BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

---

Is it okay to recite the Nicene Creed even though it was authored by others?

Is it okay to recite a prayer authored by any one other than Jesus?

Are reciting those in bad faith because they were authored by others?

It would have been much easier and much more efficient for you to simply read the link and deal with the substance of the argument rather than dying on some procedural hill. You would have been an example of grace and good faith. You might even get to exchange ideas and get closer to discovering truth (your purported goals in many of your posts). Instead, you choose procedural combat and then take offense when people compare you to a certain sect from the time of Jesus. Even then, you are wrong on procedure. Incorporation by reference is a perfectly acceptable way to efficiently convey ideas.

I can't decide if you are just a troll or if you really are straight out of the DSM. You were the child who took his ball and went home the instant it wasn't working out exactly the way you wanted it to go. Your pathological need to control others and their agency combined with your constant need for public validation betrays deep, deep insecurities and immaturity.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

And I also note the extreme irony of you, a Roman Catholic who rejects Paul's letters as inspired and who wants the Church to accept gay couples, trying to tell me about "good faith".

---

You are truly entering into Zealot-land...


As for my views, I didn't say he wasn't inspired (your word, I would never use that word!). I said I didn't like him...

As for Gays? We all have our crosses to bear, I cannot picture a world where Jesus would shun people because they are sinners. It may also take more than one look into mere mortal's eyers for the lightning bolt bringing them to around to God's word kicks in. Except you, as inspired as you are. Should Gay's be able to receive the Sacraments? Not when in a state of Mortal Sin. To be Gay, but not act on it, is not a sin. So, they should be included. Otherwise, you would pull their teeth out until they changed?

So lets's delve into your believes, you believe we should shun sinners and they should not have access to God's word and community until they are sinless. How Christ-like of you... (sarcasm, you would actually believe it...) You are a Prince...

---

So.. you're saying that Paul's letters, in which you described him as a "jerk", is the inspired word of God? God inspired Paul to be a "jerk"?

And regarding gays, be clear - you believe the Church should accept within its doors as part of the congregation, homosexual couples who are NOT repentant of their lifestyle? Do you believe your Church should recognize and bless same sex "unions"? Be clear, don't be evasive as you and your friends are prone to being.

---

Talk about evasive LMAO

Yep, I could explain that there's initial justification at baptism and ongoing sanctification through the sacraments, both of which are referred to as justification in Scripture. Then I'd get the whole "double-talk" diatribe all over again. I posted the link hoping he might have to engage with the content since the author isn't here for him to dump on. But I've concluded he's just looking for someone or something to rant and rave at.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

---

Is it okay to recite the Nicene Creed even though it was authored by others?

Is it okay to recite a prayer authored by any one other than Jesus?

Are reciting those in bad faith because they were authored by others?

It would have been much easier and much more efficient for you to simply read the link and deal with the substance of the argument rather than dying on some procedural hill. You would have been an example of grace and good faith. You might even get to exchange ideas and get closer to discovering truth (your purported goals in many of your posts). Instead, you choose procedural combat and then take offense when people compare you to a certain sect from the time of Jesus. Even then, you are wrong on procedure. Incorporation by reference is a perfectly acceptable way to efficiently convey ideas.

I can't decide if you are just a troll or if you really are straight out of the DSM. You were the child who took his ball and went home the instant it wasn't working out exactly the way you wanted it to go. Your pathological need to control others and their agency combined with your constant need for public validation betrays deep, deep insecurities and immaturity.

---

Think about what you just argued. You're taking about actually reciting a creed, not merely providing a link to it. Maybe when it's time for you to recite your creeds in church, you can just give the priest or the congregation a link to nicene-creed.com so you don't have to say it. It'd be a lot easier, wouldn't it?

Stop being too stubborn and dishonest to actually understand the nature of the issue here.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

And I also note the extreme irony of you, a Roman Catholic who rejects Paul's letters as inspired and who wants the Church to accept gay couples, trying to tell me about "good faith".

---

You are truly entering into Zealot-land...


As for my views, I didn't say he wasn't inspired (your word, I would never use that word!). I said I didn't like him...

As for Gays? We all have our crosses to bear, I cannot picture a world where Jesus would shun people because they are sinners. It may also take more than one look into mere mortal's eyers for the lightning bolt bringing them to around to God's word kicks in. Except you, as inspired as you are. Should Gay's be able to receive the Sacraments? Not when in a state of Mortal Sin. To be Gay, but not act on it, is not a sin. So, they should be included. Otherwise, you would pull their teeth out until they changed?

So lets's delve into your believes, you believe we should shun sinners and they should not have access to God's word and community until they are sinless. How Christ-like of you... (sarcasm, you would actually believe it...) You are a Prince...

---

So.. you're saying that Paul's letters, in which you described him as a "jerk", is the inspired word of God? God inspired Paul to be a "jerk"?

And regarding gays, be clear - you believe the Church should accept within its doors as part of the congregation, homosexual couples who are NOT repentant of their lifestyle? Do you believe your Church should recognize and bless same sex "unions"? Be clear, don't be evasive as you and your friends are prone to being.

---

Talk about evasive LMAO

---

It's not evasive if you're capable of understanding that I'm implicitly giving my position in that answer.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Yep, I could explain that there's initial justification at baptism and ongoing sanctification through the sacraments, both of which are referred to as justification in Scripture. Then I'd get the whole "double-talk" diatribe all over again. I posted the link hoping he might have to engage with the content since the author isn't here for him to dump on. But I've concluded he's just looking for someone or something to rant and rave at.

---

What I'm hearing is that you know that what that article you linked to is double talk, and you're afraid of me calling it out.

That's the whole point of this exercise. It's why I don't want links, I actually want people to think things through for themselves, which requires you to read your own link and decide if it makes sense to you and whether you actually believe it. It seems as if you know the argument is shaky and hard to defend. See, I couldn't get this from you if you just defer to links.

Now, you finally gave an answer (thank you) so let's deal with that. "Initial justification at baptism" - I counter that with this: didn't we just see in Romans 10:10 that "with the heart one believes and is justified"? So how do you square your position with Scripture? Water baptism is a sacramental act, not belief from the heart. Is Paul wrong?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

---

Is it okay to recite the Nicene Creed even though it was authored by others?

Is it okay to recite a prayer authored by any one other than Jesus?

Are reciting those in bad faith because they were authored by others?

It would have been much easier and much more efficient for you to simply read the link and deal with the substance of the argument rather than dying on some procedural hill. You would have been an example of grace and good faith. You might even get to exchange ideas and get closer to discovering truth (your purported goals in many of your posts). Instead, you choose procedural combat and then take offense when people compare you to a certain sect from the time of Jesus. Even then, you are wrong on procedure. Incorporation by reference is a perfectly acceptable way to efficiently convey ideas.

I can't decide if you are just a troll or if you really are straight out of the DSM. You were the child who took his ball and went home the instant it wasn't working out exactly the way you wanted it to go. Your pathological need to control others and their agency combined with your constant need for public validation betrays deep, deep insecurities and immaturity.

