Thought it was pretty funny:

<I just found out my Dad, a lifelong republican, voted for Joe Biden.

Dictionary.com now lists the definition as the "practice of changing the number or composition of judges on a court, making it more favorable to particular goals or ideologies, and typically involving an increase in the number of seats on the court.”>

Diceman, And you feel like there is something amiss with your quoted definition?>

The Goebbels Propaganda Ministry seemed to have a problem with the original. My guess is, it would be too insulting to their voters to explain why changes are needed.

<Sounds fairly accurate to me.>

I wish words/definitions were your threat.

With <affordable> having 12 zeros after it, <fair> meaning biased, and <Great Society> being where blacks are destroyed, and murdered, it is the real world implementation of your words that is the problem.

<I hold FDR in great esteem>

Unfortunately for you, he's dead.
Wait until you see the Green "New Deal"
they have in store for you.

http://content.time.com/time/covers...

The need to "pack the court" indicates they think, even you, won't like being the new black.

<“The white man who begins by cheating a Negro usually ends by cheating a white man. The white man who begins to break the law by lynching a Negro soon yields to the temptation to lynch a white man.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOb...

Diceman, You should get out more.>

Tell that to your Covid Schutzstaffel.

I've repeated numerous times the Catholic doctrine of salvation by faith, but you've been so completely and utterly brainwashed from youth to believe protestant lies and propaganda that nothing short of divine intervention can now help you.>

Okay, I can respond to this right away because there is absolutely no substance to it. This is level zero in Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.

Of your other posts, I can add these bits to the bottom of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement category.

< optimal play: <I wrote that sloppily> Your entire diatribe has been written sloppily!

Quite apart from your confused theology and ignorance of early church history, your bible references are completely out of context.>

That's bottom level commentary, not to mention everything I referenced perfectly in context and this will be shown, over time, as we debate these issues.

<<An example of this is when <optimal play> gave us that parable of the man who was in debt to explain purgatory.> The doctrine of purgatory does not rest on one single parable. I just used that as an example. My second link to Dr. Pitrie provided another example. There are numerous passages in Scripture supporting the doctrine of purgatory.>

Simply stating your viewpoint is second to the bottom level on Graham's Hierarchy. This is now added to that big pile of low level responses you've offered.

<<The key is to understand the overarching storyline, the plot, of the bible.> And over the past 2,000 years, all the greatest saints and theologians and scholars and doctors of the Catholic Church had gotten it wrong but YOU just happen to have the key to understanding?!>

This is just an attack on me personally, so it is bottom level on Graham's hierarchy as well.

<Optimal Play>, these low level responses, according to the Hierarchy of Disagreement, do not address the <central points> and only serve as distractions that tempt us to go off course.

After pruning your responses of these level zero and level one responses, there isn't much left to debate, but there is some, and I will respond to those points later. Even then, your responses, most of them, don't really get to the real heart of the matter. It's kind of like when I presented the <Color of Crime Stats> to the libs on the <Other Page>, which showed that colored people in NYC account for something like 98% of the crime. After some calculations, instead of addressing what this means and the implications, the libs focused on the math. They said that it was really something like 97.4% and decided to pretend that that was the main issue, rather than the obvious point, and that is what you are doing here to some extent.

Be ready. I'm going to address the <central points> regarding how Catholicism teaches a false gospel and worships a different Jesus from the one in the Bible.

I was surprised that you had an issue with this concept because this is the concept that Paul goes to great lengths to make perfectly clear.

First, I thought your use of the word <except> was strange and I couldn't tell if the inclusion of this word was intentional or not, so I addressed it here:

<Yes. Not <except> by faith, but <through faith>.

Paul tells us,

<For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.> Ephesians 2:8>

This addresses your question, the <central point> of it.

<Ohio>, since the context of our discussion on this page is one of salvation by grace alone versus salvation by grace plus other things (works, Catholic position), I felt it would be helpful to include a verse from Paul that includes a reference to works, to support the statement I made that you questioned.

<Paul tells us in Romans 4:5,

<But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.>>

So that should make it clear. Imagine if it was the year 52 A.D. and you asked Paul,

<OCF: It's by grace alone, except by faith. Really, now?>

And Paul answered you personally,

Paul: <Ohio, for by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.>

Then took a breath and said this,

<But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness>

The question is, why did Paul have to explain this in the first place? Because it was a completely different gospel than the gospel taught by Jesus, which was the gospel of the Kingdom, a gospel for the Jews, in accordance with the <Law>, which was a work-based program, not a grace-based program.

