Vive la Tradition, Mais la Vraie!

HGL's F.B. writings : Vive la Tradition, Mais la Vraie! · Répliques Assorties : Vidéo anti-créationniste, a) sept commentaires par moi · b) des débats

L'image vous dit quel est le nom de la groupe:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nouveau membre ·

27 septembre, 18:19

Bonsoir, j'espère que tous ici soient, sinon Géocentriques, au moins Créationnistes-Jeune-Terre.

Il semble y avoir un soupçon que ce n'était pas totalement le cas avec Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet.

D'où cet article:

Creation vs. Evolution : Dishonesty at St Nicolas du Chardonnet?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/09/dishonesty-at-st-nicolas-du-chardonnet.html

I

EG*

Effectivement les chrétiens ayant un cerveau en état de marche (et pas uniquement à St Nicolas) ont depuis longtemps intégré que l'ancien testament transmis oralement par un peuple de bergers n'était pas parole d'évangile... et s'attachent pour le principal aux enseignements de Jésus-Christ que vous retrouverez avantageusement regroupés au sein du Nouveau Testament. Si la terre avait été créée il y a 6022 ans Jésus ou bien les apôtres se seraient fendus d'un commentaire en bas de page. Soyons néanmoins bienveillants envers les simples d'esprit car ils verront Dieu et c'est ce qui importe.

HGL

"ont depuis longtemps intégré que l'ancien testament transmis oralement par un peuple de bergers n'était pas parole d'évangile"

Et ce commentaire dit quoi sur Notre Seigneur, qui à toute évidence croyait l'Ancien Testament?

"et s'attachent pour le principal aux enseignements de Jésus-Christ"

Qui, en occurrence ne cautionnait pas "pour le principal" et Qui croyait l'Ancien Testament.

"que vous retrouverez avantageusement regroupés au sein du Nouveau Testament."

D'où vous ferez bien de regarder par exemple Marc 10:6.

Ou la généalogie en Luc 3.

"Si la terre avait été créée il y a 6022 ans Jésus ou bien les apôtres se seraient fendus d'un commentaire en bas de page."

Plutôt, selon la chronologie du martyrologue romain il y a 7217 ans, non?

Vu votre mépris de l'Ancien Testament, est-ce que vous êtes Albigeois? Ils ont été condamnés comme hérétiques et combattus par des bons Chrétiens qui croyaient les DEUX Testaments.

Ou est-ce que vous tenez l'Ancien Testament pour fondamentalement à peu près bon, mais un peu flou?

ALORS vous faites le jeu des Sociniens, et vous êtes donc condamné par la IV Session du Concile de Trente.

C'est époustouflant de voire un homme de votre farine dans un groupe qui s'appelle "Vive la Tradition Catholique!"

Probablement vous préférez Dominic Venner à l'Abbé Houghton, tant que vous y êtes. Et, certains le savent, l'Abbé a vécu une vie modeste et cachée en Dieu, tandis que Venner est mort d'une mort blasphème ultra-publique par suicide en Notre Dame.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

RD, Chanoine** Thibaut de Ternay, AR

Dans vos paroisses, est-ce que vous partagez les avis d'EG?

Est-ce que d'autres le font?

Pour les deux présumés laïcs, est-ce que vos prêtres le font?

EG ayant dit "Soyons néanmoins bienveillants envers les simples d'esprit" - est-ce que dans vos paroisses un créationniste jeune terre passerait pour un tel?

Ayant vu un icône de rire en provenance EG, j'ai un peu mal à capter la comique ... à moins que les autres propos étaient une blague?

Car ce serait vraiment tragique si "la tradition" était frelaté comme ça.

EG

Hans-Georg Lundahl Quand je lis une bonne blague je m'esclaffe : c'est bon pour les zygomatiques et pour la santé affirme mon médecin.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

De ma part, il n'y avait pas de blague.

Votre habitude dessus est très saine, mais l'occasion est tellement mal choisie, j'ai vérifié votre région et contacté un abbé de la FSSPX dedans pour qu'il s'occupe un peu de votre catéchisme un peu négligé.

EG

icone de rire

HGL

Ah ... vous considérez que l'idée que cet abbé s'occupe de votre catéchisme serait risible? Peut-être! C'est pour ça que je disais "il n'y avait pas de blague" dans le passé imparfait.

III

[notification de l'article.]

Conséquence:

je me vois exclu du groupe et bloquer de même accesser le déjà produit sur mon statut dedans.

J'essaie de notifier le chanoine:

Moi au chanoine:

Bonjour M. l'Abbé!

J'ai vu que vous ne représentez pas FSSPX mais ICRSP ...

Néanmoins, comment est-ce que vous agissez dans votre paroisse si dedans il se trouve un fidèle qui est Créationniste Jeune Terre?

Voir dessus mon dialogue avec EG pour mon pire soupçon, que j'espère que vous n'allez pas confirmer: [nouvelle notification]

Conséquence:

voir image dessous, cliquer pour agrandir, quand j'essaie d'ajouter un autre lien.