---

Think about what you just argued. You're taking about actually reciting a creed, not merely providing a link to it. Maybe when it's time for you to recite your creeds in church, you can just give the priest or the congregation a link to nicene-creed.com so you don't have to say it. It'd be a lot easier, wouldn't it?

Stop being too stubborn and dishonest to actually understand the nature of the issue here.

---

Ah yes, this is the part where you pretend not to understand English and just make stuff up.

First off, I didn't argue anything. I asked exploratory questions. Learn the difference between an argument and an inquiry. Stop rephrasing things and just honestly address what is presented. This is very representative of your bad faith. I thought Obama was the world's worst arsonist who built fields of straw men just to light them on fire, but you are giving him a run for his money.

Second, you said to Sam the following:

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

So, I'm asking you: is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? If not, please differentiate using a creed authored by others from incorporating by reference the words of theologian. Please consider including into your discourse the relative differences between a worship service and an online message board.

I understand the nature of the issue perfectly. Sam gave you an answer drafted by an apologist. An answer that takes less than ten minutes to read. The post makes a thought-provoking argument that you could actually address on the merits. All of this within the context that you ask every single Catholic to answer for every last comma and period in Catholic theology for thousands of years, yet the moment you are given a reference to an apologist of the Catholic Church this is beyond the pale for you….

Yet instead you want to argue a procedural basis. I know what someone seeking a better understanding of God's truth would do; especially someone who claims to want to disciple others into God's kingdom. I also know what a gaslighter would do. And just in case you truly lack self-understanding, you are not in the former category.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

And I also note the extreme irony of you, a Roman Catholic who rejects Paul's letters as inspired and who wants the Church to accept gay couples, trying to tell me about "good faith".

---

You are truly entering into Zealot-land...


As for my views, I didn't say he wasn't inspired (your word, I would never use that word!). I said I didn't like him...

As for Gays? We all have our crosses to bear, I cannot picture a world where Jesus would shun people because they are sinners. It may also take more than one look into mere mortal's eyers for the lightning bolt bringing them to around to God's word kicks in. Except you, as inspired as you are. Should Gay's be able to receive the Sacraments? Not when in a state of Mortal Sin. To be Gay, but not act on it, is not a sin. So, they should be included. Otherwise, you would pull their teeth out until they changed?

So lets's delve into your believes, you believe we should shun sinners and they should not have access to God's word and community until they are sinless. How Christ-like of you... (sarcasm, you would actually believe it...) You are a Prince...

---

So.. you're saying that Paul's letters, in which you described him as a "jerk", is the inspired word of God? God inspired Paul to be a "jerk"?

And regarding gays, be clear - you believe the Church should accept within its doors as part of the congregation, homosexual couples who are NOT repentant of their lifestyle? Do you believe your Church should recognize and bless same sex "unions"? Be clear, don't be evasive as you and your friends are prone to being.

---

Talk about evasive LMAO

---

It's not evasive if you're capable of understanding that I'm implicitly giving my position in that answer.

---

He said gays not in a state of mortal sin should receive sacraments; a gay person participating in a gay relationship is obviously in a state of mortal sin. It's pretty clear…

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Yep, I could explain that there's initial justification at baptism and ongoing sanctification through the sacraments, both of which are referred to as justification in Scripture. Then I'd get the whole "double-talk" diatribe all over again. I posted the link hoping he might have to engage with the content since the author isn't here for him to dump on. But I've concluded he's just looking for someone or something to rant and rave at.

---

What I'm hearing is that you know that what that article you linked to is double talk, and you're afraid of me calling it out.

That's the whole point of this exercise. It's why I don't want links, I actually want people to think things through for themselves, which requires you to read your own link and decide if it makes sense to you and whether you actually believe it. It seems as if you know the argument is shaky and hard to defend. See, I couldn't get this from you if you just defer to links.

Now, you finally gave an answer (thank you) so let's deal with that. "Initial justification at baptism" - I counter that with this: didn't we just see in Romans 10:10 that "with the heart one believes and is justified"? So how do you square your position with Scripture? Water baptism is a sacramental act, not belief from the heart. Is Paul wrong?

---

You really can't make this stuff up.

*Sam*: "I did this because XYZ."

*BTD*: "what I am really hearing is that I am right and you know it."

*Sam*: "No, I meant what I said."

*BRD*: "Arghhh. I know what you really mean. Why won't any of you be honest."

Just pages and pages like this.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

---

Is it okay to recite the Nicene Creed even though it was authored by others?

Is it okay to recite a prayer authored by any one other than Jesus?

Are reciting those in bad faith because they were authored by others?

It would have been much easier and much more efficient for you to simply read the link and deal with the substance of the argument rather than dying on some procedural hill. You would have been an example of grace and good faith. You might even get to exchange ideas and get closer to discovering truth (your purported goals in many of your posts). Instead, you choose procedural combat and then take offense when people compare you to a certain sect from the time of Jesus. Even then, you are wrong on procedure. Incorporation by reference is a perfectly acceptable way to efficiently convey ideas.

I can't decide if you are just a troll or if you really are straight out of the DSM. You were the child who took his ball and went home the instant it wasn't working out exactly the way you wanted it to go. Your pathological need to control others and their agency combined with your constant need for public validation betrays deep, deep insecurities and immaturity.

---

Think about what you just argued. You're taking about actually reciting a creed, not merely providing a link to it. Maybe when it's time for you to recite your creeds in church, you can just give the priest or the congregation a link to nicene-creed.com so you don't have to say it. It'd be a lot easier, wouldn't it?

Stop being too stubborn and dishonest to actually understand the nature of the issue here.

---

Ah yes, this is the part where you pretend not to understand English and just make stuff up.

First off, I didn't argue anything. I asked exploratory questions. Learn the difference between an argument and an inquiry. Stop rephrasing things and just honestly address what is presented. This is very representative of your bad faith. I thought Obama was the world's worst arsonist who built fields of straw men just to light them on fire, but you are giving him a run for his money.

Second, you said to Sam the following:

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

So, I'm asking you: is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? If not, please differentiate using a creed authored by others from incorporating by reference the words of theologian. Please consider including into your discourse the relative differences between a worship service and an online message board.

I understand the nature of the issue perfectly. Sam gave you an answer drafted by an apologist. An answer that takes less than ten minutes to read. The post makes a thought-provoking argument that you could actually address on the merits. All of this within the context that you ask every single Catholic to answer for every last comma and period in Catholic theology for thousands of years, yet the moment you are given a reference to an apologist of the Catholic Church this is beyond the pale for you….

Yet instead you want to argue a procedural basis. I know what someone seeking a better understanding of God's truth would do; especially someone who claims to want to disciple others into God's kingdom. I also know what a gaslighter would do. And just in case you truly lack self-understanding, you are not in the former category.

---

Again- Sam recited nothing. He only gave a link. At least with a recitation, there is evidence that you know what was said, and perhaps the meaning of which had even passed through your brain.

