What Divides Catholics and Protestants?

[ITB]

barry wrote:

<quoted text>these are your words from post #80131 page 3918;
..........
By your logic, you mean...If a minority of Anabaptists did wrong, then ALL Anabaptists did wrong. If a minority of Baptists do wrong, then ALL Baptists do wrong.
So you enjoyed admitting that "blacks were a subspecies and perhaps didn't have a soul" and non-Catholic Christians believed the same. But that Catholics didn't believe that way. Interesting. That says a lot.
"the catholics aren't always wrong."
Who? The "Catholics" or the "Catholic Church"? You need to specify since you just tried to base an argument by making them separate entities.
..........
that is exactly as you posted it.
you accused me of "admitting that "blacks were a subspecies and perhaps didn't have a soul""
that is a lie and it makes you a jerk for even insinuating that that is what i think.

This really has your panties in a bunch, doesn't it? And you think I need to control my temper. lol I'm finding the whole thing pretty funny at this point. You are more like Ox and Old then anyone would probably have believed a few days ago. Is that a fundie connection thing?

Are you really so dense? Where did I write that it was a "direct quote" from you? Do you still not see the quotation marks showing what YOU wrote. You accused me of saying that what I wrote was a "direct quote by you". So SHOW ME where I said it was a "direct quote by YOU". Don't bother, you can't.

BTW-Maybe now you won't twist what other people write (SBC is the "ringleader", etc. Changing oppression to persecution, etc.). You (like Ox) are the Master of changing people's words to say what you want them to say, rather than what was actually written. How many times did I correct you on it? And you have the nerve to call someone else a "jerk" for doing it back to you? At least I paraphrased what you actually wrote instead of making it up completely like you do/did.

So typical...and the shame of it is, you still won't admit that you did it first, and consistently to me.

You forgot to post the actual back and forth that shows how it actually was written. Here, I'll show you again....

YOU WROTE DIRECT QUOTE...."what i did find interesting and even funny when thought about was that catholics baptized slaves. and while that may seem as an argument in support of slavery and it is, it really is a slap in the face to all the rest who felt that blacks were a subspecies and perhaps didn't have a soul. at least that got that right."

THEN I CALLED YOU ON IT.."At least, they didn't view them like a soulless subspecies that you say the other Christians believed them to be. Glad you are admitting that."

AND YOU RESPONDED WITH...."and not only did i admit it, i thoroughly enjoyed it. the catholics aren't always wrong."

NOTICE..."AND NOT ONLY DID I ADMIT IT, I THOROUGHLY ENJOYED IT" NOW THAT IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM YOU. NOW READ MY RESPONSE.

THEN I WROTE DIRECT QUOTE...."So you enjoyed admitting that "blacks were a subspecies and perhaps didn't have a soul" and non-Catholic Christians believed the same. But that Catholics didn't believe that way. Interesting. That says a lot."

All you had to do was to admit that you didn't mean it the way it sounded and clarified your statement, using better sentence structure, instead of accusing me of being in the wrong. But, like Ox and Old, you had to get all huffy and make an issue out of it by putting the blame elsewhere.

[Austinite]

The Atlantic Ocean?

[the perfect idiot]

Oxbow wrote:

<quoted text>
You are too kind!!! Thanks for proving my words...You are a perfect idiot...

So, in other words you are Speechless, you can not respond to the question other then, saying my name, or in essence say I am your daddy.

The QUESTION was
What day is the Sabbath, to which you said Man CHANGED the Sabbath to Sunday at some Church Counsel, to which I asked did GOD therefore change what day GOD observed the Sabbath?

To which you can only respond with my name.

Your only response to this question is my name.

YOU POSTED, that Man changed the Sabbath to Sunday, to which I ask how does GOD view this?

And all you can say, is my name?

I have all sorts of response to this subject, such as,

Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Which is specifically talking about the Sunday Worship, the crowning jewel of which is Easter Sunday,

But YOU, who SAID it was changed but order of the Council, can not find words, other then to SAY MY NAME.

I ask again, does GOD have to Change what day GOD considers the Sabbath to conform to your man maid decree?

OR

Can GOD continue it what GOD has done since the Creation story at least?

I know you are Speechless, you can not speak, except to SAY MY NAME, but I give you permission to defend your position that MAN CHANGED the Sabbath that GOD himself Observed since the Creation Story.

You do not have to call me your daddy anymore by saying my name, you can actually provide your answer to,

Did GOD change what day GOD thought was the Sabbath when men according to you declared a New Sabbath?

