Quote:

---

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/123613/replies/4643396

In his post above, he is twisting and turning his original statement into a series of challenge questions with he claims "victory" by me (us) not responding to his latest revision of his original statement.

I'm not going to play that game.

---

Folks, of course he calls it a "game". That way he can have an excuse in his mind to not answer the questions. Because he and all the others know that the questions defeats their argument, and validates mine.

He's also calling it a "revision" to my original statement, which any intelligent person can see that it is not, that it is a rhetorical device to argue for my original statement.

This is called intellectual dishonesty. And those who engage in it are not of the Spirit.

Know their fruits.

Quote:

---

As I mentioned earlier, in Galatians 5:19-21, he lists: "enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy..." He calls these works of the flesh.

He immediately follows up with Gal 5:22-23, -
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control."

These fruit are in DIRECT conflict with anger and hate.

---

WRONG, folks.

Righteous anger and hate are fully in line with love for God. You don't truly love God unless you hate all that which is against him.

This is such a simple concept to understand, and it is so, so sad how these people fail to grasp it. It's actually quite revealing.

Where did I accused the Catholic Church of making such claims?

You, on the other hand, typed lengthy responses to my statement that salvation only comes through faith in Jesus. And you quoted multiple scriptures that actually make my point while misinterpreting them.

Coke Bear: "[T]o claim that I am taking verses Matthew 16 " and sticking them into a collage so you can pretend God is what you want to make Him become," is completely false."

I know it angers you, but 'collage' correctly describes what you are doing. You are taking individual verses out of context and sticking them together to create an image that is not actually stated in Scripture.

This is one reason in my post, that I noted there are over five dozen books in the Bible, and understanding Scripture starts with orienting yourself with it. And taking bits and pieces from here and there and sticking them together artificially is not going to hold up to scrutiny.


Coke Bear: "Many Church fathers affirm that Peter was given the keys and that had significant responsibility."

With respect to those venerable men, you are once again trying to promote the opinion of men in your own group to the same status as Scripture. Or to put it another way, would you agree with the Ayatolllah regarding the claims of Islam, because Abu Hanifa, Malik ibn Anas, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal all agreed on the points he claims? Or would you agree with Dallin H. Oaks about the claims of the Mormons, because Leonard Arrington, Fawn Brodie, and B.H. Roberts all agree with Oaks about the Mormon claims?

Quoting Roman Catholics about Roman Catholic opinion is not going to move the needle for objective minds, sir.


Coke Bear: "Finally, Catholics don't worship Mary or Peter. If you can't understand that, you're no better than BTD."

You hang your hat on saying it's not official doctrine, but the plain fact is millions of Roman Catholics bow to and pray to Mary, and use language about her which certainly seems to imply she never sinned, and is qualified to speak for us to God as a "co-mediator" for Humanity (which not only appears nowhere in Scripture but would make a mockery of Christ's suffering on our behalf). I understand this is a sensitive point for Roman Catholics, but pretending it does not happen because it's not official is not an honest answer.

Now regarding Peter. If you paid any attention at all to my posts, you know I hold a deep respect for Peter, not just for his personal faith but also for his leadership as head of the Christian Church in Palestine. The problem I have is with the mythology surrounding Peter, making him larger than Scripture ever said, and turning him into a mascot for your sect. I simply note the behavior. If it bothers you, look to your denomination's behavior and myth-building. Again, I understand that observation may offend you, but no other Christian denomination has the chutzpah to claim one of the disciples as their founder.

Regarding BTD, if you cannot see the difference between his attacks and my reasoning, his insults and my efforts to explore context, then you have locked in a bias that no objective discussion will change.

I will also mention something I have not before. There are plenty of non-Protestants who call out Protestants for behavior and words they think are out of line, and plenty of non-Roman Catholics who call out Roman Catholics for behavior and words they think are out of line. But as far as I can tell, I am the only avowed Protestant here who has called out another Protestant for insults and attacks. There are certain Roman Catholics who are guilty, one on a regular basis, of insulting and mocking Protestants, yet you have not once called them out for their behavior. Something you might want to think about.


Coke Bear: "I don't understand your comment - "build a pantheon of humans like religious action figures." Care to explain this better, or it another snarky comment accusing Catholics of creating false Gods? If so, I mentioned that I would call you out when you made comments like this AFTER you bemoaned about me "bullying you." If I read that wrong, I apologize. I would care to hear your explanation."

The phrase is rude, I admit, but take on the mind of a non-Roman Catholic and visit one of those stores, often right next to churches, which sell medals, candles, and other paraphernalia on your saints. I do want to be careful here, and agree that there is nothing wrong with remembering great acts of faith and exemplary behavior by individuals in the Church, but selling medals and candles, and especially encouraging prayer and devotion to them crosses a very important line for me and many other Christians.

The Protestants have things you can criticize, but they limit their prayers and devotion to God, as all believers should.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Regarding BTD, if you cannot see the difference between his attacks and my reasoning, his insults and my efforts to explore context, then you have locked in a bias that no objective discussion will change.

I will also mention something I have not before. There are plenty of non-Protestants who call out Protestants for behavior and words they think are out of line, and plenty of non-Roman Catholics who call out Roman Catholics for behavior and words they think are out of line. But as far as I can tell, I am the only avowed Protestant here who has called out another Protestant for insults and attacks. There are certain Roman Catholics who are guilty, one on a regular basis, of insulting and mocking Protestants, yet you have not once called them out for their behavior. Something you might want to think about.

---

Claiming that you are the epitome of dispassioned, reasoned argumentation while I've only attacked an insulted is utterly laughable.

Calling you out on your constant intellectual dishonesty is not "attacking and insulting" you. It takes a really poor level of awareness to not perceive that people here know that this is what you always resort to when you can't argue the point. You've constantly sought criticism immunity this way as a defense mechanism because of your pride, and ironically, it makes YOU the one trapped in a "locked bias" of your own, and thus immutable to objective arguments.

