Let me ask the Elite Posters where his responses fall on Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.

< optimal play: <Catholics teach people to pray to statues and dead people.>

Wrong!

<They teach them that they have to go to mass every week or else it's anathema and you go to hell.>

Wrong!

<They teach them about this thing called purgatory, which is not in the bible, but which they sell "get out of jail free cards" for.>

Wrong!

<Catholics teach that Christ's death on the cross was not enough for your salvation, because you need to do <good works> to earn your way there, making Christ's sacrifice insufficient and leaving his work <unfinished> instead of <finished> as Christ said on the cross.>

Wrong!

<The Catholics brought the sword, like the Muslims, and spilled blood in the name of their God, like the Muslims. That's not Christian. That's Catholic.>

Wrong!

<Catholics have dominated a worldwide sex trafficking scheme for decades if not centuries, from the top down - the same top that gets to <write more scriptures> as they see fit.>

Wrong! >

There you go!

1. <They lead people away from the gospel and teach them to be Catholics, not Christians.>

You're an idiot! >

That's his whole response. Where does this fall on Graham's Hierarchy?

2. <<Catholics blaspheme the finished work of Christ on the cross when they say you have to eat the wafer every week to make up for your sins, just like the Jews had to make a sacrifice for their sins.>

Your display of ignorance is truly astounding! >

That's his whole response. Where does this fall in Graham's Hierarchy?

After all of his non answers in the previous post and these <non answers>, this is how he evaluates his answers:

<<This doesn't take issue with what I posted. You are generalizing about my tone, which is bottom level on Graham's Hierarchy.>

You posted nonsense whilst I have consistently posted facts.>

That was easy.

Catholics are not Christians.

They pray to Mary.
They sell indulgencecs.
They use Rosary Beads.
They preach a different gospel.
They invent their own scriptures.
They organize sex trafficking schemes from the top down. They use the sword to spread their faith like Muzzies. They invented Purgatory.
They have their priests forgive sins!
They believe their Pope is infallible!
They call their priests "Father", which is against the scriptures.

This is understandable, but it is NOT a license to make stuff up.>

I can't quote your entire diatribe with <ohio>, but that's where I got this notion from. Your entire debate with him from start to finish, including all of your posts about SS.

There is no one sentence, but rather all of them.

Notice, you did not take the opportunity to make your position clear as I asked, if I was mischaracterizing it as you say I was.

Why didn't you do that?

Yes, through the Council of Rome in 382

<The letters were already authoritative and did not need a council to <establish> them. They were already established and verified by the apostles when they were alive, being read in the churches.>

Where is Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans?

<The Jerusalem council is not a precedent for future councils, as the Catholics claim. It was unique in that it was held by the apostles themselves, who were living witnesses.>

The Jerusalem Council was indeed a precedent for future councils, each one convened by the successors of the apostles.

'For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”

- 1 Timothy 5:18

'Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.'

- Deuteronomy 25:4

'Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.'

- Leviticus 19:13b

Paul was martyred before Luke's gospel was written.

If you want to claim the pastoral epistles cited from Luke, then you're calling into question Paul's authorship.

<That does not discredit Jude and I still go with Jude rather than you and your Catholic priests.>

I didn't seek to discredit Jude, I pointed out that the apostles themselves used texts which were not included in the canon of Scripture.

A pity you couldn't make those arguments.

<Wrong!>

<Wrong!>

<Wrong!>

<You're an idiot!>

<Wrong!>

And I don't count the apocryphal so it's 66 books of canon, not 73.

<I've never come across anybody so clueless about these things and yet so seemingly unaware of how wrong he is!?

I'm beginning to suspect the person behind <Big Pawn> is actually a conservative Catholic who is trolling as a protestant fundamentalist nutjob just to make protestants look bad.

Like how on Nozzle's ...>

None of this rises to the top of Graham's Hierarchy, so it can be dismissed as nothing more than you venting your frustration.

You need to actually engage the points with arguments and evidence and you're not doing that. With the 20 or so points that you responded to, you almost entirely neglected to engage the points themselves, preferring to call me names or scream <Wrong!> as if that's an argument.

On the other hand, I address each of your points and fully engage them, rather than just writing <WRONG!> or calling you and <idiot>, and I also try to include scripture to back up my points where relevant.

You are flailing while I am addressing the <central points>.

Yes, through the Council of Rome in 382>

Repeating yourself doesn't count as moving your argument forward. You are wrong here for the reasons I gave already which you have not addressed.

<Paul was martyred before Luke's gospel was written.>

Luke was probably written in the 50s, before Paul was martyred.

