Both. The graphic is a stupid non-sequitur fallacy made by the blind that appeals to stupid people.blind or stupid, which?
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Both. The graphic is a stupid non-sequitur fallacy made by the blind that appeals to stupid people.blind or stupid, which?
That's rich. "The biblical underpinnings". If that were really the case there would have been no Protestant Reformation.
The fact is that the Catholic Church rejected the true Gospel and rejected the Five Solas. And those are the biblical underpinnings.
The very existence of the Bible proves Sola Scriptura.The new doctrines of "sola scriptura" and "sola fide" are found nowhere in the Bible.
The very existence of the Bible proves Sola Scriptura.
The very existence of Christ proves Sola Fide.
lol, ok, you might be right bol. But Stockholm Syndrome is a real thing, ok? And there are tests for it, if you are interested. Have a good day broI don’t “have” to say anything.
I’m saying it to remind all of you to stop lying.
As for your question regarding the pictures of the three obelisks you posted – the obelisk in St. Peter’s Square is different than the others because it has a CROSS at the top. This cross signifies the victory of Christ and Christianity over Roman paganism.
So – to answer your question: I’d say, “Blind and stupid” – on YOUR part . . .
i dont quite get why being a baptized Catholic is not sufficient? Why pretend to a religion whose Book you have to alter to follow, if i may ask? I guess i could put that better, pls overlook my shortcomings there if you wouldEvery Baptized Catholic is a Christian, yes.
is it? I detect that it might be slanted, from a pov, but really how is it a fallacy? could you pls poke some holes in it for me? Bc i sure cant see it. tyBoth. The graphic is a stupid non-sequitur fallacy made by the blind that appeals to stupid people.
sticking a cross on top of a phallus does not change much irl, imo
It's time for a history lesson.is it? I detect that it might be slanted, from a pov, but really how is it a fallacy? could you pls poke some holes in it for me? Bc i sure cant see it. ty
sticking a cross on top of a phallus does not change much irl, imo
yeh; and sometimes a principality beholden to no one x3 requires no other sussing, imo. we'll see what epostle can poke holes in, maybe...To paraphrase Freud, sometimes an obelisk is just an obelisk.
oh jesus, lolIt's time for a history lesson.
yes, ok, and a rebel flag is a monument to anarchists everywhere, i guess. perspective is everything, huh.The obelisk is a monument to them, not to the beliefs of its makers who killed them…
narf, mouthful there eh.Vatican Circus…
Pope Sixtus V was the fellow who moved it there. He also wanted to find all the other obelisks in Rome and make sure they were standing upright.is it? I detect that it might be slanted, from a pov, but really how is it a fallacy? could you pls poke some holes in it for me? Bc i sure cant see it. ty
sticking a cross on top of a phallus does not change much irl, imo
okSure, the obelisk at the Vatican has a lot to do with Roman paganism. It’s defeat by the blood of the martyrs and the spreading of the God’s love.
April 28, 1586, Fontana and his men attended Mass at 2:AM
i mean no disrespect here ok, but you say these things, they just roll off your tongue, like they are acceptable somehow? "masses" at 2am dont bother you any? "Christianized pagan symbol?"Christianized pagan symbol
i am surrounded by lapsed Catholics...seems a great Organization to be "from," if you get me...Pope Sixtus V was the fellow who moved it there. He also wanted to find all the other obelisks in Rome and make sure they were standing upright.
If we think that's a phallic symbol, what do we make of his ideas about sex? He was homophobic, but he also seemed afraid of women. He's the guy that forbid women singing so they introduced castrated boys to sing the high parts. I think maybe he was "conflicted" on the subject of sex.
wadr i'm afraid you havent really made your case hereBoth. The graphic is a stupid non-sequitur fallacy made by the blind that appeals to stupid people.
Your failure to grasp the conquering symbolism of the cross of Christ being placed atop a powerful symbol of paganism is par for the course here on this forum. You fail to understand MUCH of what is discussed here . . .sticking a cross on top of a phallus does not change much irl, imo
i understand that that is the perspective of many on the inside, bol, and i can even respect that, as far as it goes. But wadr we deem this "stockholm syndrome" now, essentially; making excuses for the lions, iow. Evabody hates America, and evabody dying to get in, like that. Its hypocrisy bro. It is not Scriptural.Your failure to grasp the conquering symbolism of the cross of Christ being placed atop a powerful symbol of paganism is par for the course here on this forum. You fail to understand MUCH of what is discussed here . . .
This symbol is akin to a conquering army placing their flag over the capitol of their enemy.
Christ’s victory over paganism.
NOT that difficult to understand, sparky . . .