And I would think that a professed Christian who couldn't even articulate the basic gospel when asked, would have a little more humility when trying to preach down to others. I can also point to your hypocrisy, as you NEVER called out all those who were viciously attacking me as well, which happened quite frequently.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet.

Quote:

---

I hope you would agree that the apostles were ALL bishops. If not, then you have to renounce Apostolic Succession. You agree that Peter was involved in the evangelistic apostolic ministry in Rome; therefore, he was a bishop of Rome.

---

I don't agree with this. It is not a given that every apostle automatically took on the episcopacy. It is almost impossible to make the case that Saint Thomas was Bishop of the Malankara Church, while we know that Saint Lazarus - not an apostle - was the first Bishop of Cyprus. Nor does this nullify apostolic succession, as that would be a matter of the relegation of apostolic authority to the selected Bishop (in this case from Peter to Linus).

Quote:

---

"Committed into the hand of Linus" You are actually making my point. After Peter was martyred, Linus was next-man-up. Irenaeus' list picks it up from there.

---

Not at all. You're inserting Peter into a list that does not contain him based on Roman Catholic doctrine. For apostolic succession to have occurred in the Roman Patriarchate, Peter would have had to commission Linus as the first Roman Bishop before his martyrdom. If not, apostolic succession in Rome would have ended immediately.

Quote:

---

Clement of Alexandera - "When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it" (Fragment in Eusebius, Church History 6:14:1 [circa A.D. 200]).

Tertullian - "Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John" [the Baptist, by being beheaded] (The Prescription Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]).

Cyprian of Carthage - "After such things as these, moreover, they still dare a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access" (Letter 54:14 [A.D. 252]).

---

None of these identify Peter as having assumed the episcopal office of Bishop of Rome. Nobody is disputing that Paul and Peter established the Roman Church through their apostolic activity.

Quote:

---

Eusebius - "The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).

---

Eusebius does identify him as the Bishop of Rome, but writing later. Also, the Catholic Encylopedia itself disagrees with his dates so I don't put much stock in that. Dozens of earlier writers would have had the opportunity to identify him as such, and the one closest to the events in question doesn't.

The chronology of the early popes is heavily disputed. The first ancient lists of popes were not written until the late 2nd century, after the monarchical episcopate had already developed in Rome. These first lists combined contradictory traditions, and even the succession of the first popes is disputed. The first certain dates are AD 222 and 235, the elections of Urban I and Anterus. The years given for the first 30 popes follow the work of Richard Adelbert Lipsius, which often show a 3-year difference with the traditional dates given by Eusebius of Caesarea. These are also the dates used by the Catholic Encyclopedia...

Realitybites said:

---

The Church didn't split over corruption. It split due to theological differences, political and cultural divide, and failed human egos on both sides. Any book that pretends otherwise is simply trying to gloss over the true events.

---

The cultural, political, and theological differences between the Roman patriarchate and the rest of Christianity didn't occur in a vacuum. They occurred in the broader context of the corruption in Italian society. The gates of hell prevailed against Rome when it left Orthodoxy. They continue to prevail against it to this very day.

Quote:

---

But the Orthodox have allowed changes in their stances on allowing for two or three divorces

---

Yes, Orthodoxy does grant permission to remarry after some divorces on the basis of economia referencing 1st Corinthians 7. It's a more honest position than handing out annulments and pretending marriages never happened.

Quote:

---

and Non-Abortifacient birth control. The Catholic Church has remained firm on those grounds.

---

That's strictly a GOARCH position, and is not accepted elsewhere in Orthodoxy...probably not even among Athonite Greeks. If GOARCH persists in its current direction, it's lampstand may be removed as Rome's was. Which is one of the reasons why I steer inquirers into Orthdoxy away from the Greek Church in America into almost any other Orthodox jurisdiction.

I can understand why this is an existential question for Roman Catholics. If you remove their interpretation from history with Peter as the first and supreme Bishop and instead look at the current organization in historical context as a schismatic entity that began in 1054 A.D., it completely undermines it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

As I mentioned earlier, in Galatians 5:19-21, he lists: "enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy..." He calls these works of the flesh.

He immediately follows up with Gal 5:22-23, -
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control."

These fruit are in DIRECT conflict with anger and hate.

---

WRONG, folks.

Righteous anger and hate are fully in line with love for God. You don't truly love God unless you hate all that which is against him.

This is such a simple concept to understand, and it is so, so sad how these people fail to grasp it. It's actually quite revealing.

---

BTD's original question to Oldbear83 -

Quote:

---

Did it ever occur to you that HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit?

---

Righteous anger and hate can be in line with love of God when they are justified. However, to call them a "Fruit of the Spirit, which BTD did, is NOT correct.

As you can see, they are in opposition of what Paul listed in Galatians.

I'll let BTD have the last word. This line of debate is not going anywhere productive.

A PRAYER OF SALVATION:

If you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven, YOU COULD HUMBLY PRAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO GOD FROM YOUR HEART IN FAITH:

"Dear Lord Jesus I know that I am a sinner and need you to save me. I believe that You are the Lord and believe in my heart that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead, shedding your blood as the Sacrifice for my sins. I turn to You as the only way of Salvation, I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours, I place my Faith and Trust in You alone as Lord of my life, Please save me and I thank You for it, in Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him, you can know that you are a child of God and on your way to heaven. Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing Church and follow in baptism.

Studying The Bible Is Essential To Christians Growth. Click Here To Walk Through The Bible Verse By Verse From The Beginning, In 25 Minute Lessons:

https://www.lesfeldick.org/

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

As I mentioned earlier, in Galatians 5:19-21, he lists: "enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy..." He calls these works of the flesh.

He immediately follows up with Gal 5:22-23, -
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control."

These fruit are in DIRECT conflict with anger and hate.

---

WRONG, folks.

Righteous anger and hate are fully in line with love for God. You don't truly love God unless you hate all that which is against him.