<if we begin with Luke and Matthew and work backwards, then the date of Mark is pushed back well before AD 70. The evidence that Acts was written prior to AD 70 (e.g., Paul’s being still alive under house arrest in Rome, no mention of significant events during the AD 60s such as the martyrdom of James, the persecution of Nero, the siege of Jerusalem, etc., and the disproportionate emphasis on Paul’s recent voyage to Rome) strikes me as very persuasive. Since Acts is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel, Luke must have been written in the AD 50s, and accordingly, Mark even earlier. Such a dating makes eminently good sense. > William Lane Craig

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/wri...

<'For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”

- 1 Timothy 5:18

'Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.'

- Deuteronomy 25:4

'Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.'

- Leviticus 19:13b >

If you don't believe me, then I kindly refer you to this Catholic, Dr. Taylor Marshall, who agrees with me, not you.

https://taylormarshall.com/2015/07/...

How come the Catholic Dr. agrees with me and not you about Paul citing Luke as scripture? Is it because <I've never come across anybody so clueless about these things and yet so seemingly unaware of how wrong he is!>

Again, <optimal>, I am doing more than <just> disagreeing with you. I am using sources that you should trust, because they are Catholic, to defeat your rebuttals.

<Optimal>, I think you need to take a break at this point because you are highly emotional and unable to stick to the <central points>.

Come back when you've calmed down and you're ready to stick to the <central points>.

When you start to attack me over and over again, it's evidence that you're upset about your inability to deal with my arguments, so it's time for you to take a little break.

<They also teach doctrines that are at odds with scripture> Scripture teaches doctrines that are at odds with Scripture?!

<Christ and his disciples quoted frequently from the scriptures and <never once> quoted the apocryphal books.> There's lots of books from the Bible they didn't quote from.

<they were never included in the Jewish canon which is extremely important because God entrusted his word to the Jews.> If you're referring to the Council of Jamnia, that's a myth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9f...

<Jerome completed his version of the bible in 405 and in the middle ages, the Vulgate was the de facto bible of the west. The manuscripts clearly identified some of the works as non-canonical. He specifically mentions Maccabees, Wisdom, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd are "not in the canon".>

What are you talking about?

They are in Jerome's bible!

<The councils of Hippo and Carthage simply approved the 27 books that were already considered scripture by the early church. They added nothing and took away nothing.>

Until Marty came along and tried to kick out Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation!

You need to post seriously and substantively, <optimal>, if you wish to remain engaged in debate with me here.

I turn the forum back over to <tga>, <ocf> and the rest.

With you it's just the same old same old ...

<Catholics are not Christians.
They pray to Mary.
They sell indulgencecs.
They use Rosary Beads.
They preach a different gospel.
They invent their own scriptures.
They organize sex trafficking schemes from the top down.
They use the sword to spread their faith like Muzzies.
They invented Purgatory.
They have their priests forgive sins!
They believe their Pope is infallible!
They call their priests "Father", which is against the scriptures.
They blah blah blah ...>

You have nothing new.

You're like a broken record.

This is why I'm convinced you are really a conservative Catholic who is just trolling as a PFN.

It's your responsibility to post cleary if you want to be understood.>

I prefer to post "clearly", not "cleary".

Now, moving on, you have made an assertion. Can you back it up or NOT?

<So then, clearly state what your position is and move this forward.>

I already clearly stated everything. If you are confused about something I wrote, please cite it, and add what part you are confused about.

I can't quote your entire diatribe with <ohio>, but that's where I got this notion from.>

No, you didn't. My entire discussion with <ohio> had NOTHING to do with Catholicism making up new scripture. NOTHING!

You are dreaming up nonsense in your addled brain, and then attributing it to me.

<Your entire debate with him from start to finish, including all of your posts about SS.

There is no one sentence, but rather all of them.>

And they had NOTHING to do with "Catholics allowed to invent new scripture."

I remember a few times that you posted in Rogoff, saying you didn't consider yourself all that intelligent.

I get it now. You were right.

<Notice, you did not take the opportunity to make your position clear as I asked, if I was mischaracterizing it as you say I was.>

Actually, I took SIX FREAKING WEEKS to make my position clear! Starting 12/05/2020.

Again, which part is unclear to you??? Just quote what is not clear, and I will clarify it. Otherwise, kindly STHU.

<Why didn't you do that?>

See above.

<Is it because my characterization was correct after all? If not, then why not make your position clear?>

He keeps claiming my posts were unclear, yet cannot cite a single example to bolster this claim.

He keeps claiming I said Catholics can make up scripture, yet cannot cite a single example to bolster this claim.

Shamefully trying to save face, by making stuff up, is unbecoming of a man and of a Christian.

<<Protestant: I've had it with your papist fallacies. I think we are finished with this topic. I'm moving on now. My work is done here.>>>

If you do not think that Catholics get to invent more scripture, then explain who gets to invent more scripture.>

Who the hell said anything about <ANYONE> GETTING TO INVENT MORE SCRIPTURE???

I mean, OTHER than you?? Because YOU are the only person in this forum who is talking about anyone getting to invent more scripture.

