Search results

I do like to debate. However, I would not say it is just to be right but to keep my mental acuities sharp. Debate is an outstanding way to keep one's mastery of logic, like exercise is a great way to stay physically fit. Also, debate allows new facts to come to light; either newly discovered or...

Agreed. If love is set up against doctrine, something is wrong with our doctrine. Of course, we humans have a way of rationalizing all our hatefulness is love of X. :oops:

Why do you think this given that this thread is about doctrinal differences and loving those people anyway?

Too bad Peter had nothing to do with establishing the Catholic Church in the 11th century.

There you go again with that abuse of the term assumption. That good and bad originate with God is His revealed word. I find it odd that anyone can, not only God against explicit Scripture, but logically separate the First Cause with one and all things that come after that. I suppose...

I guess, since you have no epistemological basis to refute legitimate definitions, you rely on theological assertions and attacks. Friend, for some reason, you are falsely equating those saved in heaven with souls. I've never said that there is no one in heaven except God. Again, there are no...

It is amazing how consistently wrong you are. It’s becoming comedic relief.

No one said truth and doctrine don’t matter. Re-read the OP and try to discern the point.

Untrue. The Eastern Orthodox Church compiled the letters and Gospels of those who walked with Christ. Nearly 8 centuries later, your church was formed.

This thread is way after that. You've shared, discussed and debated doctrine you fiercely disagree on? A pastor at a family function began threatening guests who did not accept his doctrine. (The threat was eternal damnation).

A question. And a poorly worded one at that. Not a thesis. A statement of fact. Not an assumption. quietthinker, you should have humbly expressed the other angle in the OP - and got off the assumption track in writing the title of the thread. @marks post exposes your one-sided view that...

@theefaith, there you go again! You provide Scripture that does not support your claim. It seems you do not grasp what is relevant, what relates and what does not relate. The simple statement is that nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about Mary being conceived free of sin. True enough...

You are an enthusiastic kool-aid drinker. I'll give you that! Just out of curiosity, what is the alternative to accepting “tradition of men” who compiled the books of the Bible, calling it the Word of God? Your foundation is quick sand. Moving from one logical fallacy after another, you cannot...

And one thing we know for sure, that one church most certainly is not the Catholic Church as currently organized.

I JUST answered how it is irrelevant! You do this all the time. I say, you can't see because it is dark outside. Then you reply with, how come I cannot see. Other lord's mothers may not have given birth to other lords. It really has nothing to do with what your claim is. That is why it is...

Irrelevant. Every lord in the Bible has a mother. Doesn’t make these women the mother of God.

Right, you have quotes that prove you wrong, as you often do. Your lord is not the LORD. Your quote does not reference God but your lord, one of many in the Bible.

Circular Reasoning. I've presented numerous examples that show your not right in what you are saying. Queen's mother is, by definition, not the queen.

Again, you are confusing the many lords of the Bible with the LORD God. Every lord has a mother but God, like Adam, has no mother.

Seems like there are a few threads now on this point. Our passion for doctrine has become an idol. It is as if the new command Jesus gave is to proselytize endlessly to what your doctrine is. Fortunately, there is no doctrinal purity test to enter heaven, be saved, receive eternal life, etc. My...