This is such a simple concept to understand, and it is so, so sad how these people fail to grasp it. It's actually quite revealing.

---

BTD's original question to Oldbear83 -

Quote:

---

Did it ever occur to you that HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit?

---

Righteous anger and hate can be in line with love of God when they are justified. However, to call them a "Fruit of the Spirit, which BTD did, is NOT correct.

As you can see, they are in opposition of what Paul listed in Galatians.

I'll let BTD have the last word. This line of debate is not going anywhere productive.

---

"[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

[24] And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."

Galatians 5:22, 24

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear: "To claim that I am taking verses Matthew 16 " and sticking them into a collage so you can pretend God is what you want to make Him become," is completely false."

I know it angers you, but 'collage' correctly describes what you are doing. You are taking individual verses out of context and sticking them together to create an image that is not actually stated in Scripture.

This is one reason in my post, that I noted there are over five dozen books in the Bible, and understanding Scripture starts with orienting yourself with it. And taking bits and pieces from here and there and sticking them together artificially is not going to hold up to scrutiny.

---

It doesn't anger me at all. I think it is a misunderstanding of scripture. Protestants do the same thing, to an even greater extent. They've created the 5 solas out of different verses in different books. What's worse about that, is that they've taken many of them out of context.

Let's look at the practice of Baptism. Nowhere in scripture does it give a step-by-step process on how to baptize. Early in each of the gospels we see Jesus getting baptized in the water. Later at the very end of Matthew, do we get the formula for baptism. In Acts, Luke discusses who was baptized. We don't get explicit instructions in one area in the bible. That won't happen until the Didache is written between AD 50 and AD 120. (Historians still discuss the timing of its writing.) The Didache lays out specifically how to baptize properly.

Scripture NEVER outright states that the Holy Spirit is God. That was officially resolved at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. The early Church used various scriptures and traditions to prove that.

I could list multiple examples of this like, the Trinity itself, Hypostatic Union, & Dyothelitism two wills of Jesus. None of these are expressly taught in scripture. Individuals had to use different verses of scripture to develop these doctrines.

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, NONE of the 5 solas are called out in scripture. They are hodgepodged (collaged) together to make up these beliefs.

So, no, I'm not angry. I wanted to illuminate that ALL of Christianity does this.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear: "Many Church fathers affirm that Peter was given the keys and that had significant responsibility."

With respect to those venerable men, you are once again trying to promote the opinion of men in your own group to the same status as Scripture. Or to put it another way, would you agree with the Ayatolllah regarding the claims of Islam, because Abu Hanifa, Malik ibn Anas, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal all agreed on the points he claims? Or would you agree with Dallin H. Oaks about the claims of the Mormons, because Leonard Arrington, Fawn Brodie, and B.H. Roberts all agree with Oaks about the Mormon claims?

Quoting Roman Catholics about Roman Catholic opinion is not going to move the needle for objective minds, sir.

---

Yes, these are Catholic men affirming Catholic beliefs. I'll fully admit that. But realize, THOSE were the only beliefs in town at that time. The entire Christian world WAS Catholic when those men wrote. Please note the earliest times on those quotes. These aren't men yelling into an echo chamber. This IS History. Their confirmation or agreement isn't in spite of anyone or contrary to an opposing belief. This is WHAT was believed by ALL of Christianity at the time.

You can "promoting the men in your own group," but they were the ONLY group in town for the Christians. They were reporting history.

So-called "reformers" would not be on the scene for another 1000+ years.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear: "Finally, Catholics don't worship Mary or Peter. If you can't understand that, you're no better than BTD."

You hang your hat on saying it's not official doctrine, but the plain fact is millions of Roman Catholics bow to and pray to Mary, and use language about her which certainly seems to imply she never sinned, and is qualified to speak for us to God as a "co-mediator" for Humanity (which not only appears nowhere in Scripture but would make a mockery of Christ's suffering on our behalf). I understand this is a sensitive point for Roman Catholics, but pretending it does not happen because it's not official is not an honest answer.

---

Where does it say that it is wrong to bow? I see protestant ALL the time bow or kneel at a cross. If you live in Texas, how many stickers do you see on the back of pickups with a cowboy kneeling before a cross. Honestly, are they worshipping a torture/execution instrument?

Have some sense.

Pray to Mary As I, and many others said before, "pray" doesn't mean "worship". It means "to ask." Just like I'd ask to you to pray for me, I'd ask Mary to pray for me.

James 5:16 - "The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective"

Who is more righteous than those in heaven? No ONE on earth is more righteous than those in heaven.

Protestants misunderstand "co- mediator." That's one of the reasons the Vatican's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith requested that it not be used to prevent confusing the faithful or creating unnecessary barriers with other Christian denominations. They are not saying it isn't correct. They are saying that the language is confusing.

In today's world, especially English, the prefix 'co' has a connotation with the word "equal to." Etymologically, that is not the case. It means, "with."
1 Corinthians 3:9 - "For we are God's co-workers [synergoi]; you are God's field, God's building"

If Christians can be co-workers with God or participate in Christ's redemptive suffering for the Church without robbing Christ of His glory, theologians reason that Mary's participation in that same mystery was simply unique and preeminent.

Mary gave her 'yes' her fiat to God and agreed to be the Mother of our Lord. She suffered with him on the cross. She participates with Jesus as an intercessor.

The first example of this we see at the Wedding Feast of Cana, when Mary intercedes for the newly married couple when they run out of wine. She askes her Son to help. And He does. Mary is so closely aligned with her Son, the

I understand your issue with the term. I don't care for it much either, but I accept the concept behind it. Jesus not going to refuse a request from his mother as long as the request aligns with the Will of God.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Now regarding Peter. If you paid any attention at all to my posts, you know I hold a deep respect for Peter, not just for his personal faith but also for his leadership as head of the Christian Church in Palestine. The problem I have is with the mythology surrounding Peter, making him larger than Scripture ever said, and turning him into a mascot for your sect. I simply note the behavior. If it bothers you, look to your denomination's behavior and myth-building. Again, I understand that observation may offend you, but no other Christian denomination has the chutzpah to claim one of the disciples as their founder.

