|
Post by ClayRandall on Aug 4, 2006 10:20:11 GMT -5
I have concluded that Howard is a troll, of the anti-Catholic type. He defines himself not by what he believes, but by what he rejects about the Catholic Church. He seeks to inflame and create controversy instead of edify. He has proven himself incapable of civil discourse, having recently accused me of being an "abuser of the gospel" and an idolater. His anti-Catholic fetish causes him to try to turn any thread into a topic about the Catholic Church. Therefore, his trollish behavior will be documented from now on.
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Aug 4, 2006 22:10:16 GMT -5
Wrong; I named no one in my broad statement concerning abusers.
Wrong again; I never mentioned the word idolater nor connected it with anyone in particular. It seems like he who harbors guilt of those two defining titles has committed himself.
Any warning meant to defend the gospel against abusers and idolaters is an act of charity as Clay's footnotes denote. I'm happy to be included in that number.
"it is an act of charity to cry out against the wolf when he is among the sheep, wherever he is." - St. Francis de Sales
Trollish behavior as documented by the wolf would be a trollish act in itself and not meant to edify the sheep, would it not?
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Aug 4, 2006 22:23:54 GMT -5
You did so! I used the word against those 2x2s who equate their group methodology with Jesus - you then turned around and said I should apply that to Clay. professing.proboards16.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1153326512&page=4#1154009496"Rob, I hope you're extending those same restrictions and making that same claim of "idolatry" when considering the methodical practices defended by your fellow critiquer in his church in return; "professing.proboards16.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1153326512&page=4#1154025757"He's stated that he is "fully prepared and willing to "defend" Catholic practices", therefore according to your statement, Clay
1. "cannot separate Jesus from the methodology of your (his) church"
And again according to your statement, he is :
2. "then you are worshiping the methodology instead of the Christ"
And again according to your statement, he is an idolator
3. "that's idolatry".
Why wouldn't the same standards apply to him that you apply to others who rely on methodology?
Why do you uphold an "idolator" who fits your own description and accept him as a fellow critigue by which to judge others?" Your lying is documented. Apparently organized religion gets between a person and God but lying is acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Aug 4, 2006 22:47:34 GMT -5
You did so! I used the word against those 2x2s who equate their group methodology with Jesus - you then turned around and said I should apply that to Clay. Think about it Rob......... 1) Who used the word idolater......you or me? 2) Who suggested that methodologists are guilty of worshipping the method instead of the Christ...you or me? 3) Is it okay to call out a methodical 2x2 and equate him with idolatry and worshipping of his method but all the while overlooking the methodical Catholic? Let me reinstate my questions: Why wouldn't the same standards apply to him that you apply to others who rely on methodology? Why do you uphold an "idolator" who fits your own description and accept him as a fellow critigue by which to judge others? Or do you still prefer to shy away from any attempt to clarify your reasons?
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Aug 4, 2006 22:53:56 GMT -5
(Rob)
"......you then turned around and said I should apply that to Clay."
(Howard) Unless you're playing favorites and in all fairness, why wouldn't you? Or is this board an exercise in exposing the 2x2 Wolf only and letting the Catholic Wolf run free (with your blessings and support) ?
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Aug 4, 2006 22:58:19 GMT -5
I knew you'd try and twist it. You took my exact words and applied them to Clay. However you want to cut it you have lied and I have documented it.
1. Clay does not equate the RCC with Jesus. Clay accepts fellow Christians who are not members of the RCC. That was the issue I took exception over with Prue/Bert.
2. This board is about the F&W/2x2s - not the Catholics...a fact which seems to continually escape you. I also would have to agree that you do not define yourself by what you believe, but by what you reject. Very sad.
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Aug 4, 2006 23:20:11 GMT -5
And however you want to cut it Rob, you blindly defend a system and a person who fits your own description of an idolater and a methodical practitioner perfectly.
You do not seek the bottom of truth.....you only seek to deride the 2x2 system and use the confines of this board to do so. I'd suggest that anyone who seeks truth of the gospel with the ability to sort it out on this board will only be more confused with your constant use of the 'cop-out' that "this board is about the 2x2-not the Catholics".
In doing so, you're not providing a broad view of the gospel...you're only doing what you accuse me of and that is defining yourself not by what the whole truth is, but by what you reject about 2x2ism.
I would expect more from an evangelical christian.