* Je l'anonymise pour l'instant sous ses initiaux, s'il veut lever l'anonymat, il n'a que me le dire, dès que je publie et le notifie. Pour "équité" j'abrège mon propre nom aussi sous les initiaux HGL de la suite. ** Je n'anonymise pas le chanoine, comme prêtre il est personne publique.

Our Lord Drank Wine - with due moderation - Not Just Grape Juice

Sandra Balance

Admin ·

Did Jesus Drink Wine Or Grape Juice? My understanding is that it was alcohol. Yall? This post was intended to bring a good "healthy" debate, not to stir up combative behavior towards one another.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Definitely wine.

"Did Jesus Drink Wine Or Grape Juice?"

He probably also drank grape juice during the short period when it was available without refrigeration or pasteurisation.

Like within 2 days or one week from the pressing of the grapes.

I am not sure of the exact limit at which grape juice becomes Federweisser (this is wine not fermented to the end yet, ranging from 4 to 10 % before it settles at a higher percentage and becomes wine).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federweisser

For those who don't know wine cultivating regions, grape juice turns to Federweisser before Federweisser turns to real wine.

II

Christian Davis

Real wine, however it would have been much weaker than modern wines as the fermentation process was not as effective

Rachel Portnoy Bradley

This is historically inaccurate. The fermentation process 2,000 years ago was not "less effective." It is the same process as today. Physics and chemistry work the same today as they did 2,000 years ago.

In fact, today, vitners are able to control the alcoholic content much more easily. The result is, today's wines are ***less*** alcoholic than they were 2,000 years ago, as they can be preserved without being just pure alcohol.

The important thing to note, however, is that this wine was not made by a vitner, but by Jesus Christ. It had not been fermented for days, weeks, or years. It was instantaneous. It was a miracle.

The question you have to ask is, did Jesus make wine, or did he make grape juice?

The other argument one hears from time to time is that there was no Greek word for "grape juice." That is not true, either. There was a way to drink the juice from grapes before it had been fermented, and people knew the difference, in taste, of fermented wine (oinos) and non-fermented grape juice.

If you believe what the gospel writer says, it was wine, because that's what the guests at the wedding said. No one said, "Wow, this is really good grape juice." They would have commented if it didn't taste like fermented wine.

If you believe that we can re-interpret the Gospels to suit our own beliefs, then sure, you can say it was grape soda if you want.

Christian Davis

Rachel Portnoy Bradley The chemistry hasn't changed but our ability to make use of it has changed ,modern fermentation processes are able to produce stronger wines than 2k years ago.And much better beer .

Rachel Portnoy Bradley

Christian Davis this is simply not true. Human biology has not changed that much over 2,000 years. We have not evolved that much. There is scientific evidence that refutes what you're saying. When I'm at my computer again (I'm on my phone right now) I'll post it for you.

Christian Davis

Rachel Portnoy Bradley beer was fermented in the mug u drank it from wine was fermented in vats ,

Jacob Pando

What's wrong with you Rachel? Don't you know that as time goes on, we tend to find better ways of doing things? It is ver possible that we've found ways to make wine have more alcohol given that everyone today is all about getting drunk.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"modern fermentation processes are able to produce stronger wines than 2k years ago."

Stronger in average, since wines threatening to become weak get added glucose during process.

Wines naturally range from 7 to 12 / 13 %, and this technique eliminates about the lower half of the range.

But even a weak natural wine of 7 % is as strong as a strong beer.

What is true is that wine was usually drunk weaker, insofar as it was customary to mix it with water.

Rachel Portnoy Bradley

Hans-Georg Lundahl I'll buy that for a nickle.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Note also, low glucose is more a problem in Austria than in Holy Land, since sun heat is one of the factors.

Christian Davis "beer was fermented in the mug u drank it from"

Actually no. Beer was in Holy Land at least made by "throwing bread on waters". If you accept Shekar (Strong's Number: 7941) as qualifying as beer, which is reasonable.

Jacob Pando "It is ver possible that we've found ways to make wine have more alcohol given that everyone today is all about getting drunk."

On average, yes, eliminating the lower range of natural alcohol content in wine.

Over upper limit no. You can add wine liquor to stop fermentation and get a sweet strong wine, and it can have like 18% which is impossible with natural fermentation, BUT for that reason it is NOT wine. You cannot celebrate the Eucharist in Port or Sherry Amontillado. You need natural wine, with natural fermentation only (adding glucose before fermentation is allowed).

You can also make simply wine liquor, but no one I know of calls grappa, cognac, armagnac or similar brandies "wine".

Btw, it is more reasonable to translate shekar as beer than as brandy. Except for the purpose of someone wanting to make a nazir vow these days, despite OT being ended by consummation on the Cross.

Jacob Pando

It seems like someone just loves their wine too much to listen to reason. Test the spirit of conversation in Rachel. Repent!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What is reasonable about bad history, Jacob Pando?

III

Maja Hill

In cultures that drink moderate amounts of wine drinking with meals, alcoholism rates are pretty low. The Bible warns against drunkenness and blesses the proper uses for drinking wine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Hear, hear!

