No, Jesus praised Peter's faith, this has been discussed many times.

As mentioned before, just moments after praising Peter's faith and calling it the rock on which He builds the Church, Jesus directly called Peter "Satan".

I'm pretty sure you will agree that Jesus never meant that Satan would lead His Church.

You, like BusyTarpDuster, get easily offended when called on your stunts.

That's your pride talking, son, and you should step back and pray for a better direction from the Holy Spirit.

Yogi said:

---

I find it utterly entertaining when human beings think they can do God's jpb for him.

The secret of life is understanding love.

---

Please state exactly what you think God's job is and how humans are trying to do it for him.

Coke Bear said:

---

First, the Catholic Church has NEVER said that those people won't be saved. I'm not sure why you don't understand that.

---

Are Trent's Anathemas Still In Force

"Whenever the pontiff pronounces an anathema, he uses a formula which ends with these words: "Wherefore in the name of God…in virtue of the power given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive (Name) of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."

I understand that since Vatican 2, the Roman Catholic Church has soft/back pedaled a good deal of its exclusivist teaching, to the point that Pope Leo is now making ecumenical gestures towards Muslims.

But it is pretty clear that for hundreds of years that Rome held that the Orthodox - and later the Protestants - were lost.

Realitybites said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

First, the Catholic Church has NEVER said that those people won't be saved. I'm not sure why you don't understand that.

---

Are Trent's Anathemas Still In Force

"Whenever the pontiff pronounces an anathema, he uses a formula which ends with these words: "Wherefore in the name of God…in virtue of the power given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive (Name) of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."

I understand that since Vatican 2, the Roman Catholic Church has soft/back pedaled a good deal of its exclusivist teaching, to the point that Pope Leo is now making ecumenical gestures towards Muslims.

But it is pretty clear that for hundreds of years that Rome held that the Orthodox - and later the Protestants - were lost.

---

You'll have to provide specific context to "ecumenical gestures towards Muslims." Pope Leo also is making ecumenical gestures toward the Orthodox Church as well.

With respect to the Anathemas, remember, anathema only applies to those who are/or once were Catholic.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You are illustrating precisely the failure of Roman Catholicism to understand that the body of Christ, aka his "Church", is not an institution run by fallible men. It is the entire body of believers that is headed by Jesus, guided by his Spirit, the Holy Spirit.

---

This is ANOTHER failure of protestantism. Your "entire body of believers" system is NOT logical.

In your system of different beliefs, each of the body would do whatever it wanted. It would be St Paul's vision coming true of eye saying to the hand, 'I have no need of you'. It would be the head saying to the feet, 'I have no need of you'.

The Body of Christ is not an either/or, it's a BOTH/AND. The Body of Christ encompasses the entire body of believers who are united with Christ thru baptism and live in communion with Him and his Church. It is a spiritual communion of believers across the world and throughout history, united by the Holy Spirit and participating in the life of Christ.

The Second Vatican Council, in Lumen Gentium, affirms this by teaching that the Church is both a visible institution and a spiritual community.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If there are disagreements between Christians regarding what Scripture means, it does not require a man-made teaching office run by fallible men that claims infallible authority over Scripture as well as the conscience of all other men. This is the primary error of the Roman Catholic Church. All her apostasy starts there, really.

---

First, you failed to answer the question about WHO gets to determine what scripture means when two "believers" disagree.

Second, the guides the Church and her Magisterium. Jesus told us that he would give us the paraclete/advocate in John 14. He descended at Pentecost on the Apostles to enable them to proclaim the Gospel. The Holy Spirit guided the Council of Jerusalem in the decision-making in Acts 15.