So no, you don't understand the issue. But it IS funny that you think that giving your church a link to the Nicene Creed instead of reciting it yourself suffices.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

And I also note the extreme irony of you, a Roman Catholic who rejects Paul's letters as inspired and who wants the Church to accept gay couples, trying to tell me about "good faith".

---

You are truly entering into Zealot-land...


As for my views, I didn't say he wasn't inspired (your word, I would never use that word!). I said I didn't like him...

As for Gays? We all have our crosses to bear, I cannot picture a world where Jesus would shun people because they are sinners. It may also take more than one look into mere mortal's eyers for the lightning bolt bringing them to around to God's word kicks in. Except you, as inspired as you are. Should Gay's be able to receive the Sacraments? Not when in a state of Mortal Sin. To be Gay, but not act on it, is not a sin. So, they should be included. Otherwise, you would pull their teeth out until they changed?

So lets's delve into your believes, you believe we should shun sinners and they should not have access to God's word and community until they are sinless. How Christ-like of you... (sarcasm, you would actually believe it...) You are a Prince...

---

So.. you're saying that Paul's letters, in which you described him as a "jerk", is the inspired word of God? God inspired Paul to be a "jerk"?

And regarding gays, be clear - you believe the Church should accept within its doors as part of the congregation, homosexual couples who are NOT repentant of their lifestyle? Do you believe your Church should recognize and bless same sex "unions"? Be clear, don't be evasive as you and your friends are prone to being.

---

Talk about evasive LMAO

---

It's not evasive if you're capable of understanding that I'm implicitly giving my position in that answer.

---

He said gays not in a state of mortal sin should receive sacraments; a gay person participating in a gay relationship is obviously in a state of mortal sin. It's pretty clear…

---

But I didn't ask about receiving sacraments, did I?

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Yep, I could explain that there's initial justification at baptism and ongoing sanctification through the sacraments, both of which are referred to as justification in Scripture. Then I'd get the whole "double-talk" diatribe all over again. I posted the link hoping he might have to engage with the content since the author isn't here for him to dump on. But I've concluded he's just looking for someone or something to rant and rave at.

---

What I'm hearing is that you know that what that article you linked to is double talk, and you're afraid of me calling it out.

That's the whole point of this exercise. It's why I don't want links, I actually want people to think things through for themselves, which requires you to read your own link and decide if it makes sense to you and whether you actually believe it. It seems as if you know the argument is shaky and hard to defend. See, I couldn't get this from you if you just defer to links.

Now, you finally gave an answer (thank you) so let's deal with that. "Initial justification at baptism" - I counter that with this: didn't we just see in Romans 10:10 that "with the heart one believes and is justified"? So how do you square your position with Scripture? Water baptism is a sacramental act, not belief from the heart. Is Paul wrong?

---

You really can't make this stuff up.

*Sam*: "I did this because XYZ."

*BTD*: "what I am really hearing is that I am right and you know it."

*Sam*: "No, I meant what I said."

*BRD*: "Arghhh. I know what you really mean. Why won't any of you be honest."

Just pages and pages like this.

---

"You really can't make this stuff up"

You just did.

Hey Roman Catholics -

Maybe stop trying to attack the person instead of dealing with the serious issues in your views that he challenges you with? The people in the forum knows what this usually means. It's not lost on the folks here that you've all spent so much energy running away from the issue rather than actually addressing it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

And I also note the extreme irony of you, a Roman Catholic who rejects Paul's letters as inspired and who wants the Church to accept gay couples, trying to tell me about "good faith".

---

You are truly entering into Zealot-land...


As for my views, I didn't say he wasn't inspired (your word, I would never use that word!). I said I didn't like him...

As for Gays? We all have our crosses to bear, I cannot picture a world where Jesus would shun people because they are sinners. It may also take more than one look into mere mortal's eyers for the lightning bolt bringing them to around to God's word kicks in. Except you, as inspired as you are. Should Gay's be able to receive the Sacraments? Not when in a state of Mortal Sin. To be Gay, but not act on it, is not a sin. So, they should be included. Otherwise, you would pull their teeth out until they changed?

So lets's delve into your believes, you believe we should shun sinners and they should not have access to God's word and community until they are sinless. How Christ-like of you... (sarcasm, you would actually believe it...) You are a Prince...

---

So.. you're saying that Paul's letters, in which you described him as a "jerk", is the inspired word of God? God inspired Paul to be a "jerk"?

And regarding gays, be clear - you believe the Church should accept within its doors as part of the congregation, homosexual couples who are NOT repentant of their lifestyle? Do you believe your Church should recognize and bless same sex "unions"? Be clear, don't be evasive as you and your friends are prone to being.

---

Talk about evasive LMAO

---

It's not evasive if you're capable of understanding that I'm implicitly giving my position in that answer.

---

He said gays not in a state of mortal sin should receive sacraments; a gay person participating in a gay relationship is obviously in a state of mortal sin. It's pretty clear…

---

But I didn't ask about receiving sacraments, did I?

---

Cmon buddy… read between the tea leaves.

If a gay person (in a state of grace) is receiving sacraments at mass, wouldn't ya say he's accepted as part of the congregation?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

---

Is it okay to recite the Nicene Creed even though it was authored by others?

Is it okay to recite a prayer authored by any one other than Jesus?

Are reciting those in bad faith because they were authored by others?

It would have been much easier and much more efficient for you to simply read the link and deal with the substance of the argument rather than dying on some procedural hill. You would have been an example of grace and good faith. You might even get to exchange ideas and get closer to discovering truth (your purported goals in many of your posts). Instead, you choose procedural combat and then take offense when people compare you to a certain sect from the time of Jesus. Even then, you are wrong on procedure. Incorporation by reference is a perfectly acceptable way to efficiently convey ideas.

I can't decide if you are just a troll or if you really are straight out of the DSM. You were the child who took his ball and went home the instant it wasn't working out exactly the way you wanted it to go. Your pathological need to control others and their agency combined with your constant need for public validation betrays deep, deep insecurities and immaturity.

---

Think about what you just argued. You're taking about actually reciting a creed, not merely providing a link to it. Maybe when it's time for you to recite your creeds in church, you can just give the priest or the congregation a link to nicene-creed.com so you don't have to say it. It'd be a lot easier, wouldn't it?

Stop being too stubborn and dishonest to actually understand the nature of the issue here.

---

Ah yes, this is the part where you pretend not to understand English and just make stuff up.

First off, I didn't argue anything. I asked exploratory questions. Learn the difference between an argument and an inquiry. Stop rephrasing things and just honestly address what is presented. This is very representative of your bad faith. I thought Obama was the world's worst arsonist who built fields of straw men just to light them on fire, but you are giving him a run for his money.

Second, you said to Sam the following:

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

So, I'm asking you: is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? If not, please differentiate using a creed authored by others from incorporating by reference the words of theologian. Please consider including into your discourse the relative differences between a worship service and an online message board.