Jews expected to have to do things to atone for their sins because that's what they had been doing for 1500 years. They expected to make sin offerings, baptize, do all kinds of sacraments and rituals and so forth.

Oh, first you <didn't know nuthin> about it, now <you know> how much, how little the founders seemed to be concerned of it?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:

"Our justification comes from the grace of God."

"The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it."

"Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us."

Reference: ARTICLE 2 GRACE AND JUSTIFICATION

<and has an entirely different Jesus> Different from whose?

<The "Mystery of Christ", the dispensation of grace was given to Paul, not Peter, by Jesus.> Please provide Scriptural evidence to support this assertion.

<Paul had to meet with Peter in the Jerusalem council because Peter was still teaching the law, the circumcision> Wrong.

The Jerusalem Council was precipitated by some Jewish Christians who were teaching the law and circumcision, but the Bible does not indicate they were from Peter. More likely they were from James (the Lord's brother).

At the Jerusalem Council, Paul's opponents were from the party of the Pharisees, but it was Peter's decision which determined the outcome in favour of salvation by grace and in support of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:7-11).

<Peter admitted that Paul said some things that were "hard to understand", and that refers to the mystery revealed to Paul by Christ, including such things as it's okay to eat with the gentiles and other such works based acts that were a part of the works-based program the Jews had followed for many centuries. Imagine it all being overturned at once. It was "hard to understand" even for Peter.> The reference is to 2 Peter 3:16 which is in the context of the end times, not the Gospel of Grace.

<Paul had to confront Peter for returning to the law, not sitting and eating with the Gentiles, because Paul had reverted to the works-based Jewish program rather. Peter accepted Paul's rebuke and repented.> The reference is to Galatians 2:11-14 which is in the context of Peter reacting to the arrival of men from James, not a firmly held belief in the law or circumcision.

That should settle that.>

I know that's addressed to Ohio, but it sounds like you're suggesting Paul preached a different Gospel to that preached by Jesus!?

I presume you can't possibly mean that!

You're still writing sloppily.

Actually, just the opposite.

For example, I remember back when the head football coach of the New Orleans Saints, I think it was Jim Mora, had gone to an Elton John concert and a reporter asked him about it.

His reply was something to the effect "I didn't know he wrote all those famous songs."

The reporter wrote in his article that the coach needed to get out more.

But this is wrong. Men who are great, who do great things and are lauded for them, do those things PRECISELY because they DON'T "get out more". This is why Mora was a leader of men, and richly rewarded for it, and why the reporter was..., well, a mere reporter. A nothing. A nobody.

You think Arnold Schwarzenegger "got out more" when he was winning Mr. Olympia contests? Did you know Nikolai Tesla was a life-long virgin? Do you think Edison spent his evenings at concerts, or in his lab, inventing? Do you think Jeff Bezos is at a bar watching a basketball game right now?

<BP> was right about you: <You know, you're not one of the more intelligent and educated people on this forum. You lack basic knowledge...

Time for you to go back to the <Other Page> because you can't really hang here, with the Elite Posters.>

Again: < wtpy: Diceman, You should get out more.>

That's not a refutation of any central point. It is proof that you <don't have> a refutation.

What's wrong wtpy?

Don't like being Hiroshima/Nagasaki to my Little Boy/Fat Boy?

Um, yes it does. Because it isn't just a few examples. There are <millions> of very successful people who've made superior lives for themselves. And it takes LOTS of hard work (plus talent). The people who get ahead in life do it through hard work and long hours.

<I could cite just as many high achievers who were inveterately social.>

Depends on what you mean by being social. You can be social and still work very hard and long hours. I did. How? By being social at work.

But if you think you can cite "just as many high achievers" who go out to movies/theaters/bars/concerts/sportsball frequently, then you are only lying to yourself.

I have too much wisdom and experience with the real world, to fall under your delusion.

Don't like being Hiroshima/Nagasaki to my Little Boy/Fat Boy?>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wZ...

Every day I'm told what I believe:
"You worship Mary."
"You practice idolatry."
"You don't read the Bible."
"You aren't a Christian."
The list goes on and on . . .

Did you know Nikolai Tesla was a life-long virgin?>

"Fat Man", IIRC.>

Yes, I couldn't remember the second one,
so I googled and found this

<The bomb dropped on Hiroshima from the Enola Gay was known as "Little Boy". The bomb dropped on Nagasaki three days later was significantly larger and was known as "Fat Boy".>

Turns out it wasn't a fact site, but a site where the public was guessing the names.