One night I dreamed I was walking along the beach with Our Lord. Many scenes from my life flashed across the sky. In each scene I noticed footprints in the sand. Sometimes there were two sets of footprints, other times there was one only. . This bothered me because I noticed that during the low periods of my life, when I was suffering from anguish, sorrow, or defeat, I could see only one set of footprints, so I said to Our Lord, . "You promised me Lord, that if I followed you, you would walk with me always. But I have noticed that during the most trying periods of my life, there has only been one set of footprints in the sand. Why, when I needed you most, have you not been there for me?" . The Lord replied, "The years when you have seen only one set of footprints, my child, is when the Blessed Virgin carried you."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 12, 2004

Answers

apologies because i know that everyone has heard this but i think that it is really quite stunning.

PS Moderator the server will be sending responses to an false email address - assume this can be stopped.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 12, 2004.

Well, I never heard that "Catholicised" version before. The original read "The years when you have seen only one set of footprints, my child, is when I was carrying you."

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 12, 2004.

Ian, I think even the Cathocis Agree God, not Mary, carries us throug hte darkest times, an it is Gods grace, not Mary's, that one seeks in the sacraments and services, and God incarnate, not Mary, that was the attonement of sin.

So why change this well familiar poem to ad soemthign that doesnt een fit Catholic doctorine an only adds to the abilit yto msirepresent Catholsism form the likes of Jakc Chikc and Dave Hunt? After all, thy say Catholics Worship Mary, and his does seem to be the implication to this revision of your poem.

-- ZAROVE- Meanign no offence. (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 12, 2004.

Ian..,

Shame on you...

Jesus does the carrying in all cases.

See what happens when you worship Mary?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 12, 2004.

i like this version because it emphasises the role of the Blessed Virgin in our daily lives through the Rosary.

and this after all is October.

"It is a great thing in any saint to have grace sufficient for the salvation of many souls; but to have enough to suffice for the salvation of everybody in the world is the greatest of all; and this is found in Christ and in the Blessed Virgin." St Thomas Aquinas

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 13, 2004.

Martin Luther would have liked it too. here's what he said, Faith:

"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 13, 2004.

here is what we were told at Vatican II:

"This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."

Mary is close to those suffering or in danger.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 13, 2004.

and here is the same message from nearly 2,000 years earlier:

"For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin."

St Irenaeus: Against Heresies, Book 5 Chapter 19

the shame lies upon those that deny Our Blessed Mother the dignity and honour that she merits.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 13, 2004.

Ian,

The problem I have with your version of "Footprints" is that it suggests there are times when God abandons us and Mary alone is caring for us. Christ's footprints must be the constant element of the story if the story is to have any basis in truth. If Mary was assisting Him in supporting us, which we know she does, there would still be two sets of footprints.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 13, 2004.

"I beg you to present my petition to your Divine Son. If you will pray for me, I cannot be refused. I know, dearest Mother, that you want me to seek God’s holy Will concerning my request. "

Paul

this is what i say as i pray my Rosary Novena.

i said it this morning.

the key words are: "If you will pray for me, I cannot be refused."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 13, 2004.

Ian,

That's a wonderful prayer. I'm certainly not suggesting that there is any problem with asking Mary for intercession. I just thought that your form of the old "Footprints" story didn't support what we know to be the truth regarding Christ's unceasing care for us and Mary's intercession and support.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 13, 2004.

OK Paul

i guess this is where imagery can confuse.

for example, is it not true to say that the Blessed Virgin crushed the serpent?

that's what it says quite clearly in the Vulgate and Douay.

and that's what all those statues of the Blessed Virgin depict.

but, on the statues, those are Her feet -- and not those of Our Lord -- standing on the snake.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 13, 2004.

1: tHE vULGATE, AD SUBSEQUENTLY THE dOUAY-rHEIMS WHICH IS TAKEN FORMT EH vULGATE, IS MISTAKEN.

Genesis 3:15 is MASCULINE not FIMININE.

Since you dislike the KJV, I shall ue alternaes, inlcudign some Catholic apprived or flat out Catholic Bibles.

World English Version.

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel."

Darby Version.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall crush thy head, and thou shalt crush his heel.

Basic english.

And there will be war between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed: by him will your head be crushed and by you his foot will be wounded.

New Revised Standard Version.( Catholic's use this one Ian...)

15I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.’

New American Bible.

3 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

Footnote:[-3 [15] He will strike . . . at his heel: since the antecedent for he and his is the collective noun offspring, i.e., all the descendants of the woman, a more exact rendering of the sacred writer's words would be, "They will strike . . . at their heels." However, later theology saw in this passage more than unending hostility between snakes and men. The serpent was regarded as the devil (Wisdom 2:24; John 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seems implied in the contrast between head and heel. Because "the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8), the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman's offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.]

And, having CHecked, the Jerusalem Bible, readers edition, likewise rnders it he, not she.

2: The Phrase, now from the KJV, my standard, does not relaly reveal Mary or Christ.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The Phrase is the sentence passed ont he Serpent, which is not Identified as Satan in the Genesis text nor direclty refered to as satan anywhere in the Bible. Indeed, read 2 Corinthians 11...

3. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Paul did not even call the serpent Sstan, nor is it tradiitonal in Jewish Circles to think of the Serpent as Satan. It is a late interpretation, and it is not rwllay a Messaianic Prphecy regardign Satans eventual defeat, but rather an explanation for why their is emnity between Men and Serpents.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 13, 2004.

Zarove

you are reading the mind of St Jerome, are you not?!?!

it IS true to say that the Blessed Virgin crushed the serpent, just as it IS true that Our Lord's death crushed the serpent.

the imagery again confuses many. Our Mother as the New Eve. the Spotless Virgin as the complete anti-dote to the flirty floozy of the Garden.

i think St Jerome must have been pretty good at writing in Latin ;-))

"Ipsa", not "Ipse".

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 13, 2004.

Jerome or no, the origional Hebrew reads as follows.

15. W'eeybaah 'aashiyt beeynkaa uwbeeyn haa'ishaah uwbeeynzar`kaa uwbeeyn zar`aah. huw' yshuwpkaa ro'sh w'ataah tshuwpenuw`aaqeeb.

Huw is "HE", not "She".

So I dotn need to read Jeromes Mind, just the origional Hebrew texts he translated, and site a small error in his translation.

Jerome did not write the Genesis acocunt, he merley translatd it. Likewise, not all Latin Vulgates read ipsa , soem do read Ipse...

And even if Jerome did write Ipsa instead of Ipse, it doesnt mean its nto a mistake, Jerome was NOT infallable as a translator, and I sy that not to dsparage him, but realisticlaly speakign he made soem acknowledged errors.

All this said, it has nothing to do woththe New eve nor Christ nor Satan, again, its a curce placed upon the serpent, NOT a prophecy.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 13, 2004.

well Zarove, the Jewish originals (but so i understand, not all of them) may have used the masculine reference, as does the LXX; but it does not follow that the translator has erred.

had he translated the book such that it stated that God did NOT create the universe, or that Adam did NOT eat of the apple, then there would obviously have been errors.

what he did was to take what i might describe as some poetic licence, but licence on all fours with the teaching of the Church and reality.