I understand the nature of the issue perfectly. Sam gave you an answer drafted by an apologist. An answer that takes less than ten minutes to read. The post makes a thought-provoking argument that you could actually address on the merits. All of this within the context that you ask every single Catholic to answer for every last comma and period in Catholic theology for thousands of years, yet the moment you are given a reference to an apologist of the Catholic Church this is beyond the pale for you….

Yet instead you want to argue a procedural basis. I know what someone seeking a better understanding of God's truth would do; especially someone who claims to want to disciple others into God's kingdom. I also know what a gaslighter would do. And just in case you truly lack self-understanding, you are not in the former category.

---

Again- Sam recited nothing. He only gave a link. At least with a recitation, there is evidence that you know what was said, and perhaps the meaning of which had even passed through your brain.

So no, you don't understand the issue. But it IS funny that you think that giving your church a link to the Nicene Creed instead of reciting it yourself suffices.

---

You're shifting the goal posts. So, to isolate the questions:

In rejecting Sam's use of a link, you said to Sam the following:

Quote:

---

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

---

SO, the questions are:

Is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words the ideas conveyed by the Nicene Creed and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? Is recitation of the Nicene Creed a sign of tribalism?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Yep, I could explain that there's initial justification at baptism and ongoing sanctification through the sacraments, both of which are referred to as justification in Scripture. Then I'd get the whole "double-talk" diatribe all over again. I posted the link hoping he might have to engage with the content since the author isn't here for him to dump on. But I've concluded he's just looking for someone or something to rant and rave at.

---

What I'm hearing is that you know that what that article you linked to is double talk, and you're afraid of me calling it out.

That's the whole point of this exercise. It's why I don't want links, I actually want people to think things through for themselves, which requires you to read your own link and decide if it makes sense to you and whether you actually believe it. It seems as if you know the argument is shaky and hard to defend. See, I couldn't get this from you if you just defer to links.

Now, you finally gave an answer (thank you) so let's deal with that. "Initial justification at baptism" - I counter that with this: didn't we just see in Romans 10:10 that "with the heart one believes and is justified"? So how do you square your position with Scripture? Water baptism is a sacramental act, not belief from the heart. Is Paul wrong?

---

You really can't make this stuff up.

*Sam*: "I did this because XYZ."

*BTD*: "what I am really hearing is that I am right and you know it."

*Sam*: "No, I meant what I said."

*BRD*: "Arghhh. I know what you really mean. Why won't any of you be honest."

Just pages and pages like this.

---

"You really can't make this stuff up"

You just did.

---

Tell me the untruth (conceding that I am paraphrasing above) and I'll endeavor to address it.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

And I also note the extreme irony of you, a Roman Catholic who rejects Paul's letters as inspired and who wants the Church to accept gay couples, trying to tell me about "good faith".

---

You are truly entering into Zealot-land...


As for my views, I didn't say he wasn't inspired (your word, I would never use that word!). I said I didn't like him...

As for Gays? We all have our crosses to bear, I cannot picture a world where Jesus would shun people because they are sinners. It may also take more than one look into mere mortal's eyers for the lightning bolt bringing them to around to God's word kicks in. Except you, as inspired as you are. Should Gay's be able to receive the Sacraments? Not when in a state of Mortal Sin. To be Gay, but not act on it, is not a sin. So, they should be included. Otherwise, you would pull their teeth out until they changed?

So lets's delve into your believes, you believe we should shun sinners and they should not have access to God's word and community until they are sinless. How Christ-like of you... (sarcasm, you would actually believe it...) You are a Prince...

---

So.. you're saying that Paul's letters, in which you described him as a "jerk", is the inspired word of God? God inspired Paul to be a "jerk"?

And regarding gays, be clear - you believe the Church should accept within its doors as part of the congregation, homosexual couples who are NOT repentant of their lifestyle? Do you believe your Church should recognize and bless same sex "unions"? Be clear, don't be evasive as you and your friends are prone to being.

---

Talk about evasive LMAO

---

It's not evasive if you're capable of understanding that I'm implicitly giving my position in that answer.

---

He said gays not in a state of mortal sin should receive sacraments; a gay person participating in a gay relationship is obviously in a state of mortal sin. It's pretty clear…

---

But I didn't ask about receiving sacraments, did I?

---

Cmon buddy… read between the tea leaves.

If a gay person (in a state of grace) is receiving sacraments at mass, wouldn't ya say he's accepted as part of the congregation?

---

No, not necessarily, with regard to what he believes. Why don't YOU ask him? Notice how he's been evasive at my request for clarification. Tells you something, doesn't it?

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

---

Is it okay to recite the Nicene Creed even though it was authored by others?

Is it okay to recite a prayer authored by any one other than Jesus?

Are reciting those in bad faith because they were authored by others?

It would have been much easier and much more efficient for you to simply read the link and deal with the substance of the argument rather than dying on some procedural hill. You would have been an example of grace and good faith. You might even get to exchange ideas and get closer to discovering truth (your purported goals in many of your posts). Instead, you choose procedural combat and then take offense when people compare you to a certain sect from the time of Jesus. Even then, you are wrong on procedure. Incorporation by reference is a perfectly acceptable way to efficiently convey ideas.

I can't decide if you are just a troll or if you really are straight out of the DSM. You were the child who took his ball and went home the instant it wasn't working out exactly the way you wanted it to go. Your pathological need to control others and their agency combined with your constant need for public validation betrays deep, deep insecurities and immaturity.

---

Think about what you just argued. You're taking about actually reciting a creed, not merely providing a link to it. Maybe when it's time for you to recite your creeds in church, you can just give the priest or the congregation a link to nicene-creed.com so you don't have to say it. It'd be a lot easier, wouldn't it?

Stop being too stubborn and dishonest to actually understand the nature of the issue here.

---

Ah yes, this is the part where you pretend not to understand English and just make stuff up.

First off, I didn't argue anything. I asked exploratory questions. Learn the difference between an argument and an inquiry. Stop rephrasing things and just honestly address what is presented. This is very representative of your bad faith. I thought Obama was the world's worst arsonist who built fields of straw men just to light them on fire, but you are giving him a run for his money.

Second, you said to Sam the following:

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

So, I'm asking you: is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? If not, please differentiate using a creed authored by others from incorporating by reference the words of theologian. Please consider including into your discourse the relative differences between a worship service and an online message board.

I understand the nature of the issue perfectly. Sam gave you an answer drafted by an apologist. An answer that takes less than ten minutes to read. The post makes a thought-provoking argument that you could actually address on the merits. All of this within the context that you ask every single Catholic to answer for every last comma and period in Catholic theology for thousands of years, yet the moment you are given a reference to an apologist of the Catholic Church this is beyond the pale for you….

Yet instead you want to argue a procedural basis. I know what someone seeking a better understanding of God's truth would do; especially someone who claims to want to disciple others into God's kingdom. I also know what a gaslighter would do. And just in case you truly lack self-understanding, you are not in the former category.

---

Again- Sam recited nothing. He only gave a link. At least with a recitation, there is evidence that you know what was said, and perhaps the meaning of which had even passed through your brain.