Please let us know, where is this odd obsession of yours coming from? Have you had a FEVER DREAM recently?

<I'm of the understanding that no one gets to invent more scripture>

Ok, then, maybe you should start behaving that way then. Everyone else in here is doing so.

<Mormons and Catholics think otherwise. They think any old dude that wears a funny hat can write new bible, as it were. New scriptures that they hold to be authoritative.>

Evidence, please, for your bizarre assertion?

<They can make stuff up and say, "there, it is written!" and it's like Moses wrote it, or Paul.>

Evidence, please, for your bizarre assertion?

<For many centuries, the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics read from the same 66 books. Then when the Roman church was challenged to find biblical support for purgatory and indulgences, they couldn't, so they went to Maccabees and decided to add that to the bible in the 1600s!

Amazing!>

Amazing is right. I've never heard anyone say such a fairy tale before. Yet I am very well informed and educated. Could you be making stuff up???!!!

<Okay, so there are some things that the Orthodox don't agree with the Romans on, but if you are arguing that the bible as given to us in the first century is not the only authoritative source of scripture, then you by default are in the camp that thinks you can invent more scripture.>

Oh my... Whatever happened to that old saying, "Judge not, lest ye be judged!"

You might have a problem with the fellow who taught that. GLTU!

<If not, then take time now to clearly explain yourself, and please don't post a link to somewhere else to read all about it. I'd like to hear it from your understanding.>

He cannot do it. Not. At. All.

And it seems to me BP wants to assign those poor Pre-Protestant souls to hell, and they were getting as close as they could to the true faith, it just hadn't been... is discovered the right word? (I almost used the word invented but that has possibly heretical connotations that might get rhetorically roasted by both sides.)

<So then, clearly state what your position is and move this forward.>>

I already did back it up. I said that that was my impression from all of your posts on the subject recently in this forum.

Further evidence that I am correct in my characterization is the fact that I asked you, if you disagreed with my characterization, to state your position clearly so as to set the record straight, but you haven't taken the opportunity to do that, which I can only interpret as your tacit admission that I wasn't far off.

<tga>, if you don't think I should believe this, then again, for the third time, I ask you to state your position clearly.

If you don't care what I think, then you can let it go and I'm okay thinking what I do.

If I were in your shoes, I would quote me where I said whatever I said that you disagreed with, and then say <This is wrong because, 1, 2,3, A, B, C, etc...and this is my positions, a,b,c, x,y,z>

That's what we are here for, right? To have debates in the <Free Speech Zone>. Isn't this what we all enjoy?

Okay then!

I think you also need to cool off and come back when you're ready to stick to the <central points> rather than joining <optimal> in calling me an idiot while refusing to state your position clearly.

<Wtpy>, this is the <Free Speech Zone> where the Elite Posters come to enjoy spirited disagreement and trenchant debate. This is what we like to do.

Do you want to be a part of it?

If so, I recommend coming here prepared, and I do mean prepared, to post seriously, substantively, and with insight.

Notice, <wtpy>, that although my interlocutors treat me with great disrespect and attack me personally, good Christians that they are, I do not pull rank on them with any "this is my forum" stuff or ban them for "trolling" me. I could call it trolling and ban them, but that would be a lie and we all know that.

The libs can't do what I do.

They can't handle all the insults, disrespect and personal attacks. They want to censor such posters, but that's not how it works in the <Free Speech Zone> where everything is allowed, except real trolling.

<wtpy>, I think you keep coming back to this forum because you're bored with the Rogoff page.

Look, what I'm trying to say is this: we don't mind godless libs in the <Free Speech Zone> and welcome the disagreement you wish to contribute here, but bring it with quality. Don't post like <Saffuna>. Post with quality, and don't run away from us.

I'll tell you whose tone really is terrible for this subject matter.

YOURS!

If you want to engage in a genuine debate with someone, you don't say

YOU Catholics worship Mary.
YOU Catholics think you can buy your way out of purgatory.
YOU Catholics write your own scriptures.
YOU Catholics blah blah blah

You say

Is it true that you Catholics worship Mary?
Is it true that you Catholics think you can buy your way out of purgatory?
Is it true that you Catholics etc

Then I can respond

"Thank you for asking. It's actually not correct that we worship Mary."

I can then go on to explain the role of Mary in the Catholic Church.

But you're not interested in a high-level genuine discussion amongst Elite Posters.

What you want is a food fight like what goes on over at Nozzle's Playpen.

Look, this is your forum. It's up to you to set the tone, which is exactly what you've done and it's resulted in these discussions going off the rails.

This is your responsibility and your fault.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Telling others to cool down when you're the one who's causing all the ruckus!

Wippy has just come here to laugh with his "Anyway I hate it when you guys fight. Can't you'll just all get along?"