---

"Mascot for your sect" another jab at the Church, but I'll let that go.

NO other "denomination" can claim an apostle as a founder because they CAN'T. It was the Catholic Church that was founded by Jesus built on the foundation of Peter. Find a historical source that says otherwise. I know this angers you, but it is history.

If you want to claim the Catholic Church was stated by Jesus by corrupted early, please cite your references so that I can check them.
If you want to claim a different founder and later date, please cite your reference for that as well.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I will also mention something I have not before. There are plenty of non-Protestants who call out Protestants for behavior and words they think are out of line, and plenty of non-Roman Catholics who call out Roman Catholics for behavior and words they think are out of line. But as far as I can tell, I am the only avowed Protestant here who has called out another Protestant for insults and attacks. There are certain Roman Catholics who are guilty, one on a regular basis, of insulting and mocking Protestants, yet you have not once called them out for their behavior. Something you might want to think about.

---

Fair enough. I appreciate the fact that you do that. I tend to send my first "rebuke" thru PM's. Different strokes …

Oldbear83 said:

---

The phrase is rude, I admit, but take on the mind of a non-Roman Catholic and visit one of those stores, often right next to churches, which sell medals, candles, and other paraphernalia on your saints. I do want to be careful here, and agree that there is nothing wrong with remembering great acts of faith and exemplary behavior by individuals in the Church, but selling medals and candles, and especially encouraging prayer and devotion to them crosses a very important line for me and many other Christians.

---

What about people that wear professional or college athlete's jerseys? Or the guy that has the man cave littered with autographed photos, jerseys, footballs, etc.? Are they giving devotion to them?

The medals and candles are to remind those individuals to live a holy life like that particular Saint. Or quite possibly those people are asking the Saint to pray for them for a particular reason. Any prayer that is offered is done with the intention of intercession. St Paul calls for to intercede for one another.

Does an artist get jealous when someone praises his art? Do you think that Michelangelo got upset when people marveled over his David or Piet? No.

God doesn't get upset when we humans admire the holy people. Everything these people did and what made them holy was because of Jesus. Honoring them is honoring God. God is happy when we recognize Jesus in others. We are called to do this with the poor, the sick, the dying. We are called to see Jesus IN them. This is the same with honoring Saints. We recognize the Jesus IN them.

There's nothing wrong in having a prayer partner with someone in heaven. I ask a litany of Saints for their intercession:

• St. Peregrine - for all those with cancer
• St. Joseph for me to help me with my career and being a better husband and father
• St. Sabastian as I umpire and referee sports
• St. Rapheal for all those who need healing
• St. Michael the Archangel for protection from the Satan and all evil spirits
• My guarding angel for protection and guidance

And many others …

Of course, I ask the Trinity to help me with these issue, but I ask these Saints to also bring my petitions to them.

I'm sure this is strange for all the protestants here. But the Church has honored Saints for nearly 2000 years. The Church has seen literally 1000's of miracles that they performed on earth (God did the work actually) and/or thru their intercession when they were in heaven.

Blessed Bishop Fulton J. Sheen was just beatified in St. Louis last month. The medically documented miracle that justified the beatification was a little boy (16 years ago) that was still born because the umbilical cord was wrapped in a knot. He was born at home and the midwife practiced CPR for 20 minutes. The parents, who had a devotion to Bishop Sheen, began intercession to him on behalf of their son. The paramedics did CPR on the way to the hospital for 20 minutes and the hospital staff for another 20 minutes. They were just about to call his death when after 61 minutes, he started breathing on his own.

I forget the exact statistics, but after 10 minutes with no oxygen, only 30% of babies survive and 100% of them have several disabilities due to lack of oxygen.

After 61 minutes, the baby wakes up on his own and begins to breathe. His Apgar scores start to rise immediately. He appears fine. The parents keep taking him in for appointments, but the doctors can't find anything wrong with him. 16 years later, the boy is still in perfect health with no medical issues.

The Catholic Church is SO skeptical about miracles, they wouldn't even investigate this for a year after his birth to ensure that he was still fine.

That's a miracle through intercession. The Church has 1000' s of these stories of miracles through intercession. There is very little difference between this and (true) healing ministries that are prevalent in Christianity. You can doubt all you want, but we in the Church are used to hearing stories like this.

Here is a link to a news secular news agency that better details the events.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The Protestants have things you can criticize, but they limit their prayers and devotion to God, as all believers should.

---

You are conflating prayer and worship again. You are also taking the word "devotion" and using it only for God.

Catholic would agree that we should only WORSHIP God and that supreme, wholehearted devotion belongs to God alone. But devotion can also mean love, honor, imitation, and deep respect. I'm devoted to my wife and family. I'm devoted to my job. I hope you get the point and see the difference.

I believe the prophet Olivia Newton-John was stated,

"But now there's nowhere to hide
Since you pushed my love aside
I'm out of my head, hopelessly devoted to you

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

As I mentioned earlier, in Galatians 5:19-21, he lists: "enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy..." He calls these works of the flesh.

He immediately follows up with Gal 5:22-23, -
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control."

These fruit are in DIRECT conflict with anger and hate.

---

WRONG, folks.

Righteous anger and hate are fully in line with love for God. You don't truly love God unless you hate all that which is against him.

This is such a simple concept to understand, and it is so, so sad how these people fail to grasp it. It's actually quite revealing.

---

BTD's original question to Oldbear83 -

Quote:

---

Did it ever occur to you that HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit?

---

Righteous anger and hate can be in line with love of God when they are justified. However, to call them a "Fruit of the Spirit, which BTD did, is NOT correct.

As you can see, they are in opposition of what Paul listed in Galatians.