So no, you don't understand the issue. But it IS funny that you think that giving your church a link to the Nicene Creed instead of reciting it yourself suffices.

---

You're shifting the goal posts. So, to isolate the questions:

In rejecting Sam's use of a link, you said to Sam the following:

Quote:

---

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

---

SO, the questions are:

Is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words the ideas conveyed by the Nicene Creed and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? Is recitation of the Nicene Creed a sign of tribalism?

---

Reciting the Nicene Creed, without understanding what it means, or knowing that it is indeed what you believe, is tribalism, yes.

However, at least a personal recitation of a belief, even if gotten from a link, is better than just merely giving the link. That'd be like defending your faith by directing people to bible.com. By personally reciting, there's at least a chance that the person actually thought about what he was reciting, and whether it actually conforms to what he truly believes, or whether it even makes sense to him at all.

No goal post shifting here. Just you whiffing on the kick.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Yep, I could explain that there's initial justification at baptism and ongoing sanctification through the sacraments, both of which are referred to as justification in Scripture. Then I'd get the whole "double-talk" diatribe all over again. I posted the link hoping he might have to engage with the content since the author isn't here for him to dump on. But I've concluded he's just looking for someone or something to rant and rave at.

---

What I'm hearing is that you know that what that article you linked to is double talk, and you're afraid of me calling it out.

That's the whole point of this exercise. It's why I don't want links, I actually want people to think things through for themselves, which requires you to read your own link and decide if it makes sense to you and whether you actually believe it. It seems as if you know the argument is shaky and hard to defend. See, I couldn't get this from you if you just defer to links.

Now, you finally gave an answer (thank you) so let's deal with that. "Initial justification at baptism" - I counter that with this: didn't we just see in Romans 10:10 that "with the heart one believes and is justified"? So how do you square your position with Scripture? Water baptism is a sacramental act, not belief from the heart. Is Paul wrong?

---

You really can't make this stuff up.

*Sam*: "I did this because XYZ."

*BTD*: "what I am really hearing is that I am right and you know it."

*Sam*: "No, I meant what I said."

*BRD*: "Arghhh. I know what you really mean. Why won't any of you be honest."

Just pages and pages like this.

---

"You really can't make this stuff up"

You just did.

---

Tell me the untruth (conceding that I am paraphrasing above) and I'll endeavor to address it.

---

You're completely misrepresenting what is going on (no surprise). Here's the actual story:

Sam: justification is by sacraments
Me: Romans 10:10 says justification is with the heart by our belief, i.e. faith.
Sam: No, justification is by faith AND works
Me: So is Paul wrong?
Sam: We are not saved by our works (notice that's not what I asked, it's a dodge)
Me: But how can we be justified by our works, but not saved by our works?
Sam: Here's a link to explain it.
Me: No, YOU explain it. I'm asking what YOU believe. If you just give a link, you're just copping out from having to think about it for yourself, and express it as your own belief/understanding. If you do this, you might be able to understand my point.
Sam: No, you'll just say it's double talk.
Me: Maybe because you know it's double talk? Try me.
Sam: Okay, initial justification is at baptism, and it's ongoing through the sacraments
Me: But that circles back to your original problem - Scripture clearly says we are justified with our heart, not by our actions.


I can't get you guys to understand your error, if you're not going to engage me with what YOU understand. Dodging it by deferring to a link helps you escape having to think through this for yourself. Can you finally understand this?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

---

Is it okay to recite the Nicene Creed even though it was authored by others?

Is it okay to recite a prayer authored by any one other than Jesus?

Are reciting those in bad faith because they were authored by others?

It would have been much easier and much more efficient for you to simply read the link and deal with the substance of the argument rather than dying on some procedural hill. You would have been an example of grace and good faith. You might even get to exchange ideas and get closer to discovering truth (your purported goals in many of your posts). Instead, you choose procedural combat and then take offense when people compare you to a certain sect from the time of Jesus. Even then, you are wrong on procedure. Incorporation by reference is a perfectly acceptable way to efficiently convey ideas.

I can't decide if you are just a troll or if you really are straight out of the DSM. You were the child who took his ball and went home the instant it wasn't working out exactly the way you wanted it to go. Your pathological need to control others and their agency combined with your constant need for public validation betrays deep, deep insecurities and immaturity.

---

Think about what you just argued. You're taking about actually reciting a creed, not merely providing a link to it. Maybe when it's time for you to recite your creeds in church, you can just give the priest or the congregation a link to nicene-creed.com so you don't have to say it. It'd be a lot easier, wouldn't it?

Stop being too stubborn and dishonest to actually understand the nature of the issue here.

---

Ah yes, this is the part where you pretend not to understand English and just make stuff up.

First off, I didn't argue anything. I asked exploratory questions. Learn the difference between an argument and an inquiry. Stop rephrasing things and just honestly address what is presented. This is very representative of your bad faith. I thought Obama was the world's worst arsonist who built fields of straw men just to light them on fire, but you are giving him a run for his money.

Second, you said to Sam the following:

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

So, I'm asking you: is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? If not, please differentiate using a creed authored by others from incorporating by reference the words of theologian. Please consider including into your discourse the relative differences between a worship service and an online message board.

I understand the nature of the issue perfectly. Sam gave you an answer drafted by an apologist. An answer that takes less than ten minutes to read. The post makes a thought-provoking argument that you could actually address on the merits. All of this within the context that you ask every single Catholic to answer for every last comma and period in Catholic theology for thousands of years, yet the moment you are given a reference to an apologist of the Catholic Church this is beyond the pale for you….

Yet instead you want to argue a procedural basis. I know what someone seeking a better understanding of God's truth would do; especially someone who claims to want to disciple others into God's kingdom. I also know what a gaslighter would do. And just in case you truly lack self-understanding, you are not in the former category.

---

Again- Sam recited nothing. He only gave a link. At least with a recitation, there is evidence that you know what was said, and perhaps the meaning of which had even passed through your brain.

So no, you don't understand the issue. But it IS funny that you think that giving your church a link to the Nicene Creed instead of reciting it yourself suffices.

---

You're shifting the goal posts. So, to isolate the questions:

In rejecting Sam's use of a link, you said to Sam the following:

Quote:

---

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

---

SO, the questions are:

Is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words the ideas conveyed by the Nicene Creed and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? Is recitation of the Nicene Creed a sign of tribalism?

---

Reciting the Nicene Creed, without understanding what it means, or knowing that it is indeed what you believe, is tribalism, yes.

However, at least a personal recitation of a belief, even if gotten from a link, is better than just merely giving the link. That'd be like defending your faith by directing people to bible.com. By personally reciting, there's at least a chance that the person actually thought about what he was reciting, and whether it actually conforms to what he truly believes, or whether it even makes sense to him at all.

No goal post shifting here. Just you whiffing on the kick.

---

Contra your earlier statements, you now seem to be suggesting that using the work product of others (in this case, the Council of Nicaea) is acceptable if one believes and understands that work product. I am inferring that from your first sentence, but if my inference is wrong, please correct me.

