Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

Let's assume that she's not a homosexual, she just likes her hair short -- can she be saved?

With repentance she can be saved. A woman wanting to look like a man is not holy.

Originally posted by adjensen

Yes, we do, though they tend not to be as superficial as wearing wristwatches or not allowing women to wear pants.

As I said, there are spiritual issues with doing such things. A woman wearing men's clothes is no different than a man wearing women's clothes. Do you teach it is ok for men to wear dresses? Or is that another standard you have?

Originally posted by adjensen

In your view, is a priest who messes around with children, saved? Do you consider such actions to be evidence of holiness?

Show me where in the Catechism the church teaches that child molestation is an acceptable behaviour. Barring that, your questions are straw men arguments and of no relevance.

I was using that as a example of a standard you probably have.

Originally posted by adjensen

However, unlike your cult, which condemns to hell anyone who doesn't subscribe to Reckart's theology, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that no one knows who is, or will be, condemned, because that is God's decision, not ours.

From what I have read, seen, and heard, the Catholic Church condemns to hell those who do not subscribe to their theology also. They have been known to even take things further and murder them, which is much further than we go.

You also practice the condemning when you use words such as heretic, cult, witch...

You even condemn us for condemning.

Originally posted by adjensen

What standard?

The standard of not messing around with children.

reply to post by truejew

Dear truejew,

I have to admit I'm a little bit awestruck by this thread. It's like watching a boxer getting punched over and over again. Nothing seems to be resolved, I know the boxer is suffering, but I can't help coming back to see if it's finally, mercifully, over.

If women can't have short hair and be saved, I suppose that damns women in the military. Same thing with watches. If you're an officer or non-commisioned officer, it is essential that you carry a watch, and it had better not be cheap and prone to malfunction. Jesus didn't condemn the military or soldiers, but it sounds like you would, if they were female.

Why the objection to men with dresses? Jesus didn't wear pants. And I really wouldn't want to go up to a Scottish regiment and tell them they were damned for wearing skirts..

From what I have read, seen, and heard, the Catholic Church condemns to hell those who do not subscribe to their theology also.

Actually, they don't, at least not automatically. They even allow for the possibility that those who have never even heard of Jesus can get into Heaven, yes, even without any baptism. When you're googling next, try looking up "Catholic Catechism."

As far as calling someone a heretic, that seems only just and reasonable in those cases where someone holds to an opinion which the Church has declared to be heretical.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

Let's assume that she's not a homosexual, she just likes her hair short -- can she be saved?

With repentance she can be saved. A woman wanting to look like a man is not holy.

Short hair is not "wanting to look like a man." It's short hair. Where is it written in the Bible that "men must have short hair and women must have long hair"?

As I said, there are spiritual issues with doing such things. A woman wearing men's clothes is no different than a man wearing women's clothes. Do you teach it is ok for men to wear dresses?

To the best of my recollection, I don't have any "teaching on what clothes to wear." As Peter found out, what matters is not outside, superficial things, like clothes or food, but a person's character and behaviour.

Put a jerkwad woman in a dress, you still have a jerkwad woman. Put a holy woman in a pair of pants, and suddenly she's not holy? That's an irrational conclusion.

I was using that as a example of a standard you probably have.

You think that, because I'm Catholic, I have a standard that says it's okay to molest children? What "fruits of the spirit" does such bigotry display? You don't see me painting you with the same brush, just because there are Apostolic Oneness ministers who molest children, do you?

From what I have read, seen, and heard, the Catholic Church condemns to hell those who do not subscribe to their theology also. They have been known to even take things further and murder them, which is much further than we go.

Yeah, centuries ago. Let's look at the current state of things. Here is something the leader of my religion said recently, as regards people who disagree with him:

The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class. (Pope Francis, "Domus Santa Marta homily message" May 2013)

Here's something the leader of your religion recently said, as regards people who disagree with him:

It all started with UPC members who believed the writings of David K. Bernard that the name of God was Yahweh. This led them to search the internet for this Yahweh name of God. They discovered the cults of YHWH who have perverted so much of the Word of God they can never be saved again. As Paul said: "they are severed from Christ." And it is "impossible to restore such an one. "

The slide down the slippery slope into the abyss of hell began right in the UPC church. (Gary Reckart, "The Jewish Jesus Blog", January 2013)

Which of these two displays the spirit of Christ?

You also practice the condemning when you use words such as heretic, cult, witch...

You even condemn us for condemning.

Identifying a cult as a cult is not condemning anyone to hell, and I didn't "condemn you for condemning", I just said that it's wrong and contrary to the teachings of Christ.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

Let's assume that she's not a homosexual, she just likes her hair short -- can she be saved?

With repentance she can be saved. A woman wanting to look like a man is not holy.

Originally posted by adjensen

Yes, we do, though they tend not to be as superficial as wearing wristwatches or not allowing women to wear pants.

As I said, there are spiritual issues with doing such things. A woman wearing men's clothes is no different than a man wearing women's clothes. Do you teach it is ok for men to wear dresses? Or is that another standard you have?