I'll let BTD have the last word. This line of debate is not going anywhere productive.

---

Does everyone see CokeBear's significant error here?

If righteous hate and anger (which is ALWAYS justified - that's what makes it righteous) is in line with love for God, then it is impossible for them to be "in opposition" to the fruits of the Spirit listed in Galatians - **which includes LOVE as one of the fruits.**

Therefore, hate and anger CAN BE fruits of the Spirit.... if they are righteous hate and anger. Because righteous hate and anger is an integral part of love for God and his righteousness. You don't truly love God, if you don't hate what he hates.

Folks, this should NOT have been such a hard concept to grasp. The fact that it was, for some people here, is quite revealing. It's no coincidence that they are the SAME ones who support those evil, idolatrous prayers to Mary where they give her the credit and glory for salvation. Know them by their fruits, folks.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It's no coincidence that they are the SAME ones who support those evil, idolatrous prayers to Mary where they give her the credit and glory for salvation. Know them by their fruits, folks.

---

Hello again, Coke Bear, and thank you for your response. Because of its length, I think I should respond by section:

Coke Bear: "It doesn't anger me at all. I think it is a misunderstanding of scripture. Protestants do the same thing, to an even greater extent. They've created the 5 solas out of different verses in different books. What's worse about that, is that they've taken many of them out of context."

I found your response strange here. I pointed out that you have been applying individual, cherry-picked verses, out of context, in order to fabricate a claim which is not actually there in Scripture. I mentioned as well that this behavior is common among all groups making arguments for extra-Scriptural claims, yet you simply returned to attacking Protestants for the same behavior I just called you on. You even mentioned the same context I bought up, ignoring that I noted the need to study Scripture holistically in the very post you answered.

How very odd.

Coke Bear: "Many Church fathers affirm that Peter was given the keys and that had significant responsibility."

OldBear: "With respect to those venerable men, you are once again trying to promote the opinion of men in your own group to the same status as Scripture. Or to put it another way, would you agree with the Ayatolllah regarding the claims of Islam, because Abu Hanifa, Malik ibn Anas, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal all agreed on the points he claims? Or would you agree with Dallin H. Oaks about the claims of the Mormons, because Leonard Arrington, Fawn Brodie, and B.H. Roberts all agree with Oaks about the Mormon claims?

Quoting Roman Catholics about Roman Catholic opinion is not going to move the needle for objective minds, sir."

Coke Bear: "Yes, these are Catholic men affirming Catholic beliefs. I'll fully admit that. But realize, THOSE were the only beliefs in town at that time. The entire Christian world WAS Catholic when those men wrote. Please note the earliest times on those quotes. These aren't men yelling into an echo chamber. This IS History. Their confirmation or agreement isn't in spite of anyone or contrary to an opposing belief. This is WHAT was believed by ALL of Christianity at the time.

You can "promoting the men in your own group," but they were the ONLY group in town for the Christians. They were reporting history.

So-called "reformers" would not be on the scene for another 1000+ years."

The year is 2026. Non-Roman Catholic scholars have been on the scene for centuries, yet you seem to imagine that the oldest claim is de facto accurate simply because it's the oldest.

Your logic simply says Roman Catholics create credibility for a Roman Catholic claim. How would you win over an agnostic or atheist, or simply a Christian seeking clarification on doctrine? I showed you how the Muslims and Mormons have scholars every bit as eminent in their domain as your sources in yours, but you seem to imagine that arguing in circles is a compelling method.

If I might, I would suggest you consider some of the exchanges between C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton. They explored faith from the Protestant/Roman Catholic perspectives while maintaining courtesy and intellectual honesty which we could all do to see more of today.

Coke Bear: "Finally, Catholics don't worship Mary or Peter. If you can't understand that, you're no better than BTD."

OldBear: "You hang your hat on saying it's not official doctrine, but the plain fact is millions of Roman Catholics bow to and pray to Mary, and use language about her which certainly seems to imply she never sinned, and is qualified to speak for us to God as a "co-mediator" for Humanity (which not only appears nowhere in Scripture but would make a mockery of Christ's suffering on our behalf). I understand this is a sensitive point for Roman Catholics, but pretending it does not happen because it's not official is not an honest answer."

Coke Bear: "Where does it say that it is wrong to bow? I see protestant ALL the time bow or kneel at a cross. If you live in Texas, how many stickers do you see on the back of pickups with a cowboy kneeling before a cross. Honestly, are they worshipping a torture/execution instrument?

Have some sense."

That is a disappointing response from you, drifting towards the tactics of our friend BTD.

Let us look at your claim regarding the cross.

If you want to point to the cross as, using your phrase, " a torture/execution instrument", please point out even one place in Protestant writings where the author focused on the torture/execution as their object of pleasure or happiness.

There simply are no such claims in Christian writings, of any denomination. Protestants regard the cross the
same way you Roman Catholics do: In memory of our Savior's suffering and death in our place, as an atonement for the sins of Humanity.

Now with regard to Mary, consider that we Christians all know the cross is a symbol for Christ's suffering, and we pray facing the cross, not praying to the cross but to our Savior whose suffering we remember.

Now praying to Mary means focusing on her. Praying to God while regarding the cross is focusing on God.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It's no coincidence that they are the SAME ones who support those evil, idolatrous prayers to Mary where they give her the credit and glory for salvation. Know them by their fruits, folks.

---

---

Does everyone see the classic irony here?

CokeBear had no answer to the argument, so he removes it in his response, and posts a picture of a red herring.... in order to distract/redirect people away from the fact that he lost the argument.

You seriously can not make this stuff up!

A PRAYER OF SALVATION:

If you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven, YOU COULD HUMBLY PRAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO GOD FROM YOUR HEART IN FAITH:

"Dear Lord Jesus I know that I am a sinner and need you to save me. I believe that You are the Lord and believe in my heart that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead, shedding your blood as the Sacrifice for my sins. I turn to You as the only way of Salvation, I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours, I place my Faith and Trust in You alone as Lord of my life, Please save me and I thank You for it, in Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him, you can know that you are a child of God and on your way to heaven. Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing Church and follow in baptism.