St Irenaeus lived AD130 - 202, and he said this: "As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin". the symmetry is striking. the prophesy is clear.

St Jerome would have been guilty of mis-translation had he written that "... and she [or "he", or "it" or "they"] shall NT crush thy head...".

he did not.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 14, 2004.

bUT IN ADDITION TO IT NOT BEIGN AN APPLE, YOU HAVE TO CONTEND WITHTE FACT THT THE MASCULINE IS USED. tHE QUOTE ORM iRANEUS DOESNT EVEN MENTION gEN 3:15 SPACIFICLALY...

I dotn care about apologetics, even Catholic translators agree that this is oen of the few errors in he Vulgate.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 14, 2004.

they're not being very "Catholic" if they think the Vulgate is in error. its accuracy is infallibly guaranteed by the Church.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 14, 2004.

The one thing I liked about Mel Gibson's movie The Passion--was that he was true to the Scriptures with respect to who defeats Satan. Jesus crushes Satan in the end., as Mel depicted in his highly over- rated movie.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 14, 2004.

faith

Mel will be just delighted to know that he has your imprimatur! the ultimate seal of approval. THE private interpretation, of all the millions of conflicting private interpretations across the world, that counts.

if only those Church Fathers all those years ago, separated only by few generations from the actual events, had been so enlightened! if only they could see that the power to loose and bind was the power to evangelise! if only they had realised that we were all given keys - well some of us but we struggle to explain who! if only they could have foreseen that the Vatican City, that did not exist at that time, was the Babylon in the Apocalypse! if only they had realised that if you are saved you can hang out in brothels and do anything you want!

how different things might have been!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! no monasteries or fasting, just bordellos and bars.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 15, 2004.

Ridiculous Ian..,

Your ranting just shows how little you pay attention!

It is far easier as a Catholic, to hang in bars--get drunk and cuss all you want.

A born-again Christian knows Jesus too well for any of that.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 15, 2004.

Ian, I a afraid I shall have to sid with Faith on this. I mean, relaly,y uo ar einsultign all protestants, and accusignthem of loose morals...

even the Popes wherent moral giants, examples such as Alexader the 6th, who, thouhg charitable in feeding the poor and pilgrims, often with his own money, also hung out in brothels, and even hosted a banquet caed " The Ballet of Chestnuts" in which naked prostitutes where mad eto dance for entertainment in the papal place, it eneded witthe guests having sex withte orostitutes in a wild Orgie, with awards give them by Alexander the 6th, based on who had had sex wththe most prostitutes and who climaxed the most.

Mind you, most Protestants lead moral lives, and I am sure most Cahtolics are likewise attemptign to erve the Lor din their lives, but nboth sides fail in time, since we are sinful and imperfect creatures.

Many Catholics dotn even bother to try either, just like many Protestants dont.

Moral relitavism and degredaton si common on both sides.

But to say that Cahtilics have the Moral High GFround and Protestants are all lose on Morals is absurd, and unreasonable, and as Bigoted and narrow-minded and ininfirmed as anythign one reads form Dave Hunt.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 15, 2004.

Zarove

you misunderstand. there must be very few potestants that share Faith's views and only those few could actually take offence.

you yourself have even encouraged Faith to look at "orthodox" protestant arguments rather than fly with her own. her views are extreme. they are, it seems to me at least, designed to denigrate the Church and the Pope.

i outlined some of these radical private views that Faith has adopted. you clearly do not agree with her so you need not take offence.

now this is what i was responding to: "The one thing I liked about Mel Gibson's movie The Passion--was that he was true to the Scriptures with respect to who defeats Satan."

so, that's ***the one thing*** - that he was true to Scripture on the narrow point of the serpent's head being crushed.

EVERYTHING ELSE Faith didn't like.

that's extreme and its anti-Catholic.

who's the bigot Zarove. you tell me.

if that movie had been made by a protestant, do you think Faith would be so negative.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 16, 2004.

Ian- The fact that Faith acts rather blunt.y and without tact, and is outright rue on occasion, is not licence to follow her footsteps, nor is it wise to make clims that effect all protestants while addresisng only her. Remember what th Lord said, that we should speak well to all?

A gentle answer turns away wrath.

American- The outpouring of the Holy Spirit has nothig at all to do withthe poins beign discussed, and no one relaly doubts she was thir, nor has it been called into queasiton. Also, even though I am a KJV Onlyist myself, it is unwise to say "Check KJV Acts". as the refeence will be in other translatiosn as well. Besodes, your missing the CHaoter and Verse.

I beelive you refernece chaoter 1, Verse 14, which reads ( Form the KJV) As follows.

14. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 16, 2004.

you've lost me, "american".

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 16, 2004.

"clims that effect all protestants "

that's the point Zarove.

my points addressed one especially extreme protestant. you have recognised that extremity.

note also the use of !'s - ie i was "ribbing" Faith rather than being rude. that's all.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 16, 2004.

If being honest and straight forward makes me rude--then so be it. But I am sure you would be hard pressed to find a single post where I am actually outright rude or without tact. The problem is that I am to the point and the truth does tend to hurt.

But I make no apologies because I am never deliberately rude or mean-- just painfully honest.

I think if you search the Scriptures--you will find that Jesus and the apostles were also painfully honest. They never humored false teachers, or lies--ever. Just read some of the things Jesus said to the Pharisees.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 16, 2004.

From where I am sitting, you both need to learn civil manners, and the value of a kind word.

Proverbs 15

1. A Soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 16, 2004.

Like I said Zarove--

I have never been rude nor have I used grievous words. I am honest and straight forward--and if you want to confuse that with anything other than that--you may do so. I am just going to try and straighten you out about it if I can.

I never attack anyone personally nor do I lie or accuse other of such behavior--even though I do find that rod is rather emotional and irrational at times and that Ian is hostile towards me because I don't bend and I stand firm in my convictions.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 16, 2004.

You are both beign rude and insufferable. That is my stance. Please try to be more open with each other.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 16, 2004.

I appreciate your opinion Zarove--I just think you are wrong.

I am never rude. I am just truthful. Please point to one post in this thread that leads you to clump me in with Ian's obvious disdain...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 16, 2004.

Faith, you are rude when youmake perjoratie comments and derogetory remarks, rather than showign charitable disagreeance, your wntire motis operandie is to be conforntaitonal and beligerant then feign innocency.

Ive seen it enough times, I know what I am on about.

Just try nt to be so hostile in future.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 16, 2004.

Excuse me Zarove--

But I disagree with your opinion of me and I asked for you to post an example of this wicked me.

If you cannot., then I would suggest that your opinion is exagerated and likely formed by the hostile opinions of hysterical people like rod and Ian--who are quite bothered by the truth.

I think you confuse honesty and truth with rudeness and hostility.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 16, 2004.

Faith wrote:"If you cannot., then I would suggest that your opinion is exagerated and likely formed by the hostile opinions of hysterical people like rod and Ian--who are quite bothered by the truth. "

Man oh man! The sky is falling now! How in the world can somebody be so short minded and conceded with such arrogance and myopic sense??! This one really takes the cake now, Faith. Uh, Ian is not hysterical! And that is the truth!

Hee...hee...hee....I'm just joking around, Folks! By now, we should all understand Faith's time-table. She usually gets irritated and rude around this time. I think they call it "hysteria"?!