Finally, if there was an apostasy, the Jesus was wrong in Matt 16:18.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

here's no going astray here. Just your lack of understanding. Jesus was telling the Jews that the physical kingdom was not yet to come at that time, as they were expecting. It was to be a spiritual kingdom first..... then later, in the future, it would become a physical kingdom on earth with believers who have immortal physical bodies, bodies which have a spiritual quality too. It's a mystery that will be unveiled in the future, and it doesn't need to be understood fully at this time. The point was that Jesus talking about "eating his flesh" was pointing to his bodily sacrifice - that would be the beginning of the fulfillment of all of this. And the Jews who were followers, i.e. "disciples", could not understand.

---

There's a lot of weird dancing around the topic here that ignores what the entire chapter is presenting. Errors also exist in your post.

First, EVERYONE gets resurrected at the end of time, not just the believers. That demonstrates that your first point is moot.

Second, the ""eating his flesh" was pointing to his bodily sacrifice" is partially correct. He is indeed a sacrifice; however, it is only part of the whole. Your symbolic view ignores those disciples that walked away NOT because they thought he meant a symbolic eating. Your view also ignores the Jesus's my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink in John 6. Your symbolic view also ignores the literal eating at the Last Supper in three of the Gospels.

Finally, your symbolic view also ignores the St Paul in 1 Cor 11. In verses 23-26 he recounts the Last Supper. In verses 27-30, he describes the abuses and consequences of those abuses. The chapter closes with St Paul in verses 33-34 discussing eating.

Nowhere in 1 Cor 11, nor anywhere else in his epistles, does St Paul describe the eating and drinking as symbolic.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

CokeBear, it's clear that you're just repeating yourself, and going in circles. You reading your presumptions into the the very text that you present as "evidence" of your view. Your reasoning and logic are both so flawed that it's very painful to deal with, and very unfruitful at this point to engage, if I'm being honest. You're just putting arguments out there, just to put them out there, it seems.

Nothing really needs to be said other than the apostles themselves forbade Gentile Christians from drinking blood in Acts 15. So if the Roman Catholic belief that Jesus was being literal is correct, then the apostles were essentially damning Gentiles to Hell. And your response to this? That it was the apostles being "pastoral".

Pastoral. That's your argument. It's pastoral to send believers to Hell.

Nothing more needs to be said to show that your view is utterly wrong. I think the forum recognizes it too.

---

As Christians, can we now eat/drink blood, without the penalty of sin?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your church HAS to say that, do you not see? Because if Jesus' words are literal like you insist, then those who do NOT eat his flesh and drink his blood "have NO LIFE WITHIN THEM". Those are Jesus' "exact words", right?

If you deny this, then your church is in contradiction, yet again.

---

No, it doesn't. You are trying to make a strawman argument AGAIN. Your posts frequently deal in absolutes. Please show me the official Catholic that states this.

Unfortunately, this is what happens when one criticizes with NO desire to seek understanding first.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you won't believe me about John chapter 6, then how about Augustine?

"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John*6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine. Book 3 Chapter 16).

---

OK, I will agree that this appears to have symbolic meaning here. Catholics fully declare that a symbolic element exists in the Eucharist while at the same time contains the Real Presence. This is a protestantism either/or problem. It fails to understand the Both/And concept.

Having said that, let's look at Augustine …

Sermons 234, 2 (ca. AD 400):
The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize Him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body.

Explanations of the Psalms (ca. 400) 33,1,10:
"And he was carried in his own hands." But, brethren, how is it possible for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can be carried in his own hands. How this should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said: "This is My Body." For He carried that Body in His hands.

BTD2017 the problem that you, and many other protestants have, is taking ONE verse out of context to prove a point or build a theology. Just like you try to take ONE comment from Augustine to make your case without looking at his entire work.

Augustine clearly believes in the Real Presence.

Oldbear83 said:

---

No, Jesus praised Peter's faith, this has been discussed many times.

As mentioned before, just moments after praising Peter's faith and calling it the rock on which He builds the Church, Jesus directly called Peter "Satan".

I'm pretty sure you will agree that Jesus never meant that Satan would lead His Church.

You, like BusyTarpDuster, get easily offended when called on your stunts.

That's your pride talking, son, and you should step back and pray for a better direction from the Holy Spirit.