How precisely, from the record available, do you know that there is no chance that Sam actually thought about what the apologist had to say and whether it conforms to what Sam truly believes or whether it makes sense to Sam at all?

Finally, "better" is on a spectrum, while you initially made this a binary issue in using the work product of others. If you don't understand how going from binary to relative is shifting the goal posts, well, I can't understand it for you.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

And I also note the extreme irony of you, a Roman Catholic who rejects Paul's letters as inspired and who wants the Church to accept gay couples, trying to tell me about "good faith".

---

You are truly entering into Zealot-land...


As for my views, I didn't say he wasn't inspired (your word, I would never use that word!). I said I didn't like him...

As for Gays? We all have our crosses to bear, I cannot picture a world where Jesus would shun people because they are sinners. It may also take more than one look into mere mortal's eyers for the lightning bolt bringing them to around to God's word kicks in. Except you, as inspired as you are. Should Gay's be able to receive the Sacraments? Not when in a state of Mortal Sin. To be Gay, but not act on it, is not a sin. So, they should be included. Otherwise, you would pull their teeth out until they changed?

So lets's delve into your believes, you believe we should shun sinners and they should not have access to God's word and community until they are sinless. How Christ-like of you... (sarcasm, you would actually believe it...) You are a Prince...

---

This is correct. To be gay and not act on that lust, perverse though it may seem to most, is to bear a cross others may not have to bear while others' crosses may be to be someone who say frequent Only Fans and…

Both require self discipline and a choice to be God-like In our works and actions.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

---

Is it okay to recite the Nicene Creed even though it was authored by others?

Is it okay to recite a prayer authored by any one other than Jesus?

Are reciting those in bad faith because they were authored by others?

It would have been much easier and much more efficient for you to simply read the link and deal with the substance of the argument rather than dying on some procedural hill. You would have been an example of grace and good faith. You might even get to exchange ideas and get closer to discovering truth (your purported goals in many of your posts). Instead, you choose procedural combat and then take offense when people compare you to a certain sect from the time of Jesus. Even then, you are wrong on procedure. Incorporation by reference is a perfectly acceptable way to efficiently convey ideas.

I can't decide if you are just a troll or if you really are straight out of the DSM. You were the child who took his ball and went home the instant it wasn't working out exactly the way you wanted it to go. Your pathological need to control others and their agency combined with your constant need for public validation betrays deep, deep insecurities and immaturity.

---

Think about what you just argued. You're taking about actually reciting a creed, not merely providing a link to it. Maybe when it's time for you to recite your creeds in church, you can just give the priest or the congregation a link to nicene-creed.com so you don't have to say it. It'd be a lot easier, wouldn't it?

Stop being too stubborn and dishonest to actually understand the nature of the issue here.

---

Ah yes, this is the part where you pretend not to understand English and just make stuff up.

First off, I didn't argue anything. I asked exploratory questions. Learn the difference between an argument and an inquiry. Stop rephrasing things and just honestly address what is presented. This is very representative of your bad faith. I thought Obama was the world's worst arsonist who built fields of straw men just to light them on fire, but you are giving him a run for his money.

Second, you said to Sam the following:

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

So, I'm asking you: is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? If not, please differentiate using a creed authored by others from incorporating by reference the words of theologian. Please consider including into your discourse the relative differences between a worship service and an online message board.

I understand the nature of the issue perfectly. Sam gave you an answer drafted by an apologist. An answer that takes less than ten minutes to read. The post makes a thought-provoking argument that you could actually address on the merits. All of this within the context that you ask every single Catholic to answer for every last comma and period in Catholic theology for thousands of years, yet the moment you are given a reference to an apologist of the Catholic Church this is beyond the pale for you….

Yet instead you want to argue a procedural basis. I know what someone seeking a better understanding of God's truth would do; especially someone who claims to want to disciple others into God's kingdom. I also know what a gaslighter would do. And just in case you truly lack self-understanding, you are not in the former category.

---

Again- Sam recited nothing. He only gave a link. At least with a recitation, there is evidence that you know what was said, and perhaps the meaning of which had even passed through your brain.

So no, you don't understand the issue. But it IS funny that you think that giving your church a link to the Nicene Creed instead of reciting it yourself suffices.

---

You're shifting the goal posts. So, to isolate the questions:

In rejecting Sam's use of a link, you said to Sam the following:

Quote:

---

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

---

SO, the questions are:

Is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words the ideas conveyed by the Nicene Creed and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? Is recitation of the Nicene Creed a sign of tribalism?

---

Reciting the Nicene Creed, without understanding what it means, or knowing that it is indeed what you believe, is tribalism, yes.

However, at least a personal recitation of a belief, even if gotten from a link, is better than just merely giving the link. That'd be like defending your faith by directing people to bible.com. By personally reciting, there's at least a chance that the person actually thought about what he was reciting, and whether it actually conforms to what he truly believes, or whether it even makes sense to him at all.

No goal post shifting here. Just you whiffing on the kick.

---

Contra your earlier statements, you now seem to be suggesting that using the work product of others (in this case, the Council of Nicaea) is acceptable if one believes and understands that work product. I am inferring that from your first sentence, but if my inference is wrong, please correct me.

How precisely, from the record available, do you know that there is no chance that Sam actually thought about what the apologist had to say and whether it conforms to what Sam truly believes or whether it makes sense to Sam at all?

Finally, "better" is on a spectrum, while you initially made this a binary issue in using the work product of others. If you don't understand how going from binary to relative is shifting the goal posts, well, I can't understand it for you.

---

There is nothing that is "contra" to any of my statements. I never suggested that one can not use the product of others. You are continually fighting against that straw man, and I can only sit back and chuckle and shake my head. You just don't want to get it.

We DON'T know that Sam actually thought about the article from his own link. We DON'T know if it makes sense to him or whether he believes it at all. That's been the whole point (SMH). Answering with links tells us NONE of this.

I still think it's funny, though, that you think it's appropriate to give a link to nicene-creed.com during church service in lieu of reciting, understanding, and internalizing it.

Now, how about answering the question, since your comrade was unable to? Do not think for a second that all this pointless pedantry you're engaging in has successfully distracted the forum from the salient issue at hand. People are well aware of this game. So, can YOU explain how that link answers the question?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

---

Is it okay to recite the Nicene Creed even though it was authored by others?

Is it okay to recite a prayer authored by any one other than Jesus?

Are reciting those in bad faith because they were authored by others?

It would have been much easier and much more efficient for you to simply read the link and deal with the substance of the argument rather than dying on some procedural hill. You would have been an example of grace and good faith. You might even get to exchange ideas and get closer to discovering truth (your purported goals in many of your posts). Instead, you choose procedural combat and then take offense when people compare you to a certain sect from the time of Jesus. Even then, you are wrong on procedure. Incorporation by reference is a perfectly acceptable way to efficiently convey ideas.

I can't decide if you are just a troll or if you really are straight out of the DSM. You were the child who took his ball and went home the instant it wasn't working out exactly the way you wanted it to go. Your pathological need to control others and their agency combined with your constant need for public validation betrays deep, deep insecurities and immaturity.