I simply adore her wit and charm. She has such warmness towards others it boggles the mind. We can sprinkle it over our lunch, as we take it like a grain of salt. Thanks, Faith. But, Zarove doesn't need me to see what he sees.

Nor, Jim, Gail, Elpidio, Ian, Kevin, Paul M., Ed, and the Mormaon Tabernacle Choir.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 17, 2004.

Faith, I am not here to site spacific errors, if pushed I will, all I ask is tha you be more mindful in the future of others consideratiosn and ac tmore charitabley.

And I amnot singlign you out, Ian is also called to this.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 17, 2004.

I ask that you do Zarove.

Please cite specific posts that show me to be rude or to have used grievous words--if you can.

I'll wait...............

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 17, 2004.

i think that Faith's ideas are pretty crazy -- but i also believe that she has freedom of expression. this forum gets along quite well without poltical correctness taking over.

Faith has stood by me in the past along these lines. i stand by her now.

i can respect her right of expression without agreeing with a word she posts.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 17, 2004.

Its nto so much reedom if expression, its abotu civil conduct, I just want you both to present your ideas, as honeslty and freely as possible, without THE NEED FOR STOOPING TO DISGRUNTLED BEHAVIOUR.

But as the matter seems setled, I will simpley set aside. Sorry Faith, not that I cangt show posts in the past of yours that where rude, as much as it is unessisary at th emonent.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 17, 2004.

Oh...pick me....yes, me....I can....I can show a long list of posts....oh, please...me....pick me!!!!!

Who cares if we can provide textual proof? " We don need no steenkin proof." We know what we know because we've felt the sting and licked our wounds. Life goes on. People change; some don't. Let's respect the person who admits their faults and distance are feelings from those who can't.

Steve Irkle used to say, "Who me?" at the end of another one of his fiascos.

I will tell you this. Everyone in this forum has brought me to a touch of irritation. It is only human nature. But, we all tend to tuck it away and not let it fester. We move on. I'm sure my posts have done the same to somebody here. Hopefully, your forgiveness has been given to me.

If you keep being Faith, we have no choice. We must accept Faith. It isn't like Faith will be banned. Ha!

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 17, 2004.

Rod

your posts are amongst the most sublime. trust me.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 17, 2004.

Thanks, Ian. I'm not sure about "sublime", but maybe honest.

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 17, 2004.

OK Rod

sublimely honest.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 18, 2004.

I remain steadfast Zarove,

I am never rude nor do I do anything but present my argument in a civil manner.

I object to your insinuation that I am in the same *ballpark* as either Ian or rod--who do get insulting and emotional when they can't make ground with an argument.

Please post an example of my being rude or of using grievous words-- or hold your admonishment of me--

Thanks in advance : )

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 18, 2004.

Me? insulting? Hmmm? Faith, I think you and I would be real good buddies and even eat out twice a week. Me on a Monday and you on a Tuesday, but together at the same time and place, watchout!

If I'm rude towards you, it is only because of the words I use and the context inwhich I use them( yeah, I'm rude). Other than that, nah! I'm just me. I don't believe I've been rude with anyone else. They usually don't need a swift kick in the caboose. They are generally polite and all that with me and others.

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 18, 2004.

"I object to your insinuation that I am in the same *ballpark* as either Ian or rod--who do get insulting and emotional when they can't make ground with an argument. "--Faith.

Oh, Faith!! I'm gonna need surgery!! Oh, hep me, hep me, pleeze! I think I busted a gut I'm laughing so hard everything looks blurry!

My wonderfully pretty young lady. My arguments are but trivial little whisps of passing mists in the oceans of reason and truth. The day I win an argument will be of little value to this poor soul of mine. If it is you mission to win anything, it should be to remain humble and attractive to those lost souls out there who need bringing into the fold of Christianity. You have yet to win any arguments, nor have I. We stand firm in our beliefs and each to our church. I certainly am not here to win you over. We each have our own struggles to win over. Let me borrow one of your all-time favorite sayings, "L.O.L". Hey, we are just a bunch of ordinary folk. Ain't nobody here "something", remember?

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 18, 2004.

rod--

With all do due respect.,

Please try to remember that this is a discussion board--not broadway.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 18, 2004.

Ha! what respect, Faith? I'm "Catholic" remember? In the immortal words of both Rodney Dangerfield and Jim Furst, "I get no respect". Broadway? Hey, life is a stage!

Have you read any of Zarove's writings? I like them. He can use this forum as his "broadway", too. You do, Faith.

We are here to get our points across.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 18, 2004.

Faith

why not just let it lie and move on.

PS you have most certainly called me dumb and stupid. the threads are there - just need to be dug out. at the same time, you have stood up for me.

can't we just leave it at that.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 19, 2004.

Faith? Are you posing as "American"?

If you are not, then American you are clueless about Zarove and his spelling. Had you been here awhile and listened, you would have known about Zarove's dyslexia. I think you owe Zarove an apology, American. That's if you call yourself anything close to having a moral code.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 19, 2004.

Ian-

I can assure you that you will not find a single post of mine where I have stated that anyone is dumb or stupid.

I am sure that what it is--is that after I make my point--you realize I am right. That may leave you feeling dumb or stupid--but certainly I have never attacked you or anyone else with such words...

Feel free to dig...

I am calling you and rod and Zarove out on this one. Prove your assertions or hold your peace.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 19, 2004.

Well that and I didnt make a personal attack. I merley tried to aid int he eference. If you say " Check KJV Acts", it i a pretty tall order since we have to read the whole book to find out the soacific poin you are refeencing.

I tried to extrapolate which verse you meant, and placed it, nto as an attack, but as a mean to make your poitn beter understood. The KJV Line was also accurate since most Bibles, indeed all i know of, say the same thing, that Mary was there as well.

I didnt attack you at all American, I merley asked you to be more clear.

As Rod pointed out, I am Dyslexic. Spellign is, of coruse, a pobelm for me. But I don think it means I am not Christ-like based on poor spelling.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 19, 2004.

You call this kosher, Faith?

"I am sure that what it is--is that after I make my point--you realize I am right. That may leave you feeling dumb or stupid--but certainly I have never attacked you or anyone else with such words... "

You just did it again. How would you know how a person feels after tangling with you. Do you really want to know how I feel after reading your posts?

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 19, 2004.

Well? do you?

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 19, 2004.

Here is an example of our tolerance levels, Faith:

Zarove is a Protestant. Everybody here and in the other forum seem to love the man. He is a fine example of the Christian man. I disagree with some of his beliefs (I'm sure he doesn't agree with some of mine,either), but I do respect him because he respects me. He doesn't make me feel like an "igit" or a "maroon" when we argue. There is no need for that kind of mess. I don't believe that Zarove thinks that I feel "stupid" after reading his points.

Hey, we all love Elpidio, too. We don't love his theology, but we love the guy. What can we say? He never once called me anything or made me feel like an "idiota" for posting or disagreeing with him.

Have a look at all the adjectives you've used on me, Faith.

