb' to His word sooner than later...

You sure do go by what those rejectionists of the 1500's taught, because you certainly do not subscribe to orthodox Christian doctrine.

so you don't know the difference between what is in God's word and what those you call the 'rejectionists of the 1500s'  taught?

by 'orthodox Christian doctrine' I guess you mean what the RCC teaches instead of God's word?

Your belief started somewhere and I hate to break it to you but you were not the first one to come up with the way you now view the Holy Scriptures. 

yes, my belief did start somewhere... with God circumcising my heart and followed by reading and studying His word - direct from His word (the Bible) not as reinterpreted by a man made religion.

no, I'm not the 'first' one to 'come up with' the way I view the Holy Scriptures - many good people have done the same by turning to Him and reading His word rather than depending on someone else to tell them what it says.  Straight from His word, not put thru the blender of deceptive men.

And let's be clear here, I am only calling your doctrines gobbledegook and a false gospel, not God's word. You certainly are not one to talk about what I say regarding this issue, as you have disparaged Gods word as represented by the Catholic faith tradition time and time again on these very pages.

what you term 'my doctrine' is straight from God's word.  so yes, you are calling His word gobbledegook and false.

how much time a day/week do you spend reading and studying His word?  or do you just depend on a few words spoken by someone else once a week?

I certainly don't disparage God's word.  His word isn't what is represented by the Catholic faith tradition. If you want to know what He says, go to His word and read it.

If placing Jesus Christ and remembering that fateful day on Calvary (as He instructed us to do) at the forefront of our worship as we do is not believing or correctly interpreting God's word then I don't know what is.

[Ladonia]

I ask because there is a fine line between trying to teach someone and lead them to the Truth & partaking in bicker rabble. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself, and also even a fool, when silent, is considered wise.

Is it leading people to "the Truth" or to "the Truth" as you see it?  Maybe we should just have respect for the common truth that we as Christians have and leave all the rest of it alone. Maybe we ought to stop all the judging as the Scriptures say we ought not to do because in the end we gain very little with the constant squabbling.   

[skeeter]

So 24 pages, has anything productive been produced here lately?

No, not really. Charges and counter-charges - God is surely disappointed in us. But  what I'll never understand is why people who despise us so much even want to come here at all. There has not been one conversion of any of us Catholics to a non-orthodox belief system, not one!

why do catholics go on non-Catholics forums?  why do catholics hate non catholics so much yet turn around and post their 'come home...' slogan? (that is so gross it makes former catholics cringe - and very grateful.)

you don't know that - there are lots of lurkers out there.  and evidently you don't know that conversion is not up to the Christian, that's up to God.  What we are to do is proclaim His truth.

[LexKnight]

I ask because there is a fine line between trying to teach someone and lead them to the Truth & partaking in bicker rabble. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself, and also even a fool, when silent, is considered wise.

Is it leading people to "the Truth" or to "the Truth" as you see it?  Maybe we should just have respect for the common truth that we as Christians have and leave all the rest of it alone. Maybe we ought to stop all the judging as the Scriptures say we ought not to do because in the end we gain very little with the constant squabbling.

My thinking is if one is truly set in his mind, there's no reason to debate because nothing will change. Even Paul understood this when he says a heretic after a first and second admonishing reject. Why waste the time, you know?

That's why I typically don't debate with you or Catholica, you guys are truly set in your heart towards the Catholic system.

[Ladonia]

I ask because there is a fine line between trying to teach someone and lead them to the Truth & partaking in bicker rabble. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself, and also even a fool, when silent, is considered wise.

Is it leading people to "the Truth" or to "the Truth" as you see it?  Maybe we should just have respect for the common truth that we as Christians have and leave all the rest of it alone. Maybe we ought to stop all the judging as the Scriptures say we ought not to do because in the end we gain very little with the constant squabbling.

My thinking is if one is truly set in his mind, there's no reason to debate because nothing will change. Even Paul understood this when he says a heretic after a first and second admonishing reject. Why waste the time, you know?

That's why I typically don't debate with you or Catholica, you guys are truly set in your heart towards the Catholic system.

Very well said, and I should really behave the same towards you non-orthodox believers and end these discussions. In the end, no one is going to change their minds.

[skeeter]

I ask because there is a fine line between trying to teach someone and lead them to the Truth & partaking in bicker rabble. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself, and also even a fool, when silent, is considered wise.