I know you are stuck on saying my name, I am not interested, in fact you by your posts kind of revolt me, so get over it, and answer the QUESTION.

How does GOD view this new Sabbath you say Men have Made, does GOD change? To conform to Men, Does GOD continue as he was, meaning Man is not in sync with GOD,

OR WHAT?

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS, on Defending this Man made a New Sabbath,

Other then to SAY MY NAME?

[the perfect idiot]

Oxbow wrote:

<quoted text>
You are too kind!!! Thanks for proving my words...You are a perfect idiot...

LOOK. I am not interested in you, like you seem to be in me by telling me how great I am, simply because of my screen name,

I got it You really like my screen name, Great, I am not interested in you, that way,

Please quit telling me how great I am because of my screen name. You have taken a Shining to my screen name, I got it, I am a Male, and I suspect you are, and I do not swing that way, so Please quit telling me how great I am, just because you are forming some sort of LOVE affair with my screen name.

I got it, YOU LOVE ME, because of my Screen name, you are need of some mental health appointments.

[Oxbow]

In the 1940's, our founder Austin Ripley saw a tragedy unfolding among the people in recovery. A recovering alcoholic himself, Ripley observed that Catholic priests weren't succeeding like laymen in overcoming their addictions.

In fact, he was appalled at the totally uninformed and often-punitive treatment he saw being given to alcoholic Catholic priests, including their placement in "ecclesiastical houses of rehabilitation." These facilities were, he believed, nothing more than jails where treatment was largely prayer and penitence.

Question: The Catholics say they drink the actual blood of Christ...that being so, why the alcoholic priests???

[Oxbow]

168

the perfect idiot wrote:

<quoted text>
LOOK. I am not interested in you, like you seem to be in me by telling me how great I am, simply because of my screen name,
I got it You really like my screen name, Great, I am not interested in you, that way,
Please quit telling me how great I am because of my screen name. You have taken a Shining to my screen name, I got it, I am a Male, and I suspect you are, and I do not swing that way, so Please quit telling me how great I am, just because you are forming some sort of LOVE affair with my screen name.
I got it, YOU LOVE ME, because of my Screen name, you are need of some mental health appointments.

Really!!!! You are too kind!!! Thanks for proving my words...You are a perfect idiot...

[Oxbow]

167

the perfect idiot wrote:

<quoted text>
So, in other words you are Speechless, you can not respond to the question other then, saying my name, or in essence say I am your daddy.
The QUESTION was
What day is the Sabbath, to which you said Man CHANGED the Sabbath to Sunday at some Church Counsel, to which I asked did GOD therefore change what day GOD observed the Sabbath?
To which you can only respond with my name.
Your only response to this question is my name.
YOU POSTED, that Man changed the Sabbath to Sunday, to which I ask how does GOD view this?
And all you can say, is my name?
I have all sorts of response to this subject, such as,
Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Which is specifically talking about the Sunday Worship, the crowning jewel of which is Easter Sunday,
But YOU, who SAID it was changed but order of the Council, can not find words, other then to SAY MY NAME.
I ask again, does GOD have to Change what day GOD considers the Sabbath to conform to your man maid decree?
OR
Can GOD continue it what GOD has done since the Creation story at least?
I know you are Speechless, you can not speak, except to SAY MY NAME, but I give you permission to defend your position that MAN CHANGED the Sabbath that GOD himself Observed since the Creation Story.
You do not have to call me your daddy anymore by saying my name, you can actually provide your answer to,
Did GOD change what day GOD thought was the Sabbath when men according to you declared a New Sabbath?
I know you are stuck on saying my name, I am not interested, in fact you by your posts kind of revolt me, so get over it, and answer the QUESTION.
How does GOD view this new Sabbath you say Men have Made, does GOD change? To conform to Men, Does GOD continue as he was, meaning Man is not in sync with GOD,
OR WHAT?
WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS, on Defending this Man made a New Sabbath,
Other then to SAY MY NAME?

Really!!! You are too kind!!! Thanks for proving my words...You are a perfect idiot...

[Patriot]

FYI

ALL AMERICANS WILL RECEIVE A MICROCHIP IMPLANT IN 2013 PER OBAMACARE

http://www.newswithviews.com/McGuire/paul135....