But, nothing takes the cake like when I'm told that I'm going to Hell for being a Catholic or that I make God a liar. That kind of stuff hurts deep inside. People don't have to go do stuff like that. True Catholics (true believers of any denomination) can rely on Christ' forgiveness if things turn out to be complete wrong in their faith systems. Perhaps they were lead astray by their leaders. Who do you blame then?

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 19, 2004.

I am sorry you come to feel that way about yourself after reading my posts, rod. I really am.

But that is not my fault.

My posts are always honest--to the point--and theological in nature.

I ask for debate on the issues--and all you seem to do is take offense at the content of my posts--which is never personal, even though you try to make it that way. Then you become emotional and all bets are off.

I like debate--and I like concise theological reason. I adhere strictly to the Word of God for all my *proof*.., and it becomes impossible to debate when everyone else does not regard the Word of God as I do.

I will still wait for you to dig up these supposed posts where I am said to attack on a personal level. Please do this and get digging-- or drop it, because I am tired of the baseless accusations and rhetoric.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 19, 2004.

Another sample:

"I like debate--and I like concise theological reason. I adhere strictly to the Word of God for all my *proof*.., and it becomes impossible to debate when everyone else does not regard the Word of God as I do. "

Could it because your understanding is skewed?

I've always admired how Paul M. handles his posts. He posts what the Church view is.

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 19, 2004.

Let's also remember who was banned and for what reason.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 19, 2004.

rod.., please provide proof of your acusation that I insult you or anyone with deliberate attacks on one's person....

So far--all you are doing is showing that you have no such posts--and that it is you who does the insulting.

BTW--I have always made of point of never threatening hell fire in any of my posts...

So I'll wait rod--while you dig......

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 19, 2004.

Obviously, Faith, you are too acustom to your tone to see the fire the breathes in your posts. Many people have tried to point this out, but you won't listen. Eventually, more people will stop listening. That banning should have been a wake up call for you.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 19, 2004.

Excuse me rod--but did you find proof of your accusations yet?

I am still waiting..........................

Oh and the reason I was banned from the Catholic site was because Ed couldn't handle me. It became personal because he had no refutation.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 19, 2004.

How many members do you have in your Space Cadet club, Faith?

Faith, I really am getting tired of your foggy and slippery ways of avoiding reality. It is ok to admit that you goofed up with your "tough love" approach with others. Apathy is beginning to dominate my interests in your presence here. So, I've decided that we'll just have to put up with your abrasiveness. Oh, sorry, your honesty...

I'll let it go like a leaky faucet or squeaky door that loses my attention over time. Perhaps others have eventually done the same.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 19, 2004.

I just read this post and it seems Faith brought up some points and suddenly the post turned into an argument over HOW one expresses their viewpoint more than the actual substance of their argument...

Are people here really so hyper-sensitive in real-life? Seriously... if you want to discuss things with people, you can't throw up the "you hurt my feelings" flag everytime they make a point, otherwise you'll just appear to have dodged the subject at hand.

Back to the poem: Changing the poem's voice from "Jesus" to "Mary" may fit a person's personal theology, but why would a person want to change another person's poem? If it is considered to be an enlightened piece by a Christian, why would a person want to change it to reflect a more Roman Catholic view? (I'm not inferring it's scripture, just an enlightened poem.)

In regard to Mary, the Mother of our Lord, for some Christians, spending time glorifying and praying to her seems to take away from the time one could spend praying to and giving worship to the Source, God the Father.

If there's no comparison between God the Father and Mary (since God is beyond comparison) and the Father is more accessible than Mary, especially since there is a Promise that the Father hears the prayers of His children (and no promise that Mary hears and has power to answer her fellow Christians) then it's reasonable for some Christians to be wary of over-emphasizing Mary's power.

I've come to understand the honor due Mary is greater than most Protestants realize, that all Christians ought to honor her and hope for her prayers, but Catholicism has taken it too far, and in many cases APPEARS to replace faith in God as Heavenly Father with faith in Mary as Heavenly Mother.

My point is, some spend more time praying to the Mother of the Lord than they do praying to their Heavenly Father Who promised to hear them and love them and be with them forever. (Mary gave no such promises to her fellow Christians.) This can give the false impression that God the Father and Mary are on some equal level, which they obviously are not. It can be argued that one's growth in their relationship to God can potentially be slowed the less one prays to God, and praying to Mary takes away from time one could pray to God.

All I can say is, Mary is in heaven and is truly exalted and honored and loved by her Son, and our attitude toward her ought to reflect that same attitude, but I would not go too far and spend too much of my limited time on earth petitioning her (especially since I don't have any promise that she hears and cares) when instead I can petition our Heavenly Father directly, with nearly countless promises that He hears and cares AND has the ultimate say in whatever matter I'm praying about.

It's sort of like this: Why spend time waiting in line and asking the busy clerk at the hotel desk for a favor if your dad is the General Manager and promised you that the door to his office is always open whenever you need? especially if the clerk has to go to your dad anyway to obtain the favor for you? It would almost seem like an insult that you didn't go ask your dad directly.

I'm not saying that prayers to Mary are never answered. I believe the saints can hear our prayers, since all our prayers enter the throne room, but I do not believe emphasizing prayers to saints is particularly healthy for a Christian who ought to be nurturing and growing in their faith in God as their Father and Provider. There is no promise and no encouragement in Scripture regarding the saints and prayers to them. I wouldn't say it's totally unhealthy, it just seems less productive compared to praying to the Ultimate Power of the Universe Who can do far more than all the saints combined.

I hope this doesn't sound mean. Just expressing my view.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 19, 2004.

Faith

"I am sure that what it is--is that after I make my point--you realize I am right. That may leave you feeling dumb or stupid--but certainly I have never attacked you or anyone else with such words... "

that made me laugh Faith! you have a good sense of humour.

are we now going to get on with the post. Max has brought us back on line - i suggest that we go with it.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 20, 2004.

Hi Max. Obviously, you haven't had to deal with Faith's "tough love" approach. Anyways, who cares if anybody sounds mean, right?

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 20, 2004.

indeed Rod, Max emoted me as much as Faith with this comment:

"Changing the poem's voice from "Jesus" to "Mary" may fit a person's personal theology, but why would a person want to change another person's poem? "

there's a song about REM about this. and its not about changing poems.

rich. as duck fat.

i am currently considering the differences between the narrow gate and the wide gate.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 20, 2004.

dang, diggety, dang, diggety, dang, ....

"there's a song ABOUT REM about this"

"there's a song BY REM about this"

-------------------------------------

"that's me in the corner"

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 20, 2004.

>Obviously, you haven't had to deal with Faith's "tough love" approach.<

Faith and I have had our debates. Everyone has their own style. The most important thing is to not get sidetracked or misinterpret the tone of another's post, but stay on topic and assume the best in others, giving the benefit of the doubt.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 20, 2004.

Actually, Max, the best thing to do is to ignore those who hate my Catholic Church. We can agree or disagree all day long, but when the mud starts flinging, it is time to play with the other kids in the neighborhood. I have passion, compassion, and fire in my blood. It must be my Spanish blood. So, I must continue to be who I am. Faith continues to be what she is and everybody allows that, except the Catholic Forum of course. Hey, you too can be Max. Are you a Vulcan? That was just a joke, Max.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 21, 2004.

This forum kind got big and heavy as a result of my first "provoking fights", huh?