Originally posted by adjensen

In your view, is a priest who messes around with children, saved? Do you consider such actions to be evidence of holiness?

Show me where in the Catechism the church teaches that child molestation is an acceptable behaviour. Barring that, your questions are straw men arguments and of no relevance.

I was using that as a example of a standard you probably have.

Originally posted by adjensen

However, unlike your cult, which condemns to hell anyone who doesn't subscribe to Reckart's theology, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that no one knows who is, or will be, condemned, because that is God's decision, not ours.

From what I have read, seen, and heard, the Catholic Church condemns to hell those who do not subscribe to their theology also. They have been known to even take things further and murder them, which is much further than we go.

You also practice the condemning when you use words such as heretic, cult, witch...

You even condemn us for condemning.

Originally posted by adjensen


What standard?

The standard of not messing around with children.

truejew,

You have read wrong, probably an anti-Catholic writing. Catholics condemn no one. God is the judge and
oh is He merciful. Everyone is saved through the Catholic Church because everything you know of Christ
came form the Catholic Church less the Old Testament prophecies.

Read what Pope Francis says and recently:


“You cannot find Jesus outside the Church ... It is the Mother Church who gives us Jesus,
who gives us the identity that is not only a seal, it is a belonging."

In challenging Catholics to be more stalwart and rigid, yes rigid in their faith he said ..
“But when we start to cut down the Faith, to negotiate Faith, a little like selling it to the
highest bidder, we take the path of apostasy, of disloyalty to the Lord.”

Come and "belong" truejew.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by colbe

Adjensen is loving, He doesn't give up on you.

Saying false things about another person does not show love. Supporting the Rick Ross and Yahwehist cults does not show love. Supporting a religion that is guilty of so much death does not show love. Name calling does not show love.

Using OT terms, come on, we're in the New Covenant. I do not know who Rick Ross is.
Brother, The underlined, oh my gosh, it is so untrue, that's why it is vague, no facts and so immature sounding.
Last time I looked, most of the Hospitals worldwide have a Catholic saints name on them. And many, many
schools. universities and the at one time orphanages. Oh really, Catholic Charities has done nothing.

Soon, God Himself is going to show you the faith is true.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

Where is it written in the Bible that "men must have short hair and women must have long hair"?

1 Corinthians 11:14-15 KJV
[14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? [15] But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Originally posted by adjensen

To the best of my recollection, I don't have any "teaching on what clothes to wear." As Peter found out, what matters is not outside, superficial things, like clothes or food, but a person's character and behaviour.

It is not about the clothes, but the spirit. A person who goes around half naked is not holy. A woman who wears men's clothes is not holy. A man who wears women's clothes is not holy.

Originally posted by adjensen

Put a jerkwad woman in a dress, you still have a jerkwad woman. Put a holy woman in a pair of pants, and suddenly she's not holy?

It is not the clothes that make a person holy, but a holy person will not dress unholy. Therefore an unholy person who dresses in a holy way, is still an unholy person.

I find calling a sinner a "jerkwad" to be in bad taste.

Originally posted by adjensen

You think that, because I'm Catholic, I have a standard that says it's okay to molest children? What "fruits of the spirit" does such bigotry display? You don't see me painting you with the same brush, just because there are Apostolic Oneness ministers who molest children, do you?

I said no such thing. I said that you probably have a standard that teaches such actions to be unholy and those who do it, even priests, to be unsaved. My point was that you too have standards and those standards do not make you a cult.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by truejew

 

If women can't have short hair and be saved, I suppose that damns women in the military. Same thing with watches. If you're an officer or non-commisioned officer, it is essential that you carry a watch, and it had better not be cheap and prone to malfunction. Jesus didn't condemn the military or soldiers, but it sounds like you would, if they were female.

I do not believe it is holy to be in the military.

Originally posted by charles1952

As far as calling someone a heretic, that seems only just and reasonable in those cases where someone holds to an opinion which the Church has declared to be heretical.

Yes, however, when someone calls someone a heretic and then condemns someone else for calling someone a heretic, it makes them a hypocrite. Plus, we all know that the Catholic Church has done things to people they call a heretic that our people never have done to those we call heretics.

reply to post by truejew

Dear truejew,

I'm a little surprised by your response. Ok, being a soldier is not holy. Let's assume that for now. Is it a sin that needs repentance? I thought Jesus wildly applauded (figuratively) the faith of the centurion who asked for healing. I don't quite understand.

And on this heretic business, I'm also confused. We're together on the idea that some one can call some one else a heretic based on an established teaching of the Church. Why can't they criticize someone who claims another as a heretic, when they actually hold an orthodox belief? (Yeah, I know, awkward sentence.)

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by truejew

 

I thought Jesus wildly applauded (figuratively) the faith of the centurion who asked for healing. I don't quite understand.

I do not see where Jesus "applauded" the centurion for being a centurion, or for killing, or being a part of a group that would cause his faith to be compromised. It was only his faith to ask for healing that Jesus "applauded".