Studying The Bible Is Essential To Christians Growth. Click Here To Walk Through The Bible Verse By Verse From The Beginning, In 25 Minute Lessons:

https://www.lesfeldick.org/

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

Oldbear83 said:

---

Hello again, Coke Bear, and thank you for your response. Because of its length, I think I should respond by section:

Coke Bear: "It doesn't anger me at all. I think it is a misunderstanding of scripture. Protestants do the same thing, to an even greater extent. They've created the 5 solas out of different verses in different books. What's worse about that, is that they've taken many of them out of context."

I found your response strange here. I pointed out that you have been applying individual, cherry-picked verses, out of context, in order to fabricate a claim which is not actually there in Scripture. I mentioned as well that this behavior is common among all groups making arguments for extra-Scriptural claims, yet you simply returned to attacking Protestants for the same behavior I just called you on. You even mentioned the same context I bought up, ignoring that I noted the need to study Scripture holistically in the very post you answered.

How very odd.

---

I don't believe anything that I stated there was an attack. I merely pointed out that the 5 solas are also "cherry-picking," if you want to call it that.

I'm lost now as to what you are claiming that Catholic 'Cherry-pick' "in order to fabricate a claim which is not actually there in Scripture."

Is it that Peter was the leader of the early Church?

Let's get specific so that we can discuss one item at a time.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The year is 2026. Non-Roman Catholic scholars have been on the scene for centuries, yet you seem to imagine that the oldest claim is de facto accurate simply because it's the oldest.

Your logic simply says Roman Catholics create credibility for a Roman Catholic claim. How would you win over an agnostic or atheist, or simply a Christian seeking clarification on doctrine? I showed you how the Muslims and Mormons have scholars every bit as eminent in their domain as your sources in yours, but you seem to imagine that arguing in circles is a compelling method.

---

I'm struggling to expand this so that you can understand it.

You claim that these (Catholic) men are created credibility for the Catholic claim. Fair enough, but when these men wrote, there were ONLY Catholic men (and women). The were reporting HISTORY.

ALL of the early Church fathers agree that Peter was the bishop of Rome and the leader of the Church. That is an historical fact.

If a Muslim (in 850 AD) or LDS (in 1895) gave their opine about a specific verse in their books, we should take this as their early belief. If we see a significant change in that belief over time, then we should call that out.

I see no change in what was believed by all.

As I mentioned, I realize that this angers you, but it is historic fact that Peter was the leader of the early Church. It has been believed since the beginning of the Church. If you can find historical evidence that states otherwise, I'll certainly investigate it.

But help me better understand your position here.

Oldbear83 said:

---

If I might, I would suggest you consider some of the exchanges between C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton. They explored faith from the Protestant/Roman Catholic perspectives while maintaining courtesy and intellectual honesty which we could all do to see more of today.

---

If familiar with their exchanges. Many theologians believe that C.S. Lewis would have converted to Catholicism, if he had lived long enough, but that's not the point.

I, too, hope that we can have civil exchanges.

Oldbear83 said:

---

If you want to point to the cross as, using your phrase, " a torture/execution instrument", please point out even one place in Protestant writings where the author focused on the torture/execution as their object of pleasure or happiness.

There simply are no such claims in Christian writings, of any denomination. Protestants regard the cross the
same way you Roman Catholics do: In memory of our Savior's suffering and death in our place, as an atonement for the sins of Humanity.

---

Obviously, you didn't care for my labeling of the cross. I apologize. But that's exactly what a cross symbolized in Jesus' time. It was an execution devise created to humiliate and torture enemies of Rome. They didn't invent it, but the perfected it and its usage.

Having said that, Catholic DO look on the cross in the same way, if not honor it more, that our protestant brethren.

Every Good Friday, we have what is called Veneration of the cross. On Sept 14 of every year, we have a major feast day called Exaltation of the Holy Cross.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Now with regard to Mary, consider that we Christians all know the cross is a symbol for Christ's suffering, and we pray facing the cross, not praying to the cross but to our Savior whose suffering we remember.

---

Do you agree that many protestants bow and/or kneel at a cross?

Catholic pray facing a statue. We are not praying TO a statue. We know that the statue is made of wood, marble, plastic, whatever. We KNOW the statue is NOT God. We are asking the person that represented by the statue to pray for us.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Now praying to Mary means focusing on her. Praying to God while regarding the cross is focusing on God.

---

Our prayer isn't focused on Mary. It is asking her to pray for us. Asking a saint to pray for us while regard that Saint, is focusing on God.

If someone asks you to pray for them, are you focusing on God or that person? You are praying, but your focus on them. Shouldn't they just pray to God themselves?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fol
It's no coincidence that they are the SAME ones who support those evil, idolatrous prayers to Mary where they give her the credit and glory for salvation. Know them by their fruits, folks.

---

---

Does everyone see the classic irony here?

CokeBear had no answer to the argument, so he removes it in his response, and posts a picture of a red herring.... in order to distract/redirect people away from the fact that he lost the argument.

You seriously can not make this stuff up!

---

Folks, look closely here at the deflection.

My "answer to the argument" was listed in my previous post.

My final answer again is listed below -

BTD originally stated that "anger and hate are Fruits of the Spirit" in his Oct 5th response to Oldbear83.

I provided Paul's passage in Galatians when he states that those "acts of the flesh."

The following verse in 5:22-23 list the ACTUAL Fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Presented with this, BTD has multiple times tried to twist scripture into when HE wants to believe.

To distract y'all, he provided a Red Herring - strawman fallacy.

Now, he's doing it again. Don't worry, folks. You'll see another one here shortly.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fol
It's no coincidence that they are the SAME ones who support those evil, idolatrous prayers to Mary where they give her the credit and glory for salvation. Know them by their fruits, folks.