Thank you for documenting my distaste for your non support of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Aug 4, 2006 23:34:38 GMT -5
Yep, I need lessons in defending truth from someone who resorts to lies. Intriguing concept.
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Aug 5, 2006 7:35:51 GMT -5
Rob,
You're using a double standard on this board. What you criticize about 2x2s, you overlook in others and you even team up with abusers to promote your agenda. If you prefer to handle the gospel in such a loose manner, your overall counsel is in question.
For example, you said "Clay does not equate the RCC with Jesus. Clay accepts fellow Christians who are not members of the RCC. That was the issue I took exception over with Prue/Bert."
Did you forget that the Catholic Church equates themselves with the Body of Christ? They believe the reason Jesus came to earth was to establish the Catholic Church. And yes, Clay accepts you and me as fellow Christians but he considers us "gravely deficient" with a small chance of gaining salvation because we do not follow and practice his methodology and idolatry (your words). I agree that the 2x2 system is based on like theory. Doesn't that make them both wrong in stead of just the 2x2s? The Catholics have even been brave enough in the past to issue the proclamation that "there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church" and it's taking them centuries to try to water down that statement. As a 2x2, I was taught that there is no salvation outside the 2x2 system; meaning following their methods and example. Do you see a resemblance here, Rob?
I can understand your inability to answer the questions below. You would rather resort to calling someone a liar for embarrassing you with the request.
1) Why wouldn't the same standards apply to him that you apply to others who rely on methodology?
2)Why do you uphold an "idolator" who fits your own description and accept him as a fellow critic by which to judge others?
Howard
|
|
dont believe catholics
Guest
|
Post by dont believe catholics on Aug 5, 2006 7:53:39 GMT -5
I do not accept the doctrine of angels and I do not accept the doctrine of Mary all these are of the Catholic church also Islam believes same thing doctrine of Mary and angels? It is unscriptural doctrine of angels and mary Mary needed a saviour but the way the catholics do it is another thing
|
|
|
Post by mary of bible on Aug 5, 2006 7:58:32 GMT -5
The mary in the bible mother of Jesus never promoted attention to herself the way Catholics are making out.The mary of the Catholics is very differant then the Mary of the bible
|
|
|
Post by priests other on Aug 5, 2006 8:01:25 GMT -5
There have been priests other then the reformation that know the Catholic church is false false false so you are not kidding anyone
|
|
|
Post by hoboy on Aug 5, 2006 23:00:49 GMT -5
Yep, I need lessons in defending truth from someone who resorts to lies. Intriguing concept. You need lessons on telling the truth. And not resorting to calling others such names as you do.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Aug 6, 2006 13:15:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Aug 6, 2006 16:25:06 GMT -5
I hardly feel like a victim. The real victims here are the readers who are deprived of a fair shake by "one of the most respected members of this board " and his sidekick critic who fail to apply the same standards to themselves as they expect of others.
The issue seems to be idolatry and methodology that 2x2s are accused of practicing and whether or not their faith would stand if they were separated from their methods of worship.
Clay stands ready to defend his methods with biblical proof and I'm sure Prue/Bert can do the same. Neither would be willing to leave their methods behind and both would feel a separation from God if they did. Rob supports one of the above but not the other. His own words were "....if you cannot separate Jesus from the methodology of your church then you are worshiping the methodology instead of the Christ...that's idolatry."
Does this rule only apply to Non-Catholics ?
Howard
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Aug 9, 2006 9:08:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Aug 9, 2006 22:41:26 GMT -5
You'll have to read my post on the Catholic Board. I'm on such a spiritual high today that I can't even think of one negative thing to say and I never even went to a church building, took communion or saw a preacher.
Howard
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Aug 13, 2006 21:31:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by selah on Aug 13, 2006 22:28:56 GMT -5
None of my business...I know...but because I appreciate and respect all three of you..Clay, Rob and Huck...I just have to say this. Worship of methodology is idolatry in my opinion. Forms of this kind of idolatry can be seen in many churches...Catholic, f&w as well as almost all traditional orthodox churches. Even the congregational configuration with pulpit etc. can be traced back to the Temple, and at one time even it was worshipped. Methodology is not wrong in itself, but the worship of it, or making it a requirement for salvation is wrong. Actually methodology or rituals can be very helpful and useful for teaching, for order, for discipline and for bringing one's spirit into communion with God. Are these necessary for intimacy with God? NO...but using ritual with the right perspective and for the right purpose is helpful to some people, in fact to most believers in one way or another. Some churches have made methodology more important than it should be. Agreed. Do these same churches house some of our brothers and sisters in Christ? Yes. So, come on you guys....examine the issues .... not each other, and try not to take/make personal offense over organizational differences. Blessings, Linda P.S. I know...Who asked me?