Celtic Christianity

Harry Weatherford

OP

I always see posts about the different sects of Christianity. But yet there are some that seem unknown to people. One which I subscribe to is Celtic Christianity. It existed in the British Isles long before Roman Catholicism. The practice thought monastic, believed that it was God, country, family was utmost importance. That Christ was the only way to god and that not only spoke with the bible but spoke through nature and dreams. Also believed in the power of the holy spirit to do all things. To the Roman Catholics this was heresy and wanted to stamp it out. They believed it was evil because they considered it dark magic. When in truth, as Saint Coulomb put it, "all that I do is in accordance to the will of God. And Christ is my high priest." What are your thoughts?

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Can you document Rome considered Celtic Christianity "dark magic"?

Continued

in V.

II

David Jackson

I don't think Rome particulalry cared about what the Celtic Christians believed. What bothered them is that they didn't acknowledge Rome's authority.

It's playing out today with Brexit. England wants out and it infuriates the continental, Roman-based system that there are nations that won't knuckle under. Especially Anglo-Saxon ones, whom they especially disliked to begin with.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"to begin with"

Rome treaty or sth else?

David Jackson

Hans-Georg Lundahl In ancient times. The Germanic Anglo-Saxons resisted Roman domination. They defeated Rome at Teutoburg Wald and so were never conquered by them, as the rest of western Europe was.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The Germanic Anglo-Saxons resisted Roman domination. They defeated Rome at Teutoburg Wald and so were never conquered by them, as the rest of western Europe was."

Some Germans certainly did, like I have heard Arminius the Cheruscan.

I also think Cheruscans are more properly considered Bavarians than Anglo-Saxons, or perhaps Suabians.

Anglo-Saxons, by contrast, were siding with Rome on the Easter date conflict, and Rome therefore backed their conquest of Celtic Britain.

David Jackson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Arminius (Herman) was from northern Germany, where the Saxons were. They later mostly migrated to England.

The Saxons invaded England while they were still pagan. They didn't convert to Christianity until later. Rome would not have backed them for that reason.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Rome backed them when they converted, since they converted in very Rome loyal fashion, compared to Celts.

Btw, you seem to be correct on Cheruscans, the ones I was thinking of were Semnones.

David Jackson

Hans-Georg Lundahl They invaded England before they converted, though. That's what the whole Arthurian legends are about - a pagan people invading the Christianized Celtic people of Britain. It occurred after the Romans left the islands.

Rome backed them after they converted to the Roman views.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"They invaded England before they converted, though."

Not all of it.

For instance, Mercia arguably remained Celtic for some time, certainly so did the Hen Ogledd.

" It occurred after the Romans left the islands."

After the legions - the left behind Celtic high nobility arguably felt like heirs of Rome.

David Jackson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Mercia eventually fell to the Saxons. I think it was under King Penda.

Yes, the Britons felt lke they were the heirs of Rome and saw the Angles and Saxons as barbaric invaders.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"eventually fell to the Saxons."

Eventually. By the time Penda was defeated, Anglo-Saxons were very Roman.

David Jackson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, the Anglo-Saxon establishment became Romanized in their religion not long after conquering most of the island.

That lasted until the Viking invasions c. AD 1000 when more non-Christian invaders came from Scandinavia. Eventually they broke with Rome under Henry VIII and Rome has been trying to get them back ever since.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" the Anglo-Saxon establishment became Romanized in their religion not long after conquering most of the island."

Or of its South and East ... according to Belloc, then is when they started conquering the rest.

"Eventually they broke with Rome under Henry VIII"

To the detriment of everyone, temporal for the faithful and obviously more like eternal for the schismatics.

David Jackson

Hans-Georg Lundahl It was good that they broke with Rome. Rome is the enemy of God's people.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No.

David Jackson

They will form the Revived Roman empire of the end times described in the Bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Where do you get it from that Roman Empire is the identity of Babylon?

Rome may well be its locality, but Empire, Imperial dignity, was what "held back" (II Thess)

David Jackson

Hans-Georg Lundahl That passage is about the future, in the end times. The Roman system will remove the true church through persecution and deportation to make room for the antichrist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[6] And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. [7] For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.

Douay-Rheims Bible + Challoner Notes : Second Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Thessalonians : Chapter 2
http://drbo.org/chapter/60002.htm

The true Church CANNOT be taken out of the way.

So, it must be sth less. Like Roman, Imperial, dignity.

Look what happened when Charles of Austria and Nicolas of Russia were taken out of the way 100 years ago.

Appendix

Citing the note of Challoner to verse 3:

[3] "A revolt": This revolt, or falling off, is generally understood, by the ancient fathers, of a revolt from the Roman empire, which was first to be destroyed, before the coming of Antichrist. It may, perhaps, be understood also of a revolt of many nations from the Catholic Church; which has, in part, happened already, by means of Mahomet, Luther, &c., and it may be supposed, will be more general in the days of the Antichrist.

III

James T Beaton

What is Celtic Christianity? I’m Scottish and English.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Schismatic Catholicism, except when it's not plain Catholicism.

Harry Weatherford

Celtic Christianity believed in living in harmony with the land and God. Didn't believe in praying to saints and Mary. Believed that all things were