Originally posted by charles1952

And on this heretic business, I'm also confused. We're together on the idea that some one can call some one else a heretic based on an established teaching of the Church. Why can't they criticize someone who claims another as a heretic, when they actually hold an orthodox belief? (Yeah, I know, awkward sentence.)

The problem is not with calling someone a heretic, it is with calling someone a heretic while judging the person for calling someone a heretic.

Adjensen likes to judge Pastor Reckart for calling David K. Bernard a heretic, but Adjensen also calls others, including David K. Bernard, heretics. It is hypocritical.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

Where is it written in the Bible that "men must have short hair and women must have long hair"?

1 Corinthians 11:14-15 KJV
[14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? [15] But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Well, I'll give you that, at least as far as Paul goes, but it's somewhat countered by this:

During the entire period of their Nazirite vow, no razor may be used on their head. They must be holy until the period of their dedication to the LORD is over; they must let their hair grow long. (Numbers 6:5 NIV)

That sort of implies that a man having long hair is holy, and I must have missed the passage in scripture that describes Jesus visiting a barber shop

It is not about the clothes, but the spirit. A person who goes around half naked is not holy. A woman who wears men's clothes is not holy. A man who wears women's clothes is not holy.

I'll grant you the "half naked" bit, but how is a woman wearing pants not holy? Is holiness granted by a dress and taken away by a pantsuit? You're drifting back into your "magic spells and rituals" theology, if you think so.

The bottom line is that it's fine to have standards, quite another to believe that one's salvation is predicated on them, or that someone is inherently wrong for not observing them.

You think that, because I'm Catholic, I have a standard that says it's okay to molest children? What "fruits of the spirit" does such bigotry display? You don't see me painting you with the same brush, just because there are Apostolic Oneness ministers who molest children, do you?

I said no such thing. I said that you probably have a standard that teaches such actions to be unholy and those who do it, even priests, to be unsaved. My point was that you too have standards and those standards do not make you a cult.

Sorry, you're making even less sense now -- you really need to work on clearly articulating your points. Are you equating the molestation of children with women cutting their hair? That's just asinine, if not downright evil.

Originally posted by truejew
Adjensen likes to judge Pastor Reckart for calling David K. Bernard a heretic, but Adjensen also calls others, including David K. Bernard, heretics. It is hypocritical.

No, actually what I am critical of is Reckart condemning Bernard and his followers, along with calling them "liars" and "idiots", simply because they dismiss his ridiculous claims. As you have shown here, there is precious little, if any, evidence to support Reckart's claims about the name(s) of God, and plenty of evidence to the contrary, so to dismiss him is a sign of sensibility, not of idiocy.

God determines who is admitted into his kingdom, and on what basis -- Gary Reckart does not.

reply to post by adjensen

I'll grant you the "half naked" bit, but how is a woman wearing pants not holy? Is holiness granted by a dress and taken away by a pantsuit? You're drifting back into your "magic spells and rituals" theology, if you think so.

He seems to have glossed over Matthew 6...

25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

reply to post by adjensen


What's sad is that the same Paul referenced above also says that the people running around trying to keep "ordinances" are WEAKER in the faith than the Christian who knows their freedom in Christ. I don't t care how long a woman's hair is, it's her hair. I don't care if she wears pants or dresses, I care where her heart is.

We never should judge people on their outward appearances, but make righteous judgments about the content of their speech.

reply to post by Akragon


Good point, though one has to bear in mind that, under some people's theologies, the teaching of an Apostle is given more weight than the teaching of Christ

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Akragon

 

Good point, though one has to bear in mind that, under some people's theologies, the teaching of an Apostle is given more weight than the teaching of Christ

Kinda like Paulianity?

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Akragon

 

Good point, though one has to bear in mind that, under some people's theologies, the teaching of an Apostle is given more weight than the teaching of Christ

Kinda like Paulianity?

If that existed, sure, perfect example

(Let's not derail the derailing of this thread though, lol)

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

I'll grant you the "half naked" bit, but how is a woman wearing pants not holy? Is holiness granted by a dress and taken away by a pantsuit? You're drifting back into your "magic spells and rituals" theology, if you think so.

It has to do with wearing that which pertaineth to a man for a man and that which pertaineth to a woman for a woman. "Magic spells and rituals" seems to be what you say to everything that you disagree with.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen

 

I'll grant you the "half naked" bit, but how is a woman wearing pants not holy? Is holiness granted by a dress and taken away by a pantsuit? You're drifting back into your "magic spells and rituals" theology, if you think so.

He seems to have glossed over Matthew 6...

25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

Matthew 6 does not mean that a person should walk around naked as you claim.

reply to post by truejew




Where did I say that?!?!

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

I'll grant you the "half naked" bit, but how is a woman wearing pants not holy? Is holiness granted by a dress and taken away by a pantsuit? You're drifting back into your "magic spells and rituals" theology, if you think so.

It has to do with wearing that which pertaineth to a man for a man and that which pertaineth to a woman for a woman. "Magic spells and rituals" seems to be what you say to everything that you disagree with.

So I guess men should wear tunichs and robes and not pants?