YOURS!>

Stating things you don't like isn't bad tone.

Bad tone is using all caps like your screaming at someone, calling them names, attacking them personally and so forth.

I haven't done that to you or <tga> but you have both done it to me.

And guess what? I'm okay with that!

I didn't come here to be treated with kid gloves. This is the <Free Speech Zone> and beta males who can't take it shouldn't be here. So you guys are welcome to treat me with great disrespect and attack me personally, rather than attack just my views.

You can't do that on just any page on this website, but we are okay to do it here in the <FSZ>, and that's why this page is dedicated to such a thing.

However, I think that with your emotional level so high right now, it's best for you to wait to cool off before we reengage, because otherwise instead of profitable debate you will just be calling me and <idiot> or talking about my <ignorance> and comparing me to <!$%# NOZZLE !#%@> and so forth.

As this is the <Free Speech Zone>, you have every right to behave like that and I say, good for you, get it out of your system. That's what the <FSZ> is all about.

But in terms of high level debate, that's just not it.

And I don't have to sugarcoat how Catholics worship Mary to have good tone. That's not what good tone or correct tone, or tone appropriate for the importance of the subject matter is all about. I'm not going to pretend to have to ask you about that because I know.

I see Catholics praying to Mary in their churches. I don't have to ask about it.

As I said before, we are done here for now because you and <tga> both are in ALL CAPS MODE and it's like trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone who's had too much to drink, when emotions are that high.

It's hard to say definitively because the church changed so drastically over that period of time.

Those who believe in the gospel are saved by grace through faith. You can read the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, as Paul gave it to the Gentiles.

<Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures> 1 Corinth 15:1-4

For how long was this taught as the gospel? I do not know, but what I do know is that things were added to this over time, to the point where Catholics were praying to Mary as their intercessor to save them from damnation.

If you reject the saving gospel of grace, as given here in 1 cor 15:1-4, then you reject your salvation, you reject Christ's sacrifice on the cross, burial and resurrection.

When and how many Catholics accepted the gospel and how many rejected it, I do not know. There may have been many millions who stayed with the original teaching that Paul gave us, even when many other millions were drifting in a different direction and teaching another gospel that is not a gospel.

<Was there a heaven before Martin Luther?>

What do you mean by that? I'm not a Martin Luther apologist, so I'm not interested in his specific stuff.

<Was the celestial kingdom empty up to the point Martin Luther nailed his theses on the Cathedral of Wittenburg door?>

Are you asking when the dead in Christ go to heaven? You mean you don't know this?

<not having the chops re theology to debate>

You don't need chops to debate theology. The bible has the chops. It's when one gets away from the bible and starts treating other sources as authoritative (I call this inventing more bible or inventing more scripture, because in essence that's what it is) that it gets confusing.

<Wtpy>, your issue here, in the <Free Speech Zone> is on a different level from all of this. You are a godless heathen. An atheist.

Your argument here is about whether God exists or not, and or, whether it's rational to believe that God exists.

We could start a debate around this topic with a clearly defined argument for a <central point>.

I could defend this proposition:

God exists.

You could defend this proposition:

God does not exist.

I will make my arguments for the truth of theism, and you can make your arguments for the truth of atheism. Then we can see who has the better arguments.

This is the way for you to fight on even ground, avoiding all of this heavy theology. You are an atheist, and I know that you must be an atheist because you believe strongly in logic, reason, science and so on, so you <must> have a logical set of reasons as to why you think as you do, and in this forum you can lay that out and put it to the test.

You'll have to forgive <optimal play> right now. He's behaving extremely poorly because he is, indeed, all fired up.

No, it doesn't factor at all in Grahams' Hierarchy of Disagreement.

We all know that ALL CAPS can help to convey a certain emphasis at times and I do this when I think it fits.

However, my interlocutors have clearly gone off the rails, firing ALL CAPS as one who swings his fists in the air in a fit of rage.

Very ugly.

Poor form.

This is a very serious debate we are having, especially to Christians and as Christians, there is nothing more serious, and the tone is terrible.

I use this tone too sometimes, but not when it's inappropriate. Thing is, I am genuinely not upset at all, like <tga> and <optimal> are. I quite enjoy spirited debate.

I look forward to it much like others look forward to watching the next episode of their favorite TV series.

I feel no sense of frustration and I'm very comfortable with my arguments and my position, using the bible as my foundation as I go, so I remain easily nice and cool.

Furthermore, I thrive on hot disagreement. Where others tire from it or get their blood boiling, I relish it and derive much quality enjoyment from it all.