---

Oldbear83 I offer a sincere "Thank you" for providing substance to your post here. Now we can better have a discussion.

We could go back-and-forth about Matthew 16 and it meaning (and we can do that later, if you'd like), but I'll point to another reference to demonstrates Peter's leadership in Luke 22:31-32

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

When we look at the Greek, the passage reads like this (I've added my best Texan to help with the understanding)

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have (hymas) y'all, that he might sift (hymas) y'al like wheat, but I have prayed for (sou) you that (sou) your faith may not fail. And when (sy) you have turned again, strengthen your brothers"

Jesus is saying that Satan wants ALL of them, but Jesus is singularly praying for Peter - because he's going to lead them.

This passage immediately proceeds Jesus' prediction of Peter's betrayal. Jesus tells him that he is going to fail, but when he returns, that he is to strengthen his brothers.

We take this passage in combination of Peter's three-fold denial and with John 21's after-the-resurrection, Jesus' three-fold command to Peter, "Feed my lambs", "Tend my sheep" and "Feed my sheep".

Jesus is giving Peter his chance to redeem himself and instructing him as leader of those "sheep", the apostles.


PS - I'm not sure where you believe that I am offended. I ask for respectful discussion without trolling posts with no substance. I believed that I even privately PM'd you about this a few months ago.

I never got a response, so I left it alone.

Peace.

Thank you for your post, Coke Bear. I'd like to address the issue respectfully but also repeat my point, because I believe it's important beyond the common arguments we see here everyday.

If you go back to my last post, I noted that the arguments about Peter, and indeed Popes, have gone on for a very long time and there really is no purpose to the bickering, if the intent is somehow believe that 'this time they will understand and change their mind'.

There simply is no place in Scripture where Jesus plainly put Peter in charge, and the book of Acts makes plain that there were different leaders in different places, notably Paul led the Church in Rome, while Peter led in Jerusalem. The verses you have cited are plainly, IMIO, cherry-picked, just as I mentioned that the scripture you like so much about Jesus' praise of the Rock on which He built His Church, includes a verse where Jesus plainly called Peter 'Satan'. It seems very clear that simply labeling a verse something because you like it, does not decide the matter at all.

I do not see that an extended defense of an opinion makes any sense.

With that said, meant to explain my position and not 'prove' anything beyond that, there is something present which we Christians should guard against. Jesus was clear that we should pray for our enemies, and bless those who curse us. I would suggest that if we are to behave this way towards unbelievers, we should be especially patient and kind with others who try to follow Christ as well as they may.

Every generation has its vices to battle, and while alcohol and drugs have diminished in influence, it seems undeniable that the Internet has been a coarsening influence towards civility and polite disagreement. BusyTarpDuster would of course note that I have been guilty of petty and juvenile sniping at times, to which I must of course plead mea culpa, but I would add that I do at least recognize the problem and have been trying to be more civil. Others have been worse, especially in the last year, but have no intention of changing their attacks and jibes, much less taking accountability for their tone and spirit.

Jesus warned that we would be made to account for every careless word. I cannot imagine He is happy to see believers direct insults and attacks on other believers.

I am of course, imperfect and open to discussion on this point.

With goodwill to all and special thanks for patience, and humor, should such a thing be possible on this board.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You, like BusyTarpDuster, get easily offended when called on your stunts.

---

Total projection.

The only "stunt" from me is to present facts, sound logic, reasoning, and history.

If anyone performs stunts, it's been you, and you've been called out by everyone for it.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You are illustrating precisely the failure of Roman Catholicism to understand that the body of Christ, aka his "Church", is not an institution run by fallible men. It is the entire body of believers that is headed by Jesus, guided by his Spirit, the Holy Spirit.

---

This is ANOTHER failure of protestantism. Your "entire body of believers" system is NOT logical.

In your system of different beliefs, each of the body would do whatever it wanted. It would be St Paul's vision coming true of eye saying to the hand, 'I have no need of you'. It would be the head saying to the feet, 'I have no need of you'.