---

---

Does everyone see the classic irony here?

CokeBear had no answer to the argument, so he removes it in his response, and posts a picture of a red herring.... in order to distract/redirect people away from the fact that he lost the argument.

You seriously can not make this stuff up!

---

Folks, look closely here at the deflection.

My "answer to the argument" was listed in my previous post.

My final answer again is listed below -

BTD originally stated that "anger and hate are Fruits of the Spirit" in his Oct 5th response to Oldbear83.

I provided Paul's passage in Galatians when he states that those "acts of the flesh."

The following verse in 5:22-23 list the ACTUAL Fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Presented with this, BTD has multiple times tried to twist scripture into when HE wants to believe.

To distract y'all, he provided a Red Herring - strawman fallacy.

Now, he's doing it again. Don't worry, folks. You'll see another one here shortly.

---

Folks, CokeBear literally argued that something that's in line with LOVE for God is in OPPOSITION to... the fruit of LOVE.

And he still can't see his folly, and that he lost the argument

This is exactly what a mind lost to deception looks like. This is the fruit that you need to know them by. Wasn't his support for idolatrous prayers to Mary all that you really needed to see?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fol
It's no coincidence that they are the SAME ones who support those evil, idolatrous prayers to Mary where they give her the credit and glory for salvation. Know them by their fruits, folks.

---

---

Does everyone see the classic irony here?

CokeBear had no answer to the argument, so he removes it in his response, and posts a picture of a red herring.... in order to distract/redirect people away from the fact that he lost the argument.

You seriously can not make this stuff up!

---

Folks, look closely here at the deflection.

My "answer to the argument" was listed in my previous post.

My final answer again is listed below -

BTD originally stated that "anger and hate are Fruits of the Spirit" in his Oct 5th response to Oldbear83.

I provided Paul's passage in Galatians when he states that those "acts of the flesh."

The following verse in 5:22-23 list the ACTUAL Fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Presented with this, BTD has multiple times tried to twist scripture into when HE wants to believe.

To distract y'all, he provided a Red Herring - strawman fallacy.

Now, he's doing it again. Don't worry, folks. You'll see another one here shortly.

---

Folks, CokeBear literally argued that something that's in line with LOVE for God is in OPPOSITION to... the fruit of LOVE.

And he still can't see his folly, and that he lost the argument

This is exactly what a mind lost to deception looks like. This is the fruit that you need to know them by. Wasn't his support for idolatrous prayers to Mary all that you really needed to see?

---

I mentioned that the Red Herring is coming. It's like they are spawning.

Anyway, please note that BTD has changed that to a "fruit of LOVE." He changed it now that the scripture had been mentioned multiple times.

Don't worry, you'll probably see the same Red Herring again from him.

Coke Bear ignores what I wrote, attempting to control the discussion by ignoring my points.

Then accuses BTD of deflection.

The odd behavior continues.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear ignores what I wrote, attempting to control the discussion by ignoring my points.

Then accuses BTD of deflection.

The odd behavior continues.

---

Where have I ignored your points? I addressed each one of them.

BTD has tried to deflect from what scripture says with a straw man red herring.


Birds of a feather and all that.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear ignores what I wrote, attempting to control the discussion by ignoring my points.

Then accuses BTD of deflection.

The odd behavior continues.

---

Where have I ignored your points? I addressed each one of them.

BTD has tried to deflect from what scripture says with a straw man red herring.


Birds of a feather and all that.

---

Hard to believe you don't see it. Out with the daughter, but will address each specifically when I get back.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Hello again, Coke Bear, and thank you for your response. Because of its length, I think I should respond by section:

Coke Bear: "It doesn't anger me at all. I think it is a misunderstanding of scripture. Protestants do the same thing, to an even greater extent. They've created the 5 solas out of different verses in different books. What's worse about that, is that they've taken many of them out of context."

I found your response strange here. I pointed out that you have been applying individual, cherry-picked verses, out of context, in order to fabricate a claim which is not actually there in Scripture. I mentioned as well that this behavior is common among all groups making arguments for extra-Scriptural claims, yet you simply returned to attacking Protestants for the same behavior I just called you on. You even mentioned the same context I bought up, ignoring that I noted the need to study Scripture holistically in the very post you answered.

How very odd.

---

I don't believe anything that I stated there was an attack. I merely pointed out that the 5 solas are also "cherry-picking," if you want to call it that.

I'm lost now as to what you are claiming that Catholic 'Cherry-pick' "in order to fabricate a claim which is not actually there in Scripture."

Is it that Peter was the leader of the early Church?

Let's get specific so that we can discuss one item at a time.

---

OK, so try number 3.

You (and some others) have been posting single verses in defense of your opinion. The problem there is that a verse without context can be, and sometimes is, misunderstood. This is why it matters to use the whole of a chapter at least, to show how and why the verse was applied.

Taking one verse and ignoring the rest of the chapter, especially if that chapter does not say what you claim in that cut-out verse, is cherry-picking on its face.

Do you follow now?

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The year is 2026. Non-Roman Catholic scholars have been on the scene for centuries, yet you seem to imagine that the oldest claim is de facto accurate simply because it's the oldest.

Your logic simply says Roman Catholics create credibility for a Roman Catholic claim. How would you win over an agnostic or atheist, or simply a Christian seeking clarification on doctrine? I showed you how the Muslims and Mormons have scholars every bit as eminent in their domain as your sources in yours, but you seem to imagine that arguing in circles is a compelling method.

---

I'm struggling to expand this so that you can understand it.

You claim that these (Catholic) men are created credibility for the Catholic claim. Fair enough, but when these men wrote, there were ONLY Catholic men (and women). The were reporting HISTORY.

ALL of the early Church fathers agree that Peter was the bishop of Rome and the leader of the Church. That is an historical fact.

