I just looked in on that "Catholic" website. Lo and behold even though I do not post over there they know me as the "Infamous TC. Some guy named Greene does anyway.

They cannot stand the heat from Jake and Emerald, so they blast them with personal attacks. Why? Because they have nothing else of substance to say. Greene even calls the heretic JP2, "Saint heretic".

I thank the Protestant people over here for their patience with us. You show more charity in one little finger than they do in a whole arm. Thank you.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 13, 2005

Answers

Your welcome. But dont you think "Saint Heretic' is a litle extreme, not to mention paradoxical?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 13, 2005.

TC

Greene is possibly a nom-de-plume.

this thread i will watch closely: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CgJj

i hope it gets off the ground. it deserves to.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 13, 2005.

Thak you Zarove and Ian. O do sound a lot like a guy that has lost it don't I? Ponder this?

V2 started with a premise of religious librty, and salvation through the church. Especially when the ecumanism ackfired and for every convert they lost at least two catholics. The net loss can be seen with any statistics you wish to believe.

Salvation through the chuch was a sort of spiritual kidnapping. You know, if you won't voluntarily come in we will "spiritually kidnap you". That is an extreme isn't it.

What happened to the thrice defined dogma of "No salvation outside the Church", or water baptism, etc etc.

Now coms the difficult part: Do you believe those 3 popes, or do you believe JP2? One or the other is obviously wrong. One or the other is a heretic. There is no tap dance around that. Oh yes the neo's try but it is pathetic.

I hope that this makes a little sense anyway.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 13, 2005.

J. Greene is obviosly Joseph who posted here awhile ago. Same email address and comment-style.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), January 13, 2005.

Perhaps this will start things along for now. Please spare all the Church Documents to justify any position write from your own knowledge, position on the subject in responding to the above. As I have mentioned in the past most Church Documents are structured for reversals without really reversing but for Future "Revelations" "Greater Understanding

The above is a scrambled egg thinking from "Catholic"

You see "it is, but then again, it aint"

Please! I see that all the nuts arent in the store packages.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 14, 2005.

The "Catholic threads are still arguing about baptism of desire. No one has ever found a binding statement that makes either belief a dogmatic act of faith, because there isn't any.

What they should be arguing about is how a man they call "Holy Father", has for the past 25 years acted against every belief in the Catholic faith. Take a look at his crucifix. A symbol for Satan's benefit in the 5th century.

Any wonder why he (the only one), refused to take the papal oath. Why not, fear maybe?

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 15, 2005.