The Body of Christ is not an either/or, it's a BOTH/AND. The Body of Christ encompasses the entire body of believers who are united with Christ thru baptism and live in communion with Him and his Church. It is a spiritual communion of believers across the world and throughout history, united by the Holy Spirit and participating in the life of Christ.

The Second Vatican Council, in Lumen Gentium, affirms this by teaching that the Church is both a visible institution and a spiritual community.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If there are disagreements between Christians regarding what Scripture means, it does not require a man-made teaching office run by fallible men that claims infallible authority over Scripture as well as the conscience of all other men. This is the primary error of the Roman Catholic Church. All her apostasy starts there, really.

---

First, you failed to answer the question about WHO gets to determine what scripture means when two "believers" disagree.

Second, the guides the Church and her Magisterium. Jesus told us that he would give us the paraclete/advocate in John 14. He descended at Pentecost on the Apostles to enable them to proclaim the Gospel. The Holy Spirit guided the Council of Jerusalem in the decision-making in Acts 15.

Finally, if there was an apostasy, the Jesus was wrong in Matt 16:18.

---

The "church" of Jesus is visible in the sense that there are a finite number of believers with actual physical bodies, who reside in different areas around the globe.

It is NOT "visible" in the sense that there is ONE central command post that is headed by a man (who you call Holy Father, a complete heresy) and a "magisterium", all fallible men wearing fancy clothes and hats, who errantly claim infallible authority over interpretation and bind all believers to it. There is NO sacrament system, from which salvation can only be obtained, that only this central command post can dish out, thus giving all salvivic power to this central post.

The church of Jesus is headed by JESUS himself, and guided by his Holy Spirit to himself. If you doubt this, then look at the seven churches of Revelation - NO pope, NO magisterium, NO "Holy See - just Jesus and his message to his body of believers in different geographic areas.

Now, the body of believers are indeed "governed" in the sense that each geographical group is organized under their respective "authorities" (bishops/pastors/elders/deacons) and it is under these authorities they are bound to in terms of "rules" and "interpretations" of Scripture, and disagreements between believers can be handled within this system. But these "authorities" are ALWAYS under Jesus and his Holy Spirit, and under Scripture. They are NOT infallible. They are always subjected to err and correction, as Jesus makes absolutely clear in Revelation. And Jesus did NOT tell a central, infallible "pope" to tell what he said to all his believers.

If Jesus and his Holy Spirit truly does guide the Roman Catholic Church, in the same way he guided the Jerusalem council in Acts..... then there wouldn't be contradiction between them regarding the drinking of blood. So obviously, your claim is false. And this is notwithstanding all the Marian heresy and idolatry, and distorition of the gospel. And no, this would not mean Jesus was wrong in Matthew 16:18. Jesus never said that his church, or churches, would never go astray. Again, look at the seven churches of Revelation, and Paul chastising his churches to see this. This is yet another instance of your wrong interpretation of Scripture. And the way we're handling this "disagreement" between us here, is that I provided undeniable Scriptural proof and logic as to why you're wrong.

Seems you may want to read the post I left directly before yours, BTD.

Season's Greetings, sir.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

here's no going astray here. Just your lack of understanding. Jesus was telling the Jews that the physical kingdom was not yet to come at that time, as they were expecting. It was to be a spiritual kingdom first..... then later, in the future, it would become a physical kingdom on earth with believers who have immortal physical bodies, bodies which have a spiritual quality too. It's a mystery that will be unveiled in the future, and it doesn't need to be understood fully at this time. The point was that Jesus talking about "eating his flesh" was pointing to his bodily sacrifice - that would be the beginning of the fulfillment of all of this. And the Jews who were followers, i.e. "disciples", could not understand.

---

There's a lot of weird dancing around the topic here that ignores what the entire chapter is presenting. Errors also exist in your post.