When I debate, I wear a big smile on my face and laugh out loud a little bit, here and there, as I read and or type.

You know, I am more balanced and even handed than I get credit for, if I do say so myself. Yes, it gets ugly on the rogoff page when I have to Truth Rape a lying godless lib when they are in the middle of a cognitive dissonance breakdown, but that's part of the job as Truth Warrior.

I think if you one takes an <honest> look at my tone, especially compared to my that of my opponents, over the last few pages, it's clear that I am more civil and use a proper tone, one that we should use in the symposium of free speech that this is.

I mean, we could quote the direct, personal attacks and add them up if we want, but that sounds rather boring to me.

I trust that the Elite Readers will judge rightly for themselves!

Yes, we have two kinds of people on this page.

1. Elite Posters
2. Elite Readers

Yes indeed. The Lurking Readers are here. They are always here, lurking, reading, admiring, hating - they're here!

But some Lurking Readers are exceptional and others are run of the mill. The exceptional Lurking Readers are what I call the Elite Readers.

I respect the judgement of the Elite Readers and I trust the judgement of the Elite Readers.

If you come here to genuinely engage in high-level discussion and earn the respect of the Elite Posters then your handle will be respected.

If you just pop in to act silly, be facetious and make sarcastic comments, then you get <Wippy>.

<Big Pawn> I see you are in denial.

You think you know what you're talking about but you don't.

All you're doing is displaying your ignorance.

Is this forum a gentleman's symposium or a high-school debate?

Because so far you've been acting like a high-school kid trying to impress his buddies in the audience.

Perhaps I'm at fault for thinking you were better than that.

<wtpy: BP, Have you addressed my central point?> That reminds me.

I thought that on the Non-PC Free Speech Zone it was obligatory for Elite Posters to answer bona-fide questions from each other.

Well, I asked <OhioChessFan> a genuine question and he refuses to answer me.

I call on <OhioChessFan> to recognise his obligation as an Elite Poster on the Non-PC Free Speech Zone and answer my question without further delay.

<OhioChessFan: ... I'll point out that those who hold to your view never seem to recognize that the entire gospel of Jesus was only supposed to be in effect for a couple decades. I'll set that aside for now, but I frequently have pointed that out to people on your side who admitted they'd never considered that implication.>

I would like to hear from Ohio regarding his proposition "that the entire gospel of Jesus was only supposed to be in effect for a couple decades".

All you're doing is displaying your ignorance.>

And yet:

Regarding Paul citing Luke as scripture,

<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?>

And yet:

<Wrong!>

<Wrong!>

<You're an idiot!>

<Wrong!>

<Your display of ignorance is truly astounding! >

<Nozzle>

You've been doing that all along.

In contrast to you, I've been even in my tone and to the subject matter virtually every single time, while you've been slinging insults and mockery.

It's all right here for the record.

This is why our discussion is over for now, because you need to settle down and cool off.

All of your <wrong!> and other low level answers (idiot, ignorant, nozzle, etc...) are bringing your Graham's Hierarchy average down.

Way down.

Yes, we are obligated by a gentleman's agreement to answer directly. This is true.

But perhaps you should examine your tone and behavior towards <ohio>, because it wasn't a very good example.

What exactly are we discussing?

The canon of the Bible?

The dating of New Testament documents?

Statues?

Mary?

Purgatory?

You're all over the place!

I still think you're a conservative Catholic using the <Big Pawn> handle to discredit PFN's.

Oh, well, that settles it then!

You sneak around Catholic churches spying on the faithful before a Marian altar and that makes you an expert on the teaching dogma of the Catholic Church!

So what do you need to know from me?

You already have all the answers!

<what I do know is that things were added to this over time, to the point where Catholics were praying to Mary as their intercessor to save them from damnation.>

How do you know that?

You're all over the place!>

You said Paul didn't cite Luke. I said he did.

I cited a Catholic with a doctoral degree, on his website, which argued that Paul did cite Luke as scripture, using your guys, your experts, to make my point, to avoid any objections concerning biased sources.

I already explained why I cited that, in the original post of mine in question.

We ended up all over the place because you took issue with my points, and then I refuted you.

<optimal>, try to get understand this:

Our debate is over for the time being, due to your high emotional state.