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 21, 2004.

Good thing we are not campaigning to show which is the true Church.

Bad comments don't fizzle me anymore. I traveled a lonely road for almost 20 years. Like the Old Poem says about 2 roads.

I took the one less travled by and that has made a difference!!!

Even the Red Socks broke an old curse after losing the first 3 games.

But as long as we share our viewpoints is great.

We learn a lot from each other.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 21, 2004.

Elpidio

great poem. learned it at school. can still recite various parts of it now. Robert Frost.

2 roads diverged in a narrow wood and be one traveller long i stood then looked down one as far as i could to where it bent in the undergrowth

that's what i remember.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 21, 2004.

this is the full text

67. The Road Not Taken TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveler, long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth; 5 Then took the other, as just as fair, And having perhaps the better claim Because it was grassy and wanted wear; Though as for that, the passing there Had worn them really about the same, 10 And both that morning equally lay In leaves no step had trodden black. Oh, I marked the first for another day! Yet knowing how way leads on to way I doubted if I should ever come back. 15 I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 21, 2004.

sorry - correct spacing [hopefully]:

TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

Though as for that the passing there

Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

---Enter by the narrow gate?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 21, 2004.

Sometimes is sort of a narrow gate, as spoken by Jesus.

But I believe Ian, that even though we try to have a life that is not full of perils, life makes us take many roads others have not traveled by.

Not that Iam Calvinistic , now. But there are things we cannot avoid.

Many I asked myself what if I had stayed Catholic? What if I had never listened to my dreams?

But when only one dream hasn't come true in 18 years, I wonder. Especially when I hear the voices.

More than 50 people I told or said they were going to die are dead. Everything happening within a 3 year period.

Only 2 of my students who after being told asked me to pray for them are alive. One was shot a few times, but they missed him: Ronald Frias. He already passed the 3 year mark.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 21, 2004.

rod--

And honest assesment will reveal that it is you who turns the tide in every debate by making it personal and emotional. You are the one who cannot stay on a topic--probably due to a lack of biblical knowledge-- and so you start flinging mud.

I challenge you to find one post of mine--where I make it personal by going off-topic and attacking you or your person.

You won't find any!

You are the one shouting *fire* when there really isn't any. Try staying on a debate topic--rather than *taking* everything personal.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 22, 2004.

I am honest. That honesty can also been seen when my "emotions" surface.

Faith can you stop attacking the Catholic Church with your Hislopian propaganda? Will you stop? You know how Catholics feel when they are told that their church is evil. Imagine what they think of the messenger. Now, stop trying to put the burden on me. You light the fires under my feet. What do you expect me to do, but to yell out and have the flames brought to an end. Let me start in on your church and see how you would react. I could do the same by bringing false information to defile your faith system. The difference between us is that I do not hate your church, but you still have a hatred smoldering in you for the Catholic Church. I can imagine that you have suffered greatly under the Catholic Church and now you are out to even the score. I had such feelings, but I chose to become educated in the Church instead.

I've heard your reasons for dissing the Church, but when you post hate-filled information from unreliable sources I then begin to see an accurate image of your agenda. Now, you be honest and let your hatred towards the Church dissappear. It is the best thing to do. If anyone here has a grudge against the Catholic Church, it is me. I a in a condition which prohibits me from the Holy Eucharist. You, once repented, would probably have a greater chance of The Holy Eucharist than me.

............ ...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.

The new Mass of Paul 6th is invalid when said in he vernacular. All those attending that Mass are not receiving the body and blood of Christ. They are committing sacrilege, (albeit unknowingly), and receive no benefits.

-- JLC (Trespasser12@aol.com), October 22, 2004.

Here are the details.

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896:“All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they effect and effect the grace which they signify.”

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896: “That form cannot be considered apt or sufficient for a Sacrament which omits that which it must essentially signify.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence,: “…this is a fitting way to signify the effect of this sacrament, that is, the union of the Christian people with Christ.”

One does not have to say anything more… the New Mass is not valid!

It is very interesting to note that in all the formulas of Consecration in the Catholic Church, whether it be the Armenian Liturgy, the Coptic Liturgy, the Ethiopic Liturgy, the Syrian Liturgy, the Chaldean Liturgy, the Malabarese Liturgy, etc. the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body is signified in the words of Consecration. And no liturgy that has ever been approved by the Church has used the word “all” in the Formula of Consecration.

-- JLC (Trespasser12@aol.com), October 22, 2004.

Faith, rod, cool it the both of you, now.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 22, 2004.

Yes, sir. This shall be my last reply to Faith. I will acknowledge her presence when things become cordial. Sorry for the excalation on my part.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.

Zarove--

I am completely cool, calm and collected. There is no doubt that you are mis-judging me.

Why are you spending so much time admonishing me? I am hardly even here.

Rod is the one who is giving the illusion that things are a problem. There is no problem. I am laughing so hard at the exageration here.

I asked you to please prove that I am doing anything wrong here--and you have not been able to do so.

Do not tell me how to behave here. I am well within the rules.

What makes you say "Faith--cool it"....????????

-- (faith01@myway.com"), October 22, 2004.

Rod..

What do I expect you to do when I bring up legitimate accusations against Catholicism? expect you to respond as Paul M. does--with theological debate and information. Notice that he never reduces himself to the temper tantrums and personal attacks that you do?

This is ridiculous. I am not *attacking* anything--even if that is how you feel. I bring up things about that religion that I believe are true. If you can't rebuke the information--then stay out of it and let someone else handle it.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 22, 2004.

Faith, soem fo the thigns tyou say are abrasive, and all i am doign is my job. Im not singlign you out, you are just the centre of this contraversy, and, as stated, you post ften thigns that are inciteful...

Just remember the old scripotrue of turning the other cheek.This goes for us all , except Moderators who hae to inervene.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 22, 2004.

Well Zarove--

I was moderator long enough to know that censoring this place is not acceptable.

I wasn't even able to stop Elpidio from defaming Jesus..

You are not doing your job with me because I am not doing or saying anything against the forum rules. If I am--please prove it by showing me the post that is not in line with the forum rules.

It isn't your job to censor with your personal take on things....

Of course a Catholic is going to find some things posted here-- offensive. But remember that this site was started for this very reason. David was banned from the catholic forum because he was posting the same info that I bring up.

This is the *Ask Jesus* board--not the "Catholic 2" forum. This board was started so that we would not be *shut-up*...but would be free to discuss this theology without being censored.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 22, 2004.

Zarove

May I remind you of Jesus as He drew a line across the ground. The accusers dropped the stones and removed themselves from the scene. There was no further need to continue the persecution of the woman and peace settled in for the day. Each person involved knew their sins. Perhaps Jesus scribbled them down for each soul to see. It would seem logical.

Will you consider drawing such a line that will allow each person to retreat to their "place" without demands for proof and reproof. I think the message deals with forgiveness and the bringing forth of a sense of peace. If each person is willing to turn the other cheek, there is no need to waste time in gathering any proof.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.

As noted on another thread Faith,its th manner of delivery hat causes the riction, not what you say.

I don CARE if you hate Catholisism, and disagree, I dotn car if you think the Pope is the Anti-christ, that Mass is basphemy, o that all Catholcis are gogn to Hell. oru free to say all of this. What I was doing however was askign you to be a bit kinder and less incendeary in your posts.