First, EVERYONE gets resurrected at the end of time, not just the believers. That demonstrates that your first point is moot.

Second, the ""eating his flesh" was pointing to his bodily sacrifice" is partially correct. He is indeed a sacrifice; however, it is only part of the whole. Your symbolic view ignores those disciples that walked away NOT because they thought he meant a symbolic eating. Your view also ignores the Jesus's my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink in John 6. Your symbolic view also ignores the literal eating at the Last Supper in three of the Gospels.

Finally, your symbolic view also ignores the St Paul in 1 Cor 11. In verses 23-26 he recounts the Last Supper. In verses 27-30, he describes the abuses and consequences of those abuses. The chapter closes with St Paul in verses 33-34 discussing eating.

Nowhere in 1 Cor 11, nor anywhere else in his epistles, does St Paul describe the eating and drinking as symbolic.

---

Obviously, the resurrected unbelievers don't have immortal bodies and are not resurrected UNTO ETERNAL LiFE, and are not part of Jesus' kingdom - so no, my point is not moot.

And regarding the Eucharist, you're just recycling your arguments by reading into the text your preconceived assumptions that the meaning is literal. That has been debunked by all the arguments I've offered already, especially the fact that it is apparent that the apostles did NOT view Jesus as being literal, given that they prohibited Christians from drinking blood in Acts 15.

Neither does Paul not saying something is symbolic mean that it is not symbolic. This is just logical sloppiness, as well as a continuation of you reading your assumptions into the text, assumptions that already have been shown to be wrong in clear parts of the text.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

CokeBear, it's clear that you're just repeating yourself, and going in circles. You reading your presumptions into the the very text that you present as "evidence" of your view. Your reasoning and logic are both so flawed that it's very painful to deal with, and very unfruitful at this point to engage, if I'm being honest. You're just putting arguments out there, just to put them out there, it seems.

Nothing really needs to be said other than the apostles themselves forbade Gentile Christians from drinking blood in Acts 15. So if the Roman Catholic belief that Jesus was being literal is correct, then the apostles were essentially damning Gentiles to Hell. And your response to this? That it was the apostles being "pastoral".

Pastoral. That's your argument. It's pastoral to send believers to Hell.

Nothing more needs to be said to show that your view is utterly wrong. I think the forum recognizes it too.

---

As Christians, can we now eat/drink blood, without the penalty of sin?

---

If we are, or we aren't, is completely irrelevant. You continue to dodge the point. If YOUR VIEW is that we must drink literal blood in order to have eternal life, then the apostles' prohibition of drinking blood to all Christians in Acts 15 completely contradicts you. And you calling that being "pastoral" on the part of the apostles, only shows that you just don't know what you're talking about.

It's time to concede the argument, and stop looking silly. The apostles clearly did not take Jesus to be literal.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you won't believe me about John chapter 6, then how about Augustine?

"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John*6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine. Book 3 Chapter 16).

---

OK, I will agree that this appears to have symbolic meaning here. Catholics fully declare that a symbolic element exists in the Eucharist while at the same time contains the Real Presence. This is a protestantism either/or problem. It fails to understand the Both/And concept.

Having said that, let's look at Augustine …

Sermons 234, 2 (ca. AD 400):
The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize Him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body.

Explanations of the Psalms (ca. 400) 33,1,10:
"And he was carried in his own hands." But, brethren, how is it possible for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can be carried in his own hands. How this should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said: "This is My Body." For He carried that Body in His hands.

BTD2017 the problem that you, and many other protestants have, is taking ONE verse out of context to prove a point or build a theology. Just like you try to take ONE comment from Augustine to make your case without looking at his entire work.

Augustine clearly believes in the Real Presence.