Is it leading people to "the Truth" or to "the Truth" as you see it?  Maybe we should just have respect for the common truth that we as Christians have and leave all the rest of it alone. Maybe we ought to stop all the judging as the Scriptures say we ought not to do because in the end we gain very little with the constant squabbling.

My thinking is if one is truly set in his mind, there's no reason to debate because nothing will change. Even Paul understood this when he says a heretic after a first and second admonishing reject. Why waste the time, you know?

That's why I typically don't debate with you or Catholica, you guys are truly set in your heart towards the Catholic system.

Very well said, and I should really behave the same towards you non-orthodox believers and end these discussions. In the end, no one is going to change their minds.

I  guess that depends on what you consider orthodox.

is that the attitude of Jesus? the apostles (really)?  I think it's the easy road that catholics so often take. 
but, no one forces you to post.  you can go back to your rather dead normal ways on the forum with one choir member chirping to another...

[LexKnight]

You're just being provocative for the sake of it, Skeeter, it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. Orthodox means what is accepted among the mainstream, so yes the Roman Catholic Church is the orthodox church, with the Protestants as an extension of her

[Ladonia]

I ask because there is a fine line between trying to teach someone and lead them to the Truth & partaking in bicker rabble. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself, and also even a fool, when silent, is considered wise.

Is it leading people to "the Truth" or to "the Truth" as you see it?  Maybe we should just have respect for the common truth that we as Christians have and leave all the rest of it alone. Maybe we ought to stop all the judging as the Scriptures say we ought not to do because in the end we gain very little with the constant squabbling.

My thinking is if one is truly set in his mind, there's no reason to debate because nothing will change. Even Paul understood this when he says a heretic after a first and second admonishing reject. Why waste the time, you know?

That's why I typically don't debate with you or Catholica, you guys are truly set in your heart towards the Catholic system.

Very well said, and I should really behave the same towards you non-orthodox believers and end these discussions. In the end, no one is going to change their minds.

I  guess that depends on what you consider orthodox.

is that the attitude of Jesus? the apostles (really)?  I think it's the easy road that catholics so often take. 
but, no one forces you to post.  you can go back to your rather dead normal ways on the forum with one choir member chirping to another...

Delete

[skeeter]

You're just being provocative for the sake of it, Skeeter, it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. Orthodox means what is accepted among the mainstream, so yes the Roman Catholic Church is the orthodox church, with the Protestants as an extension of her.

no, for the sake of truth.  For Christians orthodox would be the teachings of Christ.  I don't hold to 'the RCC can redefine words to mean what they want them to mean'.  Neither do most Christians.  Any more than the pope is the leader of all Christians.  I don't know any Christians (or Jews) who consider him their 'leader'. And I'm not catholic or protestant.


noun: orthodoxy; plural noun: orthodoxies

1. authorized or generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice.
"monetarist orthodoxy"

synonyms: doctrine, belief, conviction, creed, dogma, credo, theory, tenet, teaching "Christian orthodoxies"

•the quality of conforming to orthodox theories, doctrines, or practices.
"writings of unimpeachable orthodoxy"

synonyms: conventionality, conventionalism, conformism, conservatism, traditionalism, conformity "a pillar of orthodoxy"

2. the whole community of Orthodox Jews or Orthodox Christians.

[winsome]

You're just being provocative for the sake of it, Skeeter, it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. Orthodox means what is accepted among the mainstream, so yes the Roman Catholic Church is the orthodox church, with the Protestants as an extension of her.

no, for the sake of truth.  For Christians orthodox would be the teachings of Christ.  I don't hold to 'the RCC can redefine words to mean what they want them to mean'.  Neither do most Christians.  Any more than the pope is the leader of all Christians.  I don't know any Christians (or Jews) who consider him their 'leader'. And I'm not catholic or protestant.


noun: orthodoxy; plural noun: orthodoxies

1. authorized or generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice.
"monetarist orthodoxy"

synonyms: doctrine, belief, conviction, creed, dogma, credo, theory, tenet, teaching "Christian orthodoxies"

•the quality of conforming to orthodox theories, doctrines, or practices.
"writings of unimpeachable orthodoxy"

synonyms: conventionality, conventionalism, conformism, conservatism, traditionalism, conformity "a pillar of orthodoxy"

2. the whole community of Orthodox Jews or Orthodox Christians.

And who defines what the teachings of Christ are?.

You?

Surely, under your first definition, the teachings of Christ are the generally accepted doctrines and practices.