I dont complain that the Infomation you post is offensive to Cahtolics, only that your abrasiveness is gettign to peopels nerves. Soem of what I say will be offensive to soemone, and htat was never the issue, the only issue is between your personality and others clashing, and my attmeot to get you, and othes , to be beter able to dialouge and exchange your ideas, no matter how dvergent, in an honest and open way without the need to make the others angry or to stir hostility.

I posted an example of what you said as a problem and a n altered version of what you codlk have said. My altered version says the same thing, but is nicer in conveyign it, and that is all I am asking. Please check it out on the other thread, and let this matter rest.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 22, 2004.

No rod--

I demand the proof--or I want an apology.

This is such unbelievable nonsense.

I don't have to retreat to any corner because I never came out of one. That is your problem--not mine.

I am an open book--and all I care to do is debate theology.

You are apparently mistaking this place for some kind of chatroom or some place like a hang-out with friends or something. Set the emotions aside and get real.

This is a discussion board. The topic is religion.

Prove your assertions or forever hold your peace.

I don't blame you for not liking being called up to the plate about this--since there is no such proof for you to find. But hey--try anyway.

I'll wait.................

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 22, 2004.

I'm sorry Zarove--

But I disagre with your opinion on how I deliver my posts.

It is only rod's over-reaction that has you thinking like this.

I am no different than I have ever been. My points are direct--and to the point. I don't have to color anything pretty.., nor am I deliberately rude or unkind. I simply state the facts.

If you take them wrongly--that is your choice. But really--I think it is the over-sensitive *few* here that have this all blown out of proportion.

I am not going to change anything about myself here--just to appease some unfolded hysteria....

I have done nothing wrong.

Search for one post to prove your contention....I'll continue to wait....................

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 22, 2004.

Faith, rop it. Its over. Move on with other things. Lets not keep whippign a dead Horse.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 22, 2004.

I guess this means you can't find anything to prove your contentions??

I'm not the one who needs to drop anything since I am the one being accused., and since you are the one who keeps telling me to stop doing something that I am not doing.

So you are the one who needs to drop it.

And an apology would be nice since my character was wrongly attacked and accused..

Unless of course--you have that proof?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 22, 2004.

Faith your doign it now! your CONSTANT harping on peopel is what is causign the Hostile environemnt. Thats what I accused you of, of harpign on issues and generatign a hotile environemtn that leads ot unproductive fightign among posters.

You are now doign it qwith me!

This is why I said drop it. Im not sweepign it under the rug, Im ending a useless fight that leads to disharmony on the board.

Now, if you dont mind, drop this matter. Its no logner relevant. it is not all about you. Many others gor invvled and I called them all on it. You ar eht eonly oen continuing it. Its not a bad relfection on you except int he fact that you wont move on. Its not a matter of free speech or your ideas, its about not geenratign a hotile environment.

Hou are still at it dispiter me askign you to drop ot. I am emailign you with what I mean later but the above post is enogu to at leats show you that you are beign needlesly hostile.

Just let this go and lets get bakc to regular posting, OK?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 23, 2004.

ezboard for more on zavore3 check it out fo yoself

-- (ito@onl.on), October 23, 2004.

uHM... eveyoen here knwos I post on EZ Board...

And why mock my bad pelling? Who are you anyway?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 23, 2004.

Ya know what Zarove?

No!

Admit that you falsely accused me here.

There is not one post of mine where you will find that I have attacked anyone personally or *harped* on anyone as you now are claiming is mthe problem.

I am harping now because you have incited me without cause.

Faith your doign it now! your CONSTANT harping on peopel is what is causign the Hostile environemnt. Thats what I accused you of, of harpign on issues and generatign a hotile environemtn that leads ot unproductive fightign among posters.

I have never been involved in any such thing--nor do I *fight* with anyone here. The hostility is caused by the unprofessional over- reaction of emotionalists. And I don't engage it. Please post an example of this such problem where I am the cause. Or stop falsely accusing me.

You say that I am doing this with you right now--but this is the first time I am doing it--and it is because you have made some false and outrageous clai9ms about me. I want you to prove yourself--or apologize.

This is why I said drop it. Im not sweepign it under the rug, Im ending a useless fight that leads to disharmony on the board.

This particular disharmoney is being caused by lies that you and rod are making about me--and I am sick of it.

Now, if you dont mind, drop this matter. It's no logner relevant.

I do mind and it is very relevant. You are blaming me for the fact that others over-react and start calling me names.

it is not all about you. Many others gor invvled and I called them all on it.

The difference Zarove--is that the others were involved and I am not. I don't call names or fight. I am not doing so now--even though I am sure you are getting mad at me. I am asking you to post the proof you say you have., and you won't. If you can't back yourself up--then you stop. Stop demanding that I stop doing something that I am not even and apologize.

You ar eht eonly oen continuing it. Its not a bad relfection on you except int he fact that you wont move on.

I won't move on because I have been wronged--and I want it set right. Prove your contention or you let it go by apologizing and stopping your admonishment of me.

Its not a matter of free speech or your ideas, its about not geenratign a hotile environment.

I have no part in hostility that you find on this board. That has to do with the over-emotional over-reaction of those who can't debate reasonably. Like it or not--that is the hard truth. You can claim that even that statement is not nice if you want to be emotional too. But I am just staing my observation.

Hou are still at it dispiter me askign you to drop ot. I am emailign you with what I mean later but the above post is enogu to at leats show you that you are beign needlesly hostile.

I am not being hostile--I am asking for you to be honest here. Either prove your point or you drop it. Why is it so hard for you to admit that you were wrong in asking me to change? I am not doing anything wrong here. I know you asked me to drop it--but I didn't raise it-- nor did I continue it. You did. And I am not being hostile here at all. It's all in your unfounded misperception.

Just let this go and lets get bakc to regular posting, OK?

That's up to you Zarove--since I never deterred from regular posting in the first place. You did. Rod did. Ian did.., and each of you with your little personal attacks of me--because I post frankly.

This is a discussion board--not tryouts for some broadway drama queen...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 23, 2004.

Faith- re-read the thread. Initially I onloy got after Ian. Later, after tyo stepped in to defend yourself form me callin you rude, you became intrenched in this. You didt realy have to say anyhting, and coudl have allowsd the comment to slide, since, lets face it, it wasnt releant and most others here have percieved you as rude. My pount to Ian initilly was that your conduct is not licence for his own. He tried saying you where the blame when you wherent in this ase. You only became a problemw heb your treid to defend yourself form what you now think of as a false accusation, which wasnt even directoed toward you but makign a poitn to Ian, and now your insistanc eon provign your innocenced rather than accept the matter is settled only fiurther impicates you.

again, here is what I said to trigger you.

Read it carefully.

Read the context in this thread.

Ian- The fact that Faith acts rather blunt.y and without tact, and is outright rue on occasion, is not licence to follow her footsteps, nor is it wise to make clims that effect all protestants while addresisng only her. Remember what th Lord said, that we should speak well to all? A gentle answer turns away wrath.

The poitn was that Ian cannot use yor conduct to justify his own msibehaviour. It isnt even relevant if you rlaly are rude or not. However, you HAVE been rude int he past. You may not relaise it, or how others take tuor words, and its not just the position you take since I too am Protestant.