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Aug 13, 2006 22:33:31 GMT -5
Linda, I fully agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Aug 14, 2006 8:37:08 GMT -5
Worship of methodology is idolatry in my opinion...Methodology is not wrong in itself, but the worship of it, or making it a requirement for salvation is wrong. Linda, I agree that worship of methodology is idolatrous; however, are you equating "making it a requirement" with "worship". P.S. I know...Who asked me? Not at all - your input is always most welcome! :-)
|
|
|
Post by slow to see on Aug 14, 2006 8:51:41 GMT -5
Hi,
Thanks Excellent post, Linda. AMEN
Alvin
|
|
|
Post by selah on Aug 14, 2006 9:37:07 GMT -5
Thanks Rob, Clay and Alvin.
Clay, you wrote:
Let's use "kneeling for prayer" as a common example. It is a good method to use for prayer. At times, some groups may require that posture for prayer. No problem. But, if a group determines that one MUST kneel in order to be heard by God....that is wrong, perhaps idolatrous and even bordering on worship...since the posture has become the objective instead of communication with God.
Sometimes ritual can lead us into rote worship too....just going through the motions without consciously connecting with God. This can happen to anyone, and likely does to everyone sometimes. But if there is an over-emphasis on the ritual rather than on what it means, the ritual's usefulness actually becomes limited, making the practice somewhat idolatrous.
It's measured in the heart of the believer.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Aug 14, 2006 10:02:53 GMT -5
Linda,
I can agree with everything you've said, then! :-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2006 14:17:04 GMT -5
Clay, please change the title to this thread. Personally, I find it offensive, and not worthy of you, nor your beliefs. To me it is as much of a personal attack as any post here.
Have you never heard of a self-fulfilling prophesy? Could you not be creating one by such a title? To my mind, Howard has shown considerable growth in maturity and restraint in his posts even though you still try to press his buttons. As I said, to me, such things are unworthy of you and what you profess to believe. There are many things Howard writes with which I agree, just as there are many things you write with which I agree.
Either you two accept each other as brethren in the Lord, or you do not. If you are brethren in the Lord, then are you not obligated to focus upon common beliefs which bring unity and friendship between you? I doubt that oppositional posts will change the views of either one of you, nor those of anyone reading along, so why continue?
Like Linda, I know none asked for my thoughts, but I do have them and offer them for consideration. If they contain no wisdom, then they are indeed as chaff in the wind and are to be ignored.
Kind regards,
Dennis
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Aug 14, 2006 15:18:12 GMT -5
Clay, please change the title to this thread. Personally, I find it offensive, and not worthy of you, nor your beliefs. To me it is as much of a personal attack as any post here. Dennis, as I said in my private message, I will try to use a milder tone when dealing with what I see as Howard's anti-Catholic bigotry. Have you never heard of a self-fulfilling prophesy? Could you not be creating one by such a title? To my mind, Howard has shown considerable growth in maturity and restraint in his posts even though you still try to press his buttons. This is the only thing you've said with which I simply am not able to agree. I have seen no such growth and restraint on Howard's part, and my responses are directed toward his individual statements, not to push his buttons. Either you two accept each other as brethren in the Lord, or you do not. I accept Howard, but I doubt he would accept me without making some asinine comment. If you are brethren in the Lord, then are you not obligated to focus upon common beliefs which bring unity and friendship between you? When is the last time Howard did this? I would point out that I have complimented Howard's musical abilities and pointed out that I respect his love for Jesus as his saviour. I doubt that oppositional posts will change the views of either one of you, nor those of anyone reading along, so why continue?Will you address these concerns to Howard, publicly? I'd like to see what he has to say about this. Like Linda, I know none asked for my thoughts, but I do have them and offer them for consideration. If they contain no wisdom, then they are indeed as chaff in the wind and are to be ignored. Like I told Linda, your input is always most welcome! :-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2006 15:56:00 GMT -5
Clay, as I expressed, if there is no wisdom nor sound advice to be found in my post it is to be ignored.
