The Inquisitions

[epostle1]

You actually expect people to read all this?

The problem of evil is simple, any 10 year old can read the Bible and figure it out.

 

[GodsGrace]

The problem of evil is simple, any 10 year old can read the Bible and figure it out.

I just fell on this post and haven't been reading along.
The problem of evil is simple?
Is this what you're saying?
You've figured it out?
Please post the reply.
I'll be waiting for it.

sorry if I've misunderstood...

 

[Triumph1300]

Epostle 1, And you really think that people will read these long copied and pasted message?

Do you have anything to say for yourself or is it all copy and paste you'r interested in?

 

[Triumph1300]

sorry if I've misunderstood...

Don't be.

 

[epostle1]

I just fell on this post and haven't been reading along.
The problem of evil is simple?
Is this what you're saying?
You've figured it out?
Please post the reply.
I'll be waiting for it.

sorry if I've misunderstood...

I was being sarcastic on 2 levels: on those who think the Bible is always a simple book;(it is not)
and on those who think the problem of evil is resolved by quoting a few verses. (it is not)

 

[epostle1]

Epostle 1, And you really think that people will read these long copied and pasted message?

Do you have anything to say for yourself or is it all copy and paste you'r interested in?

Are you disturbed that DP Martin's logical fallacies have been exposed? What's it like defending atheistic arguments?
It seems some have read my post. It requires an attention span beyond a sound byte. If you don't like my long copy and pastes, then don't bother with it and quit your crying.

I also see you have nothing to add to the discussion, just complaining.
I am operating within the parameters of the rules so your abrasive approach has no place in this discussion.

Refute my l-o-n-g posts with some kind of effort, clarify DP Martin's confusing fallacious argumentation, then I will take you seriously.

 

[GodsGrace]

I was being sarcastic on 2 levels: on those who think the Bible is always a simple book;(it is not)
and on those who think the problem of evil is resolved by quoting a few verses. (it is not)

Amen to that. Especially the problem of evil.
I misundestood...

 

[GodsGrace]

Don't be.

Well, I really haven't followed along, so if an apology is necessary, then I do apologize.

I'm not sure what is being said and don't have enough time to go back and read all of the posts.

I'll say this regarding evil: The reason there is evil will not ever be understood by us humans. We cannot know why there is evil. Anyone who thinks they've figured it out must be better than the great thinker Augustine of Hippo because he THOUGHT he had it figured out in Confessions, but then in The City of Hope, later on in his life, he did state that evil cannot be understood.

This is my POV, and that of theologians. I don't know of one who thinks he's got it solved...

 

[Triumph1300]

I'll say this regarding evil: The reason there is evil will not ever be understood by us humans.

But at least we know how it started with a fallen angel.

 

[Triumph1300]

Refute my l-o-n-g posts with some kind of effort, clarify DP Martin's confusing fallacious argumentation, then I will take you seriously.

Not to worry.
I don't take you seriously either.
I have to many things to do.
Just like others, I have no time to read these very long pages on my screen.
I'm going to a great church where the Holy Spirit is present.
My spiritual life does not depend on this forum.

 

[Triumph1300]

on those who think the Bible is always a simple book;(it is not)

Really?
God gave us a book that only can be understood by a few highly intelligent people?
Strange statement you make, many children come to Christ because of this book.
After all He said: Come as a child.

 

[DPMartin]

We've already gone through this.

Man was NOT God's first creation.
The Angels had already rebelled against Him. That's when evil first reared its ugly head.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

therefore how is it that evil made itself? you are trying to tell me that because its not of God, like Righteousness for example, that God didn't make it, like evil for example. that's plain old stupid to believe that.


one should understand that its our fault to look to what we thing ourselves, before we see. one can't really see unless one thinks the Truth first.

 

[bbyrd009]

Really?
God gave us a book that only can be understood by a few highly intelligent people?

well, you gotta regard "seen and not seen" somehow in there, although one valid argument is that intelligence even hinders understanding. Surely there are passages that you do not get, at all? At least there are for me, dunno about everyone

Strange statement you make, many children come to Christ because of this book.

most end up with seven spirits worse, though, right, even after completing the "come to Christ" checklist

 

[BreadOfLife]

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

therefore how is it that evil made itself? you are trying to tell me that because its not of God, like Righteousness for example, that God didn't make it, like evil for example. that's plain old stupid to believe that.

one should understand that its our fault to look to what we thing ourselves, before we see. one can't really see unless one thinks the Truth first.

Not only have I shown you that the Bible disagrees with you - I can show you by pure logic:
If God, who is ALL good created evil - then He is NOT all good.