---

But Augustine explicity tells us that John chapter 6 is figurative. Not "both/and". Therefore, to read his other quotes with the automatic assumption he is being literal is intellectually dishonest. Here are two main problems in your argumentation regarding this topic:

1) you repeatedly read literalism into the words of the church fathers, when they might be speaking symbolically in the same way that Jesus did. And then you offer these words of the church fathers as "evidence" of literalism, in the fashion of a circular argument, i.e. you beg the question. To give an example, suppose someone argues that the "living water" Jesus told the woman at the well about was literal water that we must physically drink. Then, to bolster his case, he cites the church fathers who say something along the lines of "we must drink the water, the living water, that Christ offers us" as proof that the church fathers were saying that this water is literal. See the problem? The church fathers are merely writing in a way that speaks of this water in a figurative sense, in the same way that Jesus did. They are not asserting that the water is literal water. The person is merely reading literalism into what the church fathers wrote, because that's his presupposed assumption, and it's a belief he WANTS to have, so he sees nothing else.

2) you repeatedly retreat to the argument, in motte-and-bailey fashion, that all the church fathers believed in the "Real Presence" - when the church fathers did not all believe that the "real presence" meant transsubstantiation, as you are asserting. The views among the church fathers regarding this topic were wide and varied. That's the actual history, not the false, "pick and choose" history that the Roman Catholic Church promotes.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Thank you for your post, Coke Bear. I'd like to address the issue respectfully but also repeat my point, because I believe it's important beyond the common arguments we see here everyday.

If you go back to my last post, I noted that the arguments about Peter, and indeed Popes, have gone on for a very long time and there really is no purpose to the bickering, if the intent is somehow believe that 'this time they will understand and change their mind'.

There simply is no place in Scripture where Jesus plainly put Peter in charge, and the book of Acts makes plain that there were different leaders in different places, notably Paul led the Church in Rome, while Peter led in Jerusalem. The verses you have cited are plainly, IMIO, cherry-picked, just as I mentioned that the scripture you like so much about Jesus' praise of the Rock on which He built His Church, includes a verse where Jesus plainly called Peter 'Satan'. It seems very clear that simply labeling a verse something because you like it, does not decide the matter at all.

I do not see that an extended defense of an opinion makes any sense.

With that said, meant to explain my position and not 'prove' anything beyond that, there is something present which we Christians should guard against. Jesus was clear that we should pray for our enemies, and bless those who curse us. I would suggest that if we are to behave this way towards unbelievers, we should be especially patient and kind with others who try to follow Christ as well as they may.

Every generation has its vices to battle, and while alcohol and drugs have diminished in influence, it seems undeniable that the Internet has been a coarsening influence towards civility and polite disagreement. BusyTarpDuster would of course note that I have been guilty of petty and juvenile sniping at times, to which I must of course plead mea culpa, but I would add that I do at least recognize the problem and have been trying to be more civil. Others have been worse, especially in the last year, but have no intention of changing their attacks and jibes, much less taking accountability for their tone and spirit.

Jesus warned that we would be made to account for every careless word. I cannot imagine He is happy to see believers direct insults and attacks on other believers.

I am of course, imperfect and open to discussion on this point.

With goodwill to all and special thanks for patience, and humor, should such a thing be possible on this board.

---

Thank you for your heartfelt post. You and I will, obviously, disagree about the nature and truth of the Papacy. Yes, of course, I can present a great a number apologies for the Peter being the first Bishop of Rome.

I will refrain from that in this post.

Having said that, I appreciate your spirit of ecumenism. My goal here isn't to convert anyone. Quite frankly, that's the job of the Holy Spirit.

I rarely post initial Catholic info.

For instance, Monday the Catholic Church celebrated the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. President Trump even issued a statement as such from the White House. I felt no need to post that here in some triumphant fashion. I would love to share information about tomorrow's Feast of Our Lady of Guadelupe, but I won't do that either. (Even though it changed the course of the New World.)

I don't refrain from posting these things because I am ashamed or embarrassed to be Catholic. On the contrary, I don't post them out of respect for the board being mostly conservative, Southern Baptist. I love sharing my faith. Maybe it's a weakness that I don't post these events; however, I feel that they would draw more heat than light. That's why I refrain from posting them.