However, even if you wheren't rude, it wodln mater as Ian still shoud;n use you as an excuse for his own bad conduct.

Then, afer this post you leap in with an attemto to defend your honour which wasnt even affronted, and now want me to apologiuse for makign a correct satement.

This is why you and Ian where actign insuferabely, he was instegatign an unnessisary confluct and you where Dead set to defend your psoition and yourself at the expence of the upkeep pf the forum.

Again, I was breakign up a fight, and until you weighted in with defnedign yourself, a acion which is unnessisary in this cse a I merley Said Ian cannot justify his conduct by yours, you where largley not incled. you are now as you wont agree to let this go, and end the debate, and wan tot make it out liek I am singlign yo out. No faith, you are signlign me out, and I will ask again that you end this, as it is become unnessisary.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 23, 2004.

I can see, Zarove

...that you *know* that you have no ground to stand on about my supposed bad conduct--or you would have proved yourself by now.

I am surprised that you are unable to admit it though.

I will only end this now--so long as I never have to hear you admonish me in public for something that isn't true--but only a matter of your perception.

If and when the time ever comes that I am rude or involved in personally attacking someone--you will know it.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 23, 2004.

Faith, I am in coaboraiton with my felow Moderators and Administraiton, and comosing the email you requeasted. Howevrr, the conduct only relaly beocmes an issue when you or others cause it to dusrupt the board.

There is nothign for me to admit. You and Ian where arguing and cusign toruble. Ian started it but you kept it going.

All one has to do is re-read the thread and see.

As for admonisitons, we all get a little hot somrtimes, but thats why we have moderators, to calm everyone down.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 23, 2004.

You seem to want to continue this.

Where are these supposed threads Zarove? Ian may have been trying to cause trouble because he doesn't know how to use theology to debate-- and instead starts making it personal--but I do not engage him in that.

Where are these posts where I cause trouble or engage in insults or personal attacks?

Please produce them now.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 23, 2004.

Reas this thread again Faith... it was an unnessisary argument yhat I was ending, not anyhtign else. You ar eonly the sole individual now invovled with me in this as you wotn aqueess to my reqieast to press on.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 23, 2004.

Listen Zarove--

I reread this thread.

I can find not one post of mine where I began a fight or was rude or personally attacked anyone.

In fact--it seems that Ian was the instigator--rewriting someone else's poem to incite hostility among those who do not worship Mary. Even Paul called Ian on this one.

After correcting Ian--who also claimed that Mary crushes Satan's head-

I posted this:

The one thing I liked about Mel Gibson's movie The Passion--was that he was true to the Scriptures with respect to who defeats Satan. Jesus crushes Satan in the end., as Mel depicted in his highly over- rated movie.

Then when Ian couldn't think of anything more to incite anger among non Catholics--he said this:

faith Mel will be just delighted to know that he has your imprimatur! the ultimate seal of approval. THE private interpretation, of all the millions of conflicting private interpretations across the world, that counts.

if only those Church Fathers all those years ago, separated only by few generations from the actual events, had been so enlightened! if only they could see that the power to loose and bind was the power to evangelise! if only they had realised that we were all given keys - well some of us but we struggle to explain who! if only they could have foreseen that the Vatican City, that did not exist at that time, was the Babylon in the Apocalypse! if only they had realised that if you are saved you can hang out in brothels and do anything you want!

how different things might have been!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! no monasteries or fasting, just bordellos and bars.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 15, 2004.

Clearly we can see just who was causing trouble here--and who was being emotional--verses who was arguing with Scriptural reason and with facts.

The next insult actually comes from you--though I said nothing in this thread to that point to deserve it:

Ian- The fact that Faith acts rather blunt.y and without tact, and is outright rude on occasion, is not licence to follow her footsteps, nor is it wise to make clims that effect all protestants while addresisng only her. Remember what th Lord said, that we should speak well to all?

At this point I asked you to prove that I had been or done any such thing or in any such manner as to desreve being called rude and tactless.

So I ask again Zarove--show these posts and prove it.....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 23, 2004.

Listen Zarove-- I reread this thread.

I can find not one post of mine where I began a fight or was rude or personally attacked anyone.

{And I said Ian was the oen who started it... you only got into it when trign to defend yourself agisnt my supposed accusaiton... which was made to make a poitn to Ian... but your reaCITON to it spurred a mess I have to clean up currently.}-Zarove

In fact--it seems that Ian was the instigator--rewriting someone else's poem to incite hostility among those who do not worship Mary. Even Paul called Ian on this one.

{And I agree... again initilaly I just got onto Ian... I only got onto you after you insisted on stickign your nose in it...}-Zarove

After correcting Ian--who also claimed that Mary crushes Satan's head-

I posted this:

The one thing I liked about Mel Gibson's movie The Passion--was that he was true to the Scriptures with respect to who defeats Satan. Jesus crushes Satan in the end., as Mel depicted in his highly over- rated movie.

{Which sin relevant. Again, if you relaly re-read the thread, you woudl relaise that initially I was gettign after Ian for his causign hostility. However, now you are continuign the hostility in tryign to defend yourself from a percieved wrong. And the toruble is it is just a percieved wrong, for in this instance what i said of you was only to make a point, that your conduct is irleevant to his own.}-Zarove

Then when Ian couldn't think of anything more to incite anger among non Catholics--he said this:

faith Mel will be just delighted to know that he has your imprimatur! the ultimate seal of approval. THE private interpretation, of all the millions of conflicting private interpretations across the world, that counts.

if only those Church Fathers all those years ago, separated only by few generations from the actual events, had been so enlightened! if only they could see that the power to loose and bind was the power to evangelise! if only they had realised that we were all given keys - well some of us but we struggle to explain who! if only they could have foreseen that the Vatican City, that did not exist at that time, was the Babylon in the Apocalypse! if only they had realised that if you are saved you can hang out in brothels and do anything you want!

how different things might have been!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! no monasteries or fasting, just bordellos and bars.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 15, 2004.

{And thats when I got after him...}-Zarove

Clearly we can see just who was causing trouble here--and who was being emotional--verses who was arguing with Scriptural reason and with facts.

{Uhm... Ian was beign obnoxious, but not emoptional. At the same time I agree that he instegated it, and in fact, he was the one I initially got after...}-Zarove

The next insult actually comes from you--though I said nothing in this thread to that point to deserve it:

Ian- The fact that Faith acts rather blunt.y and without tact, and is outright rude on occasion, is not licence to follow her footsteps, nor is it wise to make clims that effect all protestants while addresisng only her. Remember what th Lord said, that we should speak well to all?

At this point I asked you to prove that I had been or done any such thing or in any such manner as to desreve being called rude and tactless.

{ And do you relaise when I said that, I was makign a point hat Ian cannot hide behind your behaviour to justify his own? It doesnt eben mater if you never said anythign rude on this board to anyone in its entiure hisotry, the poitn was that Ian cannot hide behind your behaviour as an excuse for his own... Like you argue in the thread about Transubstantiuation, not everythign I say shoudl be seen as Literal...}-Zarove

So I ask again Zarove--show these posts and prove it.....