As to "I don't hold to 'the RCC can redefine words to mean what they want them to mean'.  Neither do most Christians."

1. The Catholic Church does not "redefine words to mean what they want them to mean".

2. How do you know what "most Chrisrians do"? Have you conducted a poll?

[AVZ]

You're just being provocative for the sake of it, Skeeter, it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. Orthodox means what is accepted among the mainstream, so yes the Roman Catholic Church is the orthodox church, with the Protestants as an extension of her

Hang on for a second. Being in an orthodox church doesn't mean one follows orthodox theology.
There is nothing orthodox for example about Papal infallibility or the assumption of Mary, those teachings have only been declared recently.
I think there are very few points of dispute between orthodox Protestantism and early orthodox Catholicism, it is the theology that slipped into the RCC at a much later stage...those teachings which were declared through special revelation and by "Tradition" that has the parties opposing each other.

[winsome]

You're just being provocative for the sake of it, Skeeter, it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. Orthodox means what is accepted among the mainstream, so yes the Roman Catholic Church is the orthodox church, with the Protestants as an extension of her

Hang on for a second. Being in an orthodox church doesn't mean one follows orthodox theology.
There is nothing orthodox for example about Papal infallibility or the assumption of Mary, those teachings have only been declared recently.
I think there are very few points of dispute between orthodox Protestantism and early orthodox Catholicism, it is the theology that slipped into the RCC at a much later stage...those teachings which were declared through special revelation and by "Tradition" that has the parties opposing each other.

If by orthodox Catholicism you mean that which the Catholic Church believed prior to say 1500 then Protestantism is certainly not orthodox.

[AVZ]

You're just being provocative for the sake of it, Skeeter, it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. Orthodox means what is accepted among the mainstream, so yes the Roman Catholic Church is the orthodox church, with the Protestants as an extension of her

Hang on for a second. Being in an orthodox church doesn't mean one follows orthodox theology.
There is nothing orthodox for example about Papal infallibility or the assumption of Mary, those teachings have only been declared recently.
I think there are very few points of dispute between orthodox Protestantism and early orthodox Catholicism, it is the theology that slipped into the RCC at a much later stage...those teachings which were declared through special revelation and by "Tradition" that has the parties opposing each other.

If by orthodox Catholicism you mean that which the Catholic Church believed prior to say 1500 then Protestantism is certainly not orthodox.

Definitely. If the RCC would not have messed up so badly, you and I would likely sit in the same pew on Sunday.
Protestantism would not have been necessary.

[winsome]

You're just being provocative for the sake of it, Skeeter, it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. Orthodox means what is accepted among the mainstream, so yes the Roman Catholic Church is the orthodox church, with the Protestants as an extension of her

Hang on for a second. Being in an orthodox church doesn't mean one follows orthodox theology.
There is nothing orthodox for example about Papal infallibility or the assumption of Mary, those teachings have only been declared recently.
I think there are very few points of dispute between orthodox Protestantism and early orthodox Catholicism, it is the theology that slipped into the RCC at a much later stage...those teachings which were declared through special revelation and by "Tradition" that has the parties opposing each other.

If by orthodox Catholicism you mean that which the Catholic Church believed prior to say 1500 then Protestantism is certainly not orthodox.

Definitely. If the RCC would not have messed up so badly, you and I would likely sit in the same pew on Sunday.
Protestantism would not have been necessary.

That makes no logical sense.

Why would Protestantism have been necessary if the Catholic Church was OK prior to 1500? Luther only published his 96 theses in 1517. How did the Catholic Church "mess up so badly" in 17 years?

Why does Protestantism have so many doctrines that differ from the Catholic Church prior to 1500?

Why does Protestantism reject 7 books of the OT that were accepted throughout Christendom until 1500?

Why does Protestantism have so many different doctrines with itself?

[AVZ]

You're just being provocative for the sake of it, Skeeter, it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. Orthodox means what is accepted among the mainstream, so yes the Roman Catholic Church is the orthodox church, with the Protestants as an extension of her

Hang on for a second. Being in an orthodox church doesn't mean one follows orthodox theology.
There is nothing orthodox for example about Papal infallibility or the assumption of Mary, those teachings have only been declared recently.
I think there are very few points of dispute between orthodox Protestantism and early orthodox Catholicism, it is the theology that slipped into the RCC at a much later stage...those teachings which were declared through special revelation and by "Tradition" that has the parties opposing each other.