I only post when I feel the desire to defend what the Catholic Church ACTUALLY teaches compared to the misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, or misrepresentations of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Thanks again and Peace!

Oldbear83 said:

---

Seems you may want to read the post I left directly before yours, BTD.

Season's Greetings, sir.

---

You don't get to attack people, and then exonerate yourself with a post where you denounce attacking and act as the gracious peacemaker.

This is game you play. It's passive aggressiveness. Pardon me if I'm just not fooled by it.

Fascinating, the difference in spirit displayed in the two posts above.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fascinating, the difference in spirit displayed in the two posts above.

---

Don't fool yourself. The whole "I'm okay, you're okay" and "it's all just bickering" vibe you're putting out is not from the spirit of God.

Did you see how CokeBear praised you for your "ecumenical spirit"? Ecumenism is NOT from God. Look into it. See what's going on, and the nature of the ecumenical movement that is being pushed, mostly by the Roman Catholic Church. Hopefully that will open your eyes.

Matthew 12:36-37: "But I tell you that men will give an account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

Proverbs 12:18: "There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing."

Ephesians 4:29: "Don't use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them."

Proverbs 10:19: "When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent."

Ephesians 5:6: "Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on the sons of disobedience."

In this Advent season, I hope these verses help us please the Lord with our service, rather than offend Him with our hubris.

"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." - Matthew 7:3-5

Really, I'm serious - look into what ecumenism is and how's it's happening, and how a Roman Catholic just told you that you had the "ecumenical spirit". Then maybe your passive agressive posting of verses meant to criticize all others except yourself might change to a different tune.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." - Matthew 7:3-5

---

Advice you would do well to take yourself, brother.

"criticize all others except yourself'


Proof you do not, in fact, read what I wrote.

I wrote this just yesterday:

" BusyTarpDuster would of course note that I have been guilty of petty and juvenile sniping at times, to which I must of course plead mea culpa, but I would add that I do at least recognize the problem and have been trying to be more civil."

In that same post I also wrote:

" I am of course, imperfect and open to discussion on this point."


With that point raised, BTD, I do not see even a single post where you have admitted error or being wrong.

Your insistence that you are always, absolutely right rivals the arrogance of the popes which I have challenged.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." - Matthew 7:3-5

---

Advice you would do well to take yourself, brother.

---

I would, except whenever I ask people like you who are criticizing me to point to exactly what I'm saying or doing wrong, they have nothing. Zilch. Every single time.

So I'll try again. What am I doing here, other than arguing facts, logic, and solid reasoning? Where am I arguing in a "rash" manner? What "careless" words am I speaking, that make me susceptible to judgement. Am I not just stating the truth? Just FYI, the "tone" argument is just a cop out.

So, can you back up your accusation? What is the "log" in my eye?

Oldbear83 said:

---

With that point raised, BTD, I do not see even a single post where you have admitted error or being wrong.

Your insistence that you are always, absolutely right rivals the arrogance of the popes which I have challenged.

---

Then don't tell me, SHOW me. Show me where I'm wrong.

The "arrogance" argument is just a tactic to avoid having to intellectually engage with what I'm saying. It's just a cop out.

The last two posts certainly say a lot.

About several things.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The last two posts certainly say a lot.

About several things.

---

There you go. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Zilch. Zero engagement. "I can throw out accusations all day.... and if they challenge my accusation, I will just use that as proof that my accusation is true."


What you're doing is so unproductive. And you're only projecting your own arrogance. I wish there was some way for you to be able to see that.

Ooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, the irony.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Ooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, the irony.

---

Why the "bickering" from you? Why don't you practice what you preach?

The point of the discussion is to look at the Biblical and Logical evidence from the other side and consider if it might me true or not. If Scripture opposes your view, then you need to admit you are wrong and go with Scripture.

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/

Galatians 5:22-23

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."


Just in case anyone wondered how Christians are expected by Jesus to behave.