{Prive what? Do you even understand the prupose of the quote you made of mine? It was to illustrate to Ian that he cannot and shoudl not try to justyfy his conduct based on someoen elses. It doesnt matter if tou where relaly rude or not. Ian accused you of beign such and I followed suit and said I idnt care. Teh poitn was that it doesnt matter if you are rude or not, what mattered in that portion of the discussion was rather Ian was rude or not! Dont you get that? Now stop tryign to defend yourslef form my comments, my comments wherent even relaly aboyt you, they where about Ian, they onl became abotu yo when you tried to defend yourself, now shut up faith!}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 24, 2004.

Zarove--

You have done what needs to be done. I have done what I felt had to be done. I will no longer pursue this matter. So, please do not get irritated by transient posters. Leave their posts as is to prove a point. My beef was not with anyone else and that matter is closed. It is not resolved, but it is closed.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 24, 2004.

In hiding, I havetn deelted any ppsts... and until the password works I cant. Not that I intended to. I intended only to close the thread... I relaly dislike the idea of deletin threads.

rod, if its closed, then stop posting.

As for Faith, your obviously not capable of seeign that not everytthing is about you. This mater wasn't till you made it so.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 24, 2004.

Zarove asks:

{Prive what? Do you even understand the prupose of the quote you made of mine?)

I am asking you to prove that I have the *behavior* that you accused me of having when you said to Ian that just because Faith is rude and tactless etc--it is no reason for him to act like me.

I object to your insinuation that I am any of those things--so I asked tou to repost the posts where I am ever rude or tactless and have such horrible behavior.

It is really simple--just direct me to these so-called moments if they exist--or stop making such claims against my character.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 24, 2004.

Ian said you whre rude, i followed the accusation to make a point, It was meant in this case as rhetorical... and you blew it out of proportion...There was no accusation agaisnt you, just the fact that your behavoour is irrleelvant to Ian's...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 24, 2004.

It is amazing to me that you can't admit that you were the only one wrong here...still trying to put the blame on me...hm?

You said this:

Ian- The fact that Faith acts rather bluntly and without tact, and is outright rude on occasion, is not licence to follow her footsteps, nor is it wise to make claims that effect all protestants while addresisng only her. Remember what the Lord said, that we should speak well to all?

That remark is condescending and is not a matter of you simply going along with Ian. You said those words yourself. I asked you to show me where I am guilty of being outright rude, or where I act rather bluntly without tact. You have not provided one post to show that what you said about me is true. Now you are trying to wiggle out of this by claiming you didn't really mean it.

Well Zarove--you shouldn't attack someone's character if you don't really mean it or if you haven't got the proof.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 24, 2004.

Ian flatly caled you a Bgot, what i said was more mild... but for beign rude, your beign rude now by makign excessiv demands on an issue that tyo have blown out of proportion. Its rude to make these demands, and indicatie of a cotnrolling personality.

Look Faith, we have all said soemthign rude or been disgracious on these bords orm tiem to tome, however, the main point in my post wasnt makign accusation about you, it as repeatign accusation alreayd made to show that I didnt care. I was adresisng his worngs which arent negated by your worngs, ahte your wrogns where real or imagined.

But you have been rude, disengeneous, and ouright hostile ti me sicne we began this all base don a rhetorical.

This is why I said you where both biwng rude and insufferable.

And you still are. Now accept the fact that, even thoguh you didnt liek the wording of my post, I meant nothign agsisnt you by the post, only that I cared nothing for his exuse that sicne you where a Bigot he coudl be one as well.

Now,stop beign hositl and tryong to make this into what its not. I dint accuse you. I used you as a reference to addres Ian. get this fact perfeclty clear.

And stop tryign my patience.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 24, 2004.

Unbelieveable-----

So now you are saying that I was not rude before when you first accused me--but now I am rude in defending myself??

So you justify your wrong treatment of me with your false allegations by saying it is *now* true that I am rude--because of how I am defending my character?

Wow!!

That would be like a parent grounding a child because he thought his child had been rude to the teacher--but hadn't been. So the child tries desperately to convince his parent that he wasn't rude--but they don't believe the child. The child gets really frustrated because he has been falsely accused--and has lifted his voice in defense of himself.

Later the parent finds out that it was actually another child who was the one who was rude--and instead of apologizing to his son--he says, "But you are still grounded because you lifted your voice when I was falsely accusing you and grounding you--and I think that that is rude!"

I mean--Lol!!

Give it up Zarove. I won't even ask you to apologize anymore---you clearly can't bring yourself to do it--even though you obviously see the fault in your behavior.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 24, 2004.

Unbelieveable----- So now you are saying that I was not rude before when you first accused me--but now I am rude in defending myself??

{ Im sayign this, You wherent rude in that thread till you turned on me. You became rude whn you woltn let the issue end and insetad gave Ian more maneuverign room to continue the conflict, and later when you continued the confluct all by yourself. You have also been abrasive in the past.}-Zarove

So you justify your wrong treatment of me with your false allegations by saying it is *now* true that I am rude--because of how I am defending my character?

{ I didnt treat you wrongly, you got a little too hot and needed to cool down. You didnt. My plan to end the fight backfired, btu you wherent exaclty wholly innocent.}-Zarove

Wow!!

That would be like a parent grounding a child because he thought his child had been rude to the teacher--but hadn't been.

{Again, Ian was the principle party to be found guilty, you wherre initially only guilty of participating.}-Zarove

So the child tries desperately to convince his parent that he wasn't rude--but they don't believe the child. The child gets really frustrated because he has been falsely accused--and has lifted his voice in defense of himself.

{ You WHERE arguign with Ian, and you DID second guess my judgement.}- Zarove

Later the parent finds out that it was actually another child who was the one who was rude--and instead of apologizing to his son--he says, "But you are still grounded because you lifted your voice when I was falsely accusing you and grounding you--and I think that that is rude!"

{Uhm...you relaise this does actually happen, right? Likewise you where the one to drag this on well too long... and take this sort of thing well too harshly. I mean come on see it form my perspective will you? Ian wasnt arguing all by himself you know.}-Zarove

I mean--Lol!!

Give it up Zarove. I won't even ask you to apologize anymore---you clearly can't bring yourself to do it--even though you obviously see the fault in your behavior.

{ The only fault was in not just ognoring your comments. However, you and Ian where arguing, he incited the argument, but you participated. I mean, again, I neeed ot end he fight. Yiu dragged this on well too long.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 26, 2004.

i began this thread with a piece of prose that touched me. it differs from the best known version (there are others out there) in one small and Catholic way.

that's all. nothing more to it than that.

elswhere Elpidio posted his Christian Yahwist version. that's up to him to do.

now you guys are dragging yourselves, and me, through the mud on account of your pride.

why can't you both just stop. yes, just stop posting NOW and let this all go away.

all i can see at the minute is a pot and a kettle, and they're calling me black too.

so please just stop it. it has become really, very silly.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 26, 2004.

maybe this call for peace is too late. from another thread i have just read, it would appear that Faith has decided to take some time out.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 26, 2004.

The poem wasnt the issue, the problem was the attaKC N PROTESTANTISM LATER INT EH THREAD.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 26, 2004.

well that's interesting Zarove.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 26, 2004.