If by orthodox Catholicism you mean that which the Catholic Church believed prior to say 1500 then Protestantism is certainly not orthodox.

Definitely. If the RCC would not have messed up so badly, you and I would likely sit in the same pew on Sunday.
Protestantism would not have been necessary.

That makes no logical sense.

Why would Protestantism have been necessary if the Catholic Church was OK prior to 1500? Luther only published his 96 theses in 1517. How did the Catholic Church "mess up so badly" in 17 years?

Why does Protestantism have so many doctrines that differ from the Catholic Church prior to 1500?

Why does Protestantism reject 7 books of the OT that were accepted throughout Christendom until 1500?

Why does Protestantism have so many different doctrines with itself?

Are we still talking about "prior say 1500" or "prior exactly 1500"?

[winsome]

You're just being provocative for the sake of it, Skeeter, it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. Orthodox means what is accepted among the mainstream, so yes the Roman Catholic Church is the orthodox church, with the Protestants as an extension of her

Hang on for a second. Being in an orthodox church doesn't mean one follows orthodox theology.
There is nothing orthodox for example about Papal infallibility or the assumption of Mary, those teachings have only been declared recently.
I think there are very few points of dispute between orthodox Protestantism and early orthodox Catholicism, it is the theology that slipped into the RCC at a much later stage...those teachings which were declared through special revelation and by "Tradition" that has the parties opposing each other.

If by orthodox Catholicism you mean that which the Catholic Church believed prior to say 1500 then Protestantism is certainly not orthodox.

Definitely. If the RCC would not have messed up so badly, you and I would likely sit in the same pew on Sunday.
Protestantism would not have been necessary.

That makes no logical sense.

Why would Protestantism have been necessary if the Catholic Church was OK prior to 1500? Luther only published his 96 theses in 1517. How did the Catholic Church "mess up so badly" in 17 years?

Why does Protestantism have so many doctrines that differ from the Catholic Church prior to 1500?

Why does Protestantism reject 7 books of the OT that were accepted throughout Christendom until 1500?

Why does Protestantism have so many different doctrines with itself?

Are we still talking about "prior say 1500" or "prior exactly 1500"?

"Prior say 1500" which means we are not being picky about the particular day and whether it was sometime in 1499 or 1501.

[Ladonia]

You're just being provocative for the sake of it, Skeeter, it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. Orthodox means what is accepted among the mainstream, so yes the Roman Catholic Church is the orthodox church, with the Protestants as an extension of her.

no, for the sake of truth.  For Christians orthodox would be the teachings of Christ.  I don't hold to 'the RCC can redefine words to mean what they want them to mean'.  Neither do most Christians.  Any more than the pope is the leader of all Christians.  I don't know any Christians (or Jews) who consider him their 'leader'. And I'm not catholic or protestant.


noun: orthodoxy; plural noun: orthodoxies

1. authorized or generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice.
"monetarist orthodoxy"

synonyms: doctrine, belief, conviction, creed, dogma, credo, theory, tenet, teaching "Christian orthodoxies"

•the quality of conforming to orthodox theories, doctrines, or practices.
"writings of unimpeachable orthodoxy"

synonyms: conventionality, conventionalism, conformism, conservatism, traditionalism, conformity "a pillar of orthodoxy"

2. the whole community of Orthodox Jews or Orthodox Christians.

No, for orthodox Christians that would be people who believe in the Christian faith as it was practiced since the early days of the church after the Apostles were gone,  i.e. believing in things like the Apostolic Succession and the Sacramental way of Christianity. Catholics have an orthodox belief as do the Eastern Orthodox, but you subscribe to none of what your printed definition says - you deny it all in favor of quite a different biblical interpretation. Thus, you are not an "orthodox" believer.

[trifecta]

Word definitions are not as easy as they look, because words change meaning over time.  So, to understand what someone is saying, one must understand the time and culture of the utterance not to mention language translation issues.

As an Orthodox (capital O for eastern Orthodox) Christian, let me say what Orthodoxy has meant historically.  The original church after 100 or so years was called the Catholic Church and the Orthodox faith.  (They are both Greek words, my church's native language). 

Orthodox has two simultaneous meanings -- both "right word" and "right worship."  When the church divorced in 1050 or so, the Catholic got the term "Church", while the Orthodox got the term "faith."

Today, we use the word orthodox to mean true (as opposed to the faith of imposters or heretics or honestly mistaken).    I don't mind that meaning because my church does have the right faith.