If a Muslim (in 850 AD) or LDS (in 1895) gave their opine about a specific verse in their books, we should take this as their early belief. If we see a significant change in that belief over time, then we should call that out.

I see no change in what was believed by all.

As I mentioned, I realize that this angers you, but it is historic fact that Peter was the leader of the early Church. It has been believed since the beginning of the Church. If you can find historical evidence that states otherwise, I'll certainly investigate it.

But help me better understand your position here.

Oldbear83 said:

---

If I might, I would suggest you consider some of the exchanges between C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton. They explored faith from the Protestant/Roman Catholic perspectives while maintaining courtesy and intellectual honesty which we could all do to see more of today.

---

If familiar with their exchanges. Many theologians believe that C.S. Lewis would have converted to Catholicism, if he had lived long enough, but that's not the point.

I, too, hope that we can have civil exchanges.

---

Sorry but no, as historian demonstrated, Peter was one of a number of early Church leaders.

And no, there is absolutely no evidence Peter led the Church in Rome during his lifetime, especially since we know that congregation was founded by Paul. I am more than a little sure that if Paul had handed over leadership of the Rome congregation to Peter, he would have mentioned it in the book of Romans.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fol
It's no coincidence that they are the SAME ones who support those evil, idolatrous prayers to Mary where they give her the credit and glory for salvation. Know them by their fruits, folks.

---

---

Does everyone see the classic irony here?

CokeBear had no answer to the argument, so he removes it in his response, and posts a picture of a red herring.... in order to distract/redirect people away from the fact that he lost the argument.

You seriously can not make this stuff up!

---

Folks, look closely here at the deflection.

My "answer to the argument" was listed in my previous post.

My final answer again is listed below -

BTD originally stated that "anger and hate are Fruits of the Spirit" in his Oct 5th response to Oldbear83.

I provided Paul's passage in Galatians when he states that those "acts of the flesh."

The following verse in 5:22-23 list the ACTUAL Fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Presented with this, BTD has multiple times tried to twist scripture into when HE wants to believe.

To distract y'all, he provided a Red Herring - strawman fallacy.

Now, he's doing it again. Don't worry, folks. You'll see another one here shortly.

---

Folks, CokeBear literally argued that something that's in line with LOVE for God is in OPPOSITION to... the fruit of LOVE.

And he still can't see his folly, and that he lost the argument

This is exactly what a mind lost to deception looks like. This is the fruit that you need to know them by. Wasn't his support for idolatrous prayers to Mary all that you really needed to see?

---

I mentioned that the Red Herring is coming. It's like they are spawning.

Anyway, please note that BTD has changed that to a "fruit of LOVE." He changed it now that the scripture had been mentioned multiple times.

Don't worry, you'll probably see the same Red Herring again from him.

---

Notice that CokeBear thinks I said "A fruit of love", when I actually said "THE fruit of love". Which any intelligent person can understand to mean that LOVE is one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Galatians.

Regardless, his misunderstanding doesn't even change the point AT ALL. He still would be arguing that LOVE is in "opposition" to.... LOVE.

And he still can't make the connection.

God help you CokeBear. It's the only way out of your mind trap of deception and confustion.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

If you want to point to the cross as, using your phrase, " a torture/execution instrument", please point out even one place in Protestant writings where the author focused on the torture/execution as their object of pleasure or happiness.

There simply are no such claims in Christian writings, of any denomination. Protestants regard the cross the
same way you Roman Catholics do: In memory of our Savior's suffering and death in our place, as an atonement for the sins of Humanity.

---

Obviously, you didn't care for my labeling of the cross. I apologize. But that's exactly what a cross symbolized in Jesus' time. It was an execution devise created to humiliate and torture enemies of Rome. They didn't invent it, but the perfected it and its usage.

Having said that, Catholic DO look on the cross in the same way, if not honor it more, that our protestant brethren.

Every Good Friday, we have what is called Veneration of the cross. On Sept 14 of every year, we have a major feast day called Exaltation of the Holy Cross.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Now with regard to Mary, consider that we Christians all know the cross is a symbol for Christ's suffering, and we pray facing the cross, not praying to the cross but to our Savior whose suffering we remember.

---

Do you agree that many protestants bow and/or kneel at a cross?

Catholic pray facing a statue. We are not praying TO a statue. We know that the statue is made of wood, marble, plastic, whatever. We KNOW the statue is NOT God. We are asking the person that represented by the statue to pray for us.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Now praying to Mary means focusing on her. Praying to God while regarding the cross is focusing on God.

---

Our prayer isn't focused on Mary. It is asking her to pray for us. Asking a saint to pray for us while regard that Saint, is focusing on God.

If someone asks you to pray for them, are you focusing on God or that person? You are praying, but your focus on them. Shouldn't they just pray to God themselves?

---

** sigh **

I will admit this post from you tries my patience.

You, sir, were the one mocking Protestants for praying before a cross. Even as there just as many crosses in any Roman Catholic church as any Protestant church, and even as Roman Catholic priests wear crosses as often or more than Protestant ministers.

Shall I take it that you are tacitly retracting the slander you posted?

Now as to the point of praying to Mary. You are being dishonest to change my words, as I was clear the issue was not the statue of Mary but praying to Mary. I understand you see no wrong in this, but to Protestants this is seriously wrong, especially when done in a church.

I differ from BTD in calling it heresy, but please understand that Protestants consider the behavior deeply wrong.

Finally, there is a huge difference between asking someone you know and can physically ask to pray for you, from hoping that a dead person you never met will do so.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

Oldbear83 said:

---

Finally, there is a huge difference between asking someone you know and can physically ask to pray for you, from hoping that a dead person you never met will do so.

---

"whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?"
- Jesus
John 11:26

Simple statement, simple question. Why do some people insist on calling those whose physical bodies have fallen asleep in Christ, "dead"?

Oldbear, that difference you identify is only a difference in the mind of a secular materialist. It is not so in the teaching of Christ.