[barry]

ITB wrote:

<quoted text>
...
Are you really so dense? Where did I write that it was a "direct quote" from you? Do you still not see the quotation marks showing what YOU wrote. You accused me of saying that what I wrote was a "direct quote by you". So SHOW ME where I said it was a "direct quote by YOU". Don't bother, you can't.
BTW-Maybe now you won't twist what other people write (SBC is the "ringleader", etc. Changing oppression to persecution, etc.). You (like Ox) are the Master of changing people's words to say what you want them to say, rather than what was actually written. How many times did I correct you on it? And you have the nerve to call someone else a "jerk" for doing it back to you? At least I paraphrased what you actually wrote instead of making it up completely like you do/did.
So typical...and the shame of it is, you still won't admit that you did it first, and consistently to me.
You forgot to post the actual back and forth that shows how it actually was written. Here, I'll show you again....
YOU WROTE DIRECT QUOTE...."what i did find interesting and even funny when thought about was that catholics baptized slaves. and while that may seem as an argument in support of slavery and it is, it really is a slap in the face to all the rest who felt that blacks were a subspecies and perhaps didn't have a soul. at least that got that right."
THEN I CALLED YOU ON IT.."At least, they didn't view them like a soulless subspecies that you say the other Christians believed them to be. Glad you are admitting that."
AND YOU RESPONDED WITH...."and not only did i admit it, i thoroughly enjoyed it. the catholics aren't always wrong."
NOTICE..."AND NOT ONLY DID I ADMIT IT, I THOROUGHLY ENJOYED IT" NOW THAT IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM YOU. NOW READ MY RESPONSE.
THEN I WROTE DIRECT QUOTE...."So you enjoyed admitting that "blacks were a subspecies and perhaps didn't have a soul" and non-Catholic Christians believed the same. But that Catholics didn't believe that way. Interesting. That says a lot."
All you had to do was to admit that you didn't mean it the way it sounded and clarified your statement, using better sentence structure, instead of accusing me of being in the wrong. But, like Ox and Old, you had to get all huffy and make an issue out of it by putting the blame elsewhere.

post # 8014o page # 3918you wrote this in response to my comment #4 posted below
your words;
# 4. If you can't write a proper sentence to say what you want it to say, then don't write it. You wrote the words, I just copied and pasted what you wrote.

was a response to this comment by me, you know i didn't say that and you also know that you did not directly copy it.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>#1 we are talking about the CC here in the south. seems they didn't like the pope. or they were too scared to do right.
#2 "The Church condemned slavery. A minority of its members, who would have been excommunicated for owning slaves,(so were they still members), condoned slavery."
so were they excommunicated or was the church afraid to lose so many members.
#3 "By your logic, you mean...If a minority of Anabaptists did wrong, then ALL Anabaptists did wrong. If a minority of Baptists do wrong, then ALL Baptists do wrong."
no we would have spoken up and disassociated from them. didn't happen with the factions of the CC.
#4 "So you enjoyed admitting that "blacks were a subspecies and perhaps didn't have a soul" and non-Catholic Christians believed the same. But that Catholics didn't believe that way. Interesting. That says a lot."
this just proves that you can be a real jerk!
you know i never said that. i said that i enjoyed seeing that even the RC believed that Blacks had souls while many protestants thought that they were a subspecies perhaps even without a soul. even a Catholic {Yes the CC] can get it right some times.
you accuse me of twisting but you are the queen of twisting.
no this isn't even twisting. this is deliberate misquoting.

[Oxbow]

In the 1940's, our founder Austin Ripley saw a tragedy unfolding among the people in recovery. A recovering alcoholic himself, Ripley observed that Catholic priests weren't succeeding like laymen in overcoming their addictions.

In fact, he was appalled at the totally uninformed and often-punitive treatment he saw being given to alcoholic Catholic priests, including their placement in "ecclesiastical houses of rehabilitation." These facilities were, he believed, nothing more than jails where treatment was largely prayer and penitence.

Question: The Catholics say they drink the actual blood of Christ...that being so, why the alcoholic priests???

[Oxbow]

Are you not proud to be a Catholic????

Philadelphia (CNN)-- The highest-ranking Catholic Church cleric charged and convicted in the landmark Philadelphia child sexual abuse trial is scheduled for sentencing Tuesday.

Monsignor William Lynn was found guilty in June of one count of child endangerment, the first time a U.S. church leader has been convicted of such a charge. He could face three-and-a-half to seven years in prison for his conviction on the third-degree felony.

[Nijoni]

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
You should care. It is hateful scum and the cult of hateful scum that drove me to Catholicism. I could name names.