Jesus Himself said that a good tree cannot bear BAD fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit (Matt. 7:18).

 

[Helen]

For as much "lol-ing" as you do - you sure haven't learned much on this forum, have you??

A Roman Catholic is a person who "accepts the Rites of the RCC"??
That is a redundantly-ignorant statement.

How many Rites do I have to accept??
What is the "RCC"??

I have seen this many times now. I must be brain dead because I still don't understand why it is important to you to insist that you are not "Roman" Catholic.

Is it a bad thing? Why do you distance yourself from it.
All the world seem to say- " he, or she, is a Roman Catholic.."
Why is that a bad thing?

Sorry, it just takes me a while to get things.

 

[Helen]

You actually expect people to read all this?

Haha! You spoke for me! I take one look and fast-forward to next post. :)
It wears me out to just look at all the reading.

 

[Marymog]

No answer about WHAT?
The difference between Roman Catholics and Catholics?

Roman Catholics consider the Pope to be their spiritual leader; he is called by the Roman "Christians"
as the Vicar of Christ.

Catholics do not believe in any papal authority.
Catholics or Greek Orthodox do not recognize some of the books included in the Roman Catholic Bible.

Fly at it!

Why is your focus only on the Catholic Inquisitions???

 

[epostle1]

Why is your focus only on the Catholic Inquisitions???

Because "Catholic Inquisitions" assumes that is the only type, and it is a handy bat to beat Catholics with and avoid the truth of the Protestant Inquisitions (which were worse).

Unfortunately, the religious "scandal score" needs to be evened up now and then, and the lesser-known "skeletons in the closet" need to be rescued from obscurity, surveyed, and exposed. I take no pleasure in "dredging up" these unsavory occurrences, but it is necessary for honest, fair historical appraisal. This does not mean that I have forsaken ecumenism, or that I wish to bash Protestants, or that I deny corresponding Catholic shortcomings.

Historical facts are what they are, and most Protestants (and Catholics) are unaware of the following historical events and beliefs (while, on the other hand, one always hears about the embarrassing and scandalous Catholic stuff -- and not often very accurately or fairly at that). If (as I suspect might often be the case) readers are shocked or surprised by the very title of this paper, this would be a case in point, and justification enough for my purposes of education. With that end and stated outlook in mind, I offer this copiously-researched treatise, with all due respect to my Protestant brethren, yet not without some remaining trepidation.
In Defense of the Church: The Protestant Inquisition: "Reformation" Intolerance and Persecution by Dave Amstrong

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have seen this many times now. I must be brain dead because I still don't understand why it is important to you to insist that you are not "Roman" Catholic.

Is it a bad thing? Why do you distance yourself from it.
All the world seem to say- " he, or she, is a Roman Catholic.."
Why is that a bad thing?

Sorry, it just takes me a while to get things.

The term "Roman Catholic Church" began as a derogatory term during the reign of Henry VIII.

If somebody is going to say "Roman Catholic Church" - there really is no such thing.
The official title of the Catholic Church is "The Catholic Church."

I don't really understand why it is so difficult for people to use that name.

 

[Marymog]

Because "Catholic Inquisitions" assumes that is the only type, and it is a handy bat to beat Catholics with and avoid the truth of the Protestant Inquisitions (which were worse).

Unfortunately, the religious "scandal score" needs to be evened up now and then, and the lesser-known "skeletons in the closet" need to be rescued from obscurity, surveyed, and exposed. I take no pleasure in "dredging up" these unsavory occurrences, but it is necessary for honest, fair historical appraisal. This does not mean that I have forsaken ecumenism, or that I wish to bash Protestants, or that I deny corresponding Catholic shortcomings.

Historical facts are what they are, and most Protestants (and Catholics) are unaware of the following historical events and beliefs (while, on the other hand, one always hears about the embarrassing and scandalous Catholic stuff -- and not often very accurately or fairly at that). If (as I suspect might often be the case) readers are shocked or surprised by the very title of this paper, this would be a case in point, and justification enough for my purposes of education. With that end and stated outlook in mind, I offer this copiously-researched treatise, with all due respect to my Protestant brethren, yet not without some remaining trepidation.
In Defense of the Church: The Protestant Inquisition: "Reformation" Intolerance and Persecution by Dave Amstrong

Thank you.

People like @Triumph1300 and others that deny history (Protestant Inquisitions) fulfill Matthew 7:3-5.

Respectfully, Mary

PS....I haven't read anywhere that the Protestant Inquisitions were "worse". It seems that did pretty much the same things. Can you qualify that statement? (curious historical Mary)