---

Think about what you just argued. You're taking about actually reciting a creed, not merely providing a link to it. Maybe when it's time for you to recite your creeds in church, you can just give the priest or the congregation a link to nicene-creed.com so you don't have to say it. It'd be a lot easier, wouldn't it?

Stop being too stubborn and dishonest to actually understand the nature of the issue here.

---

Ah yes, this is the part where you pretend not to understand English and just make stuff up.

First off, I didn't argue anything. I asked exploratory questions. Learn the difference between an argument and an inquiry. Stop rephrasing things and just honestly address what is presented. This is very representative of your bad faith. I thought Obama was the world's worst arsonist who built fields of straw men just to light them on fire, but you are giving him a run for his money.

Second, you said to Sam the following:

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

So, I'm asking you: is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? If not, please differentiate using a creed authored by others from incorporating by reference the words of theologian. Please consider including into your discourse the relative differences between a worship service and an online message board.

I understand the nature of the issue perfectly. Sam gave you an answer drafted by an apologist. An answer that takes less than ten minutes to read. The post makes a thought-provoking argument that you could actually address on the merits. All of this within the context that you ask every single Catholic to answer for every last comma and period in Catholic theology for thousands of years, yet the moment you are given a reference to an apologist of the Catholic Church this is beyond the pale for you….

Yet instead you want to argue a procedural basis. I know what someone seeking a better understanding of God's truth would do; especially someone who claims to want to disciple others into God's kingdom. I also know what a gaslighter would do. And just in case you truly lack self-understanding, you are not in the former category.

---

Again- Sam recited nothing. He only gave a link. At least with a recitation, there is evidence that you know what was said, and perhaps the meaning of which had even passed through your brain.

So no, you don't understand the issue. But it IS funny that you think that giving your church a link to the Nicene Creed instead of reciting it yourself suffices.

---

You're shifting the goal posts. So, to isolate the questions:

In rejecting Sam's use of a link, you said to Sam the following:

Quote:

---

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

---

SO, the questions are:

Is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words the ideas conveyed by the Nicene Creed and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? Is recitation of the Nicene Creed a sign of tribalism?

---

Reciting the Nicene Creed, without understanding what it means, or knowing that it is indeed what you believe, is tribalism, yes.

However, at least a personal recitation of a belief, even if gotten from a link, is better than just merely giving the link. That'd be like defending your faith by directing people to bible.com. By personally reciting, there's at least a chance that the person actually thought about what he was reciting, and whether it actually conforms to what he truly believes, or whether it even makes sense to him at all.

No goal post shifting here. Just you whiffing on the kick.

---

Contra your earlier statements, you now seem to be suggesting that using the work product of others (in this case, the Council of Nicaea) is acceptable if one believes and understands that work product. I am inferring that from your first sentence, but if my inference is wrong, please correct me.

How precisely, from the record available, do you know that there is no chance that Sam actually thought about what the apologist had to say and whether it conforms to what Sam truly believes or whether it makes sense to Sam at all?

Finally, "better" is on a spectrum, while you initially made this a binary issue in using the work product of others. If you don't understand how going from binary to relative is shifting the goal posts, well, I can't understand it for you.

---

....

We DON'T know that Sam actually thought about the article from his own link. We DON'T know if it makes sense to him or whether he believes it at all. That's been the whole point (SMH). Answering with links tells us NONE of this.

I still think it's funny, though, that you think it's appropriate to give a link to nicene-creed.com during church service in lieu of reciting, understanding, and internalizing it.

Now, how about answering the question, since your comrade was unable to? Do not think for a second that all this pointless pedantry you're engaging in has successfully distracted the forum from the salient issue at hand. People are well aware of this game. So, can YOU explain how that link answers the question?

---

A person of good will would assume that a poster sending a link approves of the message in the link. If you are unwilling to give that simple and straight forward benefit of the doubt, then it is understandable why someone would conclude you are acting in bad faith.

Please provide the quote where I said it was okay to link to a the creed during a church service. (This is the part where you delude yourself into arguing against something others have not said; many crazy people, especially on the street, do laugh at the false reality they have built for themselves in their own minds. Just something for you to consider).

Yes, I can explain how the link answers the question (something you seem capable of understanding if you would just read it instead of standing on procedural grounds wasting your time). The author in the link in a respectful manner attempts to explore what Protestants and Catholics seem to disagree on when it comes to faith and works. The author is clearly trying to be respectful on the topic. The author primarily uses definitional points to try in good faith to examine what Protestants believe and Catholics believe on this specific topic. He finds English translations around the word "justification" to be imperfect (and he claims that both Protestant and Catholic scholars agree on that imperfection) and he believes that much of the perceived friction (but not all) is driven by the imperfection of the English language. To borrow from Sam, the author in the link differentiates between "initial" justification and "ongoing" sanctification (works coming into play with the latter), but notes that both categories, at least in English, are covered as "justification." He also explores what the Council of Trent had to say on the topic. It is a thoughtful piece of writing that you should consider reading if only to better understand those you seem so convinced are your enemies.

P.S. Every time you say something like "the forum [awaits/is not distracted]..." you are exhibiting a classic, textbook sign of deep insecurity. The need for public validation is not a good look. Do with that information as you please.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

---

Is it okay to recite the Nicene Creed even though it was authored by others?

Is it okay to recite a prayer authored by any one other than Jesus?

Are reciting those in bad faith because they were authored by others?

It would have been much easier and much more efficient for you to simply read the link and deal with the substance of the argument rather than dying on some procedural hill. You would have been an example of grace and good faith. You might even get to exchange ideas and get closer to discovering truth (your purported goals in many of your posts). Instead, you choose procedural combat and then take offense when people compare you to a certain sect from the time of Jesus. Even then, you are wrong on procedure. Incorporation by reference is a perfectly acceptable way to efficiently convey ideas.

I can't decide if you are just a troll or if you really are straight out of the DSM. You were the child who took his ball and went home the instant it wasn't working out exactly the way you wanted it to go. Your pathological need to control others and their agency combined with your constant need for public validation betrays deep, deep insecurities and immaturity.

---

Think about what you just argued. You're taking about actually reciting a creed, not merely providing a link to it. Maybe when it's time for you to recite your creeds in church, you can just give the priest or the congregation a link to nicene-creed.com so you don't have to say it. It'd be a lot easier, wouldn't it?

Stop being too stubborn and dishonest to actually understand the nature of the issue here.

---

Ah yes, this is the part where you pretend not to understand English and just make stuff up.

First off, I didn't argue anything. I asked exploratory questions. Learn the difference between an argument and an inquiry. Stop rephrasing things and just honestly address what is presented. This is very representative of your bad faith. I thought Obama was the world's worst arsonist who built fields of straw men just to light them on fire, but you are giving him a run for his money.

Second, you said to Sam the following:

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

So, I'm asking you: is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? If not, please differentiate using a creed authored by others from incorporating by reference the words of theologian. Please consider including into your discourse the relative differences between a worship service and an online message board.