Your pathetic sex life or life in general is of no concern to me. You are simply not that important. There are many whose hearts are open to the Gospel. Why waste time on an Anti-Christ such as yourself?

You are but one small krill in the ocean of ungrateful immigrants.
Of no matter to me. You can tell the Creator why you ignore and blaspheme Him. Your turn will come and blaming me won't help your sorry butt.
You are more than likely gay and attemtping to justify this sin.
You won't.

[Nijoni]

ITB wrote:

<quoted text>
Even if you had one iota of reading comprehension skills, you'd still not have a clue.
And you don't believe that Jesus is God....enough said.

Yes, clueless one. You don't recognize that the Father and the Son are two seperate entities. As you know neither. Nuff said.

[15th Dalai Lama]

Nijoni wrote:

<quoted text>
Your pathetic sex life or life in general is of no concern to me. You are simply not that important. There are many whose hearts are open to the Gospel. Why waste time on an Anti-Christ such as yourself?
You are but one small krill in the ocean of ungrateful immigrants.
Of no matter to me. You can tell the Creator why you ignore and blaspheme Him. Your turn will come and blaming me won't help your sorry butt.
You are more than likely gay and attemtping to justify this sin.
You won't.

The hell with you, really. I've got enough of this stuff figured out that the atheists have quit calling the Bible a pile of cráp and you don't even know what you believe.

[ITB]

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
The hell with you, really. I've got enough of this stuff figured out that the atheists have quit calling the Bible a pile of cráp and you don't even know what you believe.

She's another supposed "Christian" who believes Jesus and God are "two separate entities" even though Scripture repeatedly says they are One and there is only One God....not "two separate entities".

[Oxbow]

179

ITB wrote:

<quoted text>
She's another supposed "Christian" who believes Jesus and God are "two separate entities" even though Scripture repeatedly says they are One and there is only One God....not "two separate entities".

Whaddaboutit ITB?????

You said:
And you don't believe Jesus is God...so when you worship Jesus, you are guilty of idolatry. When you worship your Bible, you are guilty of idolatry.
"Idolatry etymologically denotes Divine worship given to an image, but its signification has been extended to all Divine worship given to anyone or anything but the true God." According to you, Jesus isn't the true God...or do you not worship Jesus?

Mah reply:

I don't believe in your bible written and interpreted by men.

I believe in the Sacred Inspired Word of God...The Holy Bible. It teaches, clearly, that Christ is not God...so does your "religion".

If He were He would not have said "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

God would not have said "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him."

Your "religion" would not teach that Christ is the incarnate Son of God.

[Nijoni]

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
The hell with you, really. I've got enough of this stuff figured out that the atheists have quit calling the Bible a pile of cráp and you don't even know what you believe.

You wish you could throw believers there, but in the end, it will be anti-Christs as yourself there. Bingo, Bulldog!

[Nijoni]

ITB wrote:

<quoted text>
She's another supposed "Christian" who believes Jesus and God are "two separate entities" even though Scripture repeatedly says they are One and there is only One God....not "two separate entities".

Brag of your supremacy all you can now ITB. In the end, we will see. WIll it be me, who believes in the Lord and worships him, or you, who believes in Catholic books and doctrines and who enshrines preists, sanits, and the human Mother of Messiah?
Besides which, you don't know what scripture is. Not your books of religious jargon. But say the Talmud or Hebrew Scriptures. Out of which the Savior came. The Hebrew God who led the Isralites out of Egypt was not the Messiah of the New Testament. Nuff said. Now, see what those kids of yours say to this. Those imaginary children of yours that back you up when no one else will.

[Nettiebelle]

Nijoni wrote:

<quoted text>
Brag of your supremacy all you can now ITB. In the end, we will see. WIll it be me, who believes in the Lord and worships him, or you, who believes in Catholic books and doctrines and who enshrines preists, sanits, and the human Mother of Messiah?
Besides which, you don't know what scripture is. Not your books of religious jargon. But say the Talmud or Hebrew Scriptures. Out of which the Savior came. The Hebrew God who led the Isralites out of Egypt was not the Messiah of the New Testament. Nuff said. Now, see what those kids of yours say to this. Those imaginary children of yours that back you up when no one else will.

I know what scripture is.
It is the written part of Sacred Tradition.

[Oxbow]

184

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text>I know what scripture is.
It is the written part of Sacred Tradition.

Scripture: A sacred writing or book. A passage from such a writing or book. The sacred writings of the Bible. Often used in the plural. Also called Holy Scriptures.A statement regarded as authoritative.

My pleasure....