Weren't St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas theological forebears of Martin Luther? Didn't they help pave the road to Protestantism? I am no medieval scholar but I think Martin Luther would have been just another priest if he had come along even two hundred years earlier because historical conditions weren't ripe for his teachings. And of course if this is all part of God's plan don't you think he must looked favorably for a time on Catholicism? You think He sacrificed his only son and then let another 1500 years pass before he finally set mankind on their righteous path? And if he looked on Catholicism for a time as the right path, did he have a cut off date for when mankind had to get with the Protestant program?

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.>

So, in summary, since you don't understand my position you feel free to just make stuff up.

That's a character flaw and a sin, bearing false witness. You will account for it at Judgement Day.

<<<<>>>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,>

This is another lie. I stated my position clearly, with DOZENS of posts over the course of 12/05/2020 to 1/26/2021.

Those posts are here in your forum to this very day. And I see no need to repeat myself.

<<<<>>>which I can only interpret as your tacit admission that I wasn't far off.>

Yet without a shred of evidence. Not a single link, nor a single quote. We have a word for someone who does stuff like that. The word ends in 'hole'.

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

All my posts are very clear. Which one did you not understand? Which post are you struggling with? Which post is confusing you?

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.>

We have something in this universe called "cause and effect".

If an effect occurred, we think it has a cause, and try to find the cause.

Here is the effect: Essentially, both <OP> and I have engaged in name calling. Why? What is the cause?

Well, the cause is, we have both stated our positions VERY CLEARLY. And REPEATEDLY.

Yet you continue to bear false witness as to what our positions are. And when confronted with the ACTUAL evidence of our position (that is, our numerous posts), you PRETEND that you don't see the posts. You PRETEND that we HAVEN'T stated anything clearly.

I already said I obviously must have gotten lost in your swamp of posts, which were all over the place, with <ocf> and invited you to make your position clear if my characterization was wrong.

With that, the ball is in your court.

But either way, I’m not discussing it any more at this point for a while because I think the discussion will not be profitable given your highly emotional state.

Let me address that in general terms. I understand the God revealed in the Bible considers people in the situation they're in. I can't get too specific with that because I don't have the mind of God. The only sense I can have the mind of God is to read what He's revealed.

< Does he forfeit his eternal life? >

According to Jesus, a person who seems to be sincere but doesn't obey the true gospel can indeed forfeit their eternal life.

Matthew 7:21-23 NIV
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

<opt: I would like to hear from Ohio regarding his proposition "that the entire gospel of Jesus was only supposed to be in effect for a couple decades".>

Just to make clear, I think that those who hold that Jesus and Peter taught a different gospel than Paul have bound themselves to that. I do not, and have not.

<I admit that I have never considered that implication and am eager to learn from Ohio what this means and the basis of this view.>

I understand that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was the end of the entire Jewish system. There really was no Jewish audience to hear the gospel after that. That being the case, maybe 40 years after the death of Jesus, that different gospel he and Peter supposedly taught would no longer hold sway.>

Thank you for that clarification.

<thegoodanarchist: ... when confronted with the ACTUAL evidence of our position (that is, our numerous posts), you PRETEND that you don't see the posts. You PRETEND that we HAVEN'T stated anything clearly.>

I consider this a fair assessment of <Big Pawn>'s recent conduct.

<When MULTIPLE PEOPLE are giving you essentially the same feedback, you need to consider if the problem is actually with you, not them.>

Protestant: YOU Catholics say that you have to go to mass every week or else it's anathema and you go to hell!

Catholic: Uh ... no ... that's not right. In actual fact the Catholic Church teaches that the Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life, and is therefore obligatory for Catholics to attend mass, but only God commits a soul to hell. This is clearly stated in the Catechism, under the section "The Third Commandment: Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it Holy". And the term "anathema" is a formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine, and has no relevance to your assertion.

Protestant: Don't try to double-talk me with your Romanist sophistry. I know you Catholics have twisted the Bible to suit your own heresy. Are you drinking and posting? You're way out of line. Your tone is terrible for this subject matter.

Catholic: The importance of the mass is reflected in the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper and Paul's admonitions in 1 Corinthians 10:16 & 11:23-29.

Protestant: Don't try to befuddle me with your popish claptrap. None of this rises to the top of Graham's Hierarchy, so it can be dismissed as nothing more than you venting your frustration.

Catholic: Our Lord Jesus Christ himself gave a solemn command at the Last Supper when he said “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19) thus instituting the sacrament of the Blessed Eurcharist for all faithful Christians. Hence the importance of Sunday Mass.

With that, the ball is in your court.>

No, actually it is in YOUR court. I posted <extensively> about my position for more than a month and a half.