I understand the nature of the issue perfectly. Sam gave you an answer drafted by an apologist. An answer that takes less than ten minutes to read. The post makes a thought-provoking argument that you could actually address on the merits. All of this within the context that you ask every single Catholic to answer for every last comma and period in Catholic theology for thousands of years, yet the moment you are given a reference to an apologist of the Catholic Church this is beyond the pale for you….

Yet instead you want to argue a procedural basis. I know what someone seeking a better understanding of God's truth would do; especially someone who claims to want to disciple others into God's kingdom. I also know what a gaslighter would do. And just in case you truly lack self-understanding, you are not in the former category.

---

Again- Sam recited nothing. He only gave a link. At least with a recitation, there is evidence that you know what was said, and perhaps the meaning of which had even passed through your brain.

So no, you don't understand the issue. But it IS funny that you think that giving your church a link to the Nicene Creed instead of reciting it yourself suffices.

---

You're shifting the goal posts. So, to isolate the questions:

In rejecting Sam's use of a link, you said to Sam the following:

Quote:

---

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

---

SO, the questions are:

Is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words the ideas conveyed by the Nicene Creed and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? Is recitation of the Nicene Creed a sign of tribalism?

---

Reciting the Nicene Creed, without understanding what it means, or knowing that it is indeed what you believe, is tribalism, yes.

However, at least a personal recitation of a belief, even if gotten from a link, is better than just merely giving the link. That'd be like defending your faith by directing people to bible.com. By personally reciting, there's at least a chance that the person actually thought about what he was reciting, and whether it actually conforms to what he truly believes, or whether it even makes sense to him at all.

No goal post shifting here. Just you whiffing on the kick.

---

Contra your earlier statements, you now seem to be suggesting that using the work product of others (in this case, the Council of Nicaea) is acceptable if one believes and understands that work product. I am inferring that from your first sentence, but if my inference is wrong, please correct me.

How precisely, from the record available, do you know that there is no chance that Sam actually thought about what the apologist had to say and whether it conforms to what Sam truly believes or whether it makes sense to Sam at all?

Finally, "better" is on a spectrum, while you initially made this a binary issue in using the work product of others. If you don't understand how going from binary to relative is shifting the goal posts, well, I can't understand it for you.

---

....

We DON'T know that Sam actually thought about the article from his own link. We DON'T know if it makes sense to him or whether he believes it at all. That's been the whole point (SMH). Answering with links tells us NONE of this.

I still think it's funny, though, that you think it's appropriate to give a link to nicene-creed.com during church service in lieu of reciting, understanding, and internalizing it.

Now, how about answering the question, since your comrade was unable to? Do not think for a second that all this pointless pedantry you're engaging in has successfully distracted the forum from the salient issue at hand. People are well aware of this game. So, can YOU explain how that link answers the question?

---

A person of good will would assume that a poster sending a link approves of the message in the link. If you are unwilling to give that simple and straight forward benefit of the doubt, then it is understandable why someone would conclude you are acting in bad faith.

Please provide the quote where I said it was okay to link to a the creed during a church service. (This is the part where you delude yourself into arguing against something others have not said; many crazy people, especially on the street, do laugh at the false reality they have built for themselves in their own minds. Just something for you to consider).

Yes, I can explain how the link answers the question (something you seem capable of understanding if you would just read it instead of standing on procedural grounds wasting your time). The author in the link in a respectful manner attempts to explore what Protestants and Catholics seem to disagree on when it comes to faith and works. The author is clearly trying to be respectful on the topic. The author primarily uses definitional points to try in good faith to examine what Protestants believe and Catholics believe on this specific topic. He finds English translations around the word "justification" to be imperfect (and he claims that both Protestant and Catholic scholars agree on that imperfection) and he believes that much of the perceived friction (but not all) is driven by the imperfection of the English language. To borrow from Sam, the author in the link differentiates between "initial" justification and "ongoing" sanctification (works coming into play with the latter), but notes that both categories, at least in English, are covered as "justification." He also explores what the Council of Trent had to say on the topic. It is a thoughtful piece of writing that you should consider reading if only to better understand those you seem so convinced are your enemies.

P.S. Every time you say something like "the forum [awaits/is not distracted]..." you are exhibiting a classic, textbook sign of deep insecurity. The need for public validation is not a good look. Do with that information as you please.

---

Regarding the first part of your response - I'm just going to have to pass off your continued lack of understanding to that of being stuck on stupid, out of pride. Regarding your last point, it's not a need for validation that I say that, it's to communicate to you that no one's fooled by your BS escape tactic. It's so that you don't kid yourself that what you're doing is working. See how it steered you back to the relevant issue, and you tried to answer the question?

Regarding the middle part of your comment where you tried to answer it - Sam already answered what he thinks the link says in regard to the question. He already mentioned the "initial" and "ongoing" justification view. Obviously, you either didn't read or didn't comprehend my response to this, that this answer takes us right back to the original problem. It doesn't answer the question at all, it just doubles down on the problem. Scripture still says justification comes with the heart, through belief, i.e. faith. So how can justification "initially" be through the performance of the sacrament of baptism, and then also contingent on the "ongoing" sanctification through the continual performance of other sacraments?

This is why giving links as answers is nothing but a cop out. Now that you are having to express your own understanding of the link, I can show by your own understanding of the article, that it doesn't even answer the problem with your view. Now I'm arguing against YOU, not the article. You have to own it. You've publicly expressed it as your belief.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

If a gay person (in a state of grace) is receiving sacraments at mass, wouldn't ya say he's accepted as part of the congregation?

---

This is the problem with the view of homosexuality with much of western Roman Catholicism and Protestantism (even evangelicalism). There is no such thing as a "gay person", and certainly not one in a state of grace. The assumption here is that this specific sin defines their entire identity and cannot be divorced from it. When the church pretends such an identity exists for the Christian, it is actually encouraging unrepentence.

Realitybites said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

If a gay person (in a state of grace) is receiving sacraments at mass, wouldn't ya say he's accepted as part of the congregation?

---

This is the problem with the view of homosexuality with much of western Roman Catholicism and Protestantism (even evangelicalism). There is no such thing as a "gay person", and certainly not one in a state of grace. The assumption here is that this specific sin defines their entire identity and cannot be divorced from it. When the church pretends such an identity exists for the Christian, it is actually encouraging unrepentence.

---

So a life of celibacy is unrepentant? Maybe we should burn their feet until they tell you what you will believe as repentant?

It is not for you to do anything, it is between the sinner and God. Everyone has their own planks to worry about. Last thing anyone need s is sin-police passing judgement on what is repentant and what isnt.

The two are mutually exclusive. One must repent (turn away from) sin to be a Christian. One cannot embrace sin and still legitimately claim to be a Christian. A Christian follows Christ, makes Christ the Lord of his or her life. One who defines themselves (their "identity") by their sin is worshipping themselves in pride, essentially trying to be a god. That's delusional and following the example of Satan.