It has been pointed out to me that on another board in this forum (which I do not read) Howard has been very vitriolic in his attacks upon Catholicism, and in their opinion has not shown growth and restraint as I referenced. I am not going to go read there, as I find the conflict between two people both proclaiming to love the Lord their God with all their heart, mind and soul to be something much other than the work of the Holy Spirit.
Howard, if you are continuing to bait Clay, the question I cannot answer in my mind is "why?" Some people DO find a need for structure in their worship and lives. It is important to them. In fact it is more than important, they believe it to be essential. I do not. However, I empathize with those who do, for I once did also.
Just as I do not agree with doctrines of the "truff" I do not agree with doctrines of Catholicism, for much the same reasons as Rob expresses. These are highly personal convictions. In such things, I am convinced that God knows the reasons each believes as they do, and that for me the essential to accept another as a fellow believer in Christ is that they accept Him as their Lord, God, personal Savior and kinsman redeemer, and confess Him to be such. Each of us will then develop our own understanding of which the accuracy depends upon many individual factors.
There are certainly things which others believe that I cannot embrace for myself in the least, just as what I believe might be exactly the same for them. Why is this? Uncommon experiences, abilities, knowledge, education, that result in uncommon beliefs, wisdom and understanding. Righteous judgment to me demands that I accept none of us have the absolute comprehension of the mind of Christ as yet, even though we are advised to let Him be in us.
To me, the mind of Christ does not despise others for their dissimilar beliefs about methodology of structure and worship. To me it is equally wrong for me to be antagonistic towards those who embrace what I do not, as it is vice versa. So, I will not attempt to mediate between you two in the future as I pray that both of you will become truly one with me in our belief and worship of Jesus Christ, just as I wish for us all who believe on Him.
Again, when and where anything I post contains no wisdom, it is to be simply ignored. My Lord came not into the world to condemn it, but to save it. Peace to you both and all others reading along.
Kindly meant.
Dennis[/font]
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Aug 14, 2006 23:50:38 GMT -5
Linda and Dennis,
Thanks for your peacekeeping display here and to you, Linda, I guess I find it hard to "examine the issues" without confronting an actual live, speaking, thinking individual and Clay has offered himself as the defender of the truth (as he sees it). So, he becomes the sounding board in my search for answers. I did not find them in the "Truth" as we all know and it intrigues me that there are others who will stand up and defend a way / method to the extent that Clay does.....quite similar to the gusto that workers defend the "Truth". Over the years, he has referred to Catholicism as "the Church" as mentioned in the bible and I find that offensive and off base. I see as much presumption going on within the Vatican as I knew in the "Truth"......and we all know how that goes.
....and to Dennis, yes, I've mellowed as you've noticed. I have many good supportive Catholic friends and you might expect that I don't argue with them openly. I recognize the Holy Spirit in their lives as much as in any Protestant. I do not recognize a franchise on God that Clay promotes about his church. I do not recognize the Catholic Church as the body of Christ. If that is true, then no one else on this board is a member of it except Clay. Maybe by desire (which I also disagree with). I don't recognize the Pope as my spiritual father and don't believe he holds the keys to the kingdom. I didn't even know Catholics believed that until I heard it from Clay. So, see how I've learned from my experience here !
As for maturity, I regret that I've contributed to causing Clay some hateful thoughts. I do respect his love for God and his dependency on the sacrifice of Jesus. I find a real truth.... that a person who can't separate himself from his denomination without feeling fallen away from God, then he's probably trusting in something beyond or in addition to the blood of Jesus. That's the Jesus Plus Syndrome.
Yes, this forum is not for exposing the ills of Catholicism, but then neither should it be used for promoting or defending Catholicism. The overriding consensus here is that we need to acknowlege Jesus' life and death as the fulfillment of our faith, regardless of our meaningless and overdone (and much presumed) habits of worship.
By pursuing a Catholic debate, I could only hope that real truth would become evident. It has not. It always comes back to "Jesus is the Way" in spite of Catholicism, the "Truth" etc.
I would be a more likeable person if I would align with the majority and pick the "Truth" apart.
God in us; our hope of salvation. Period
I encourage your further comments, Linda and Dennis, Clay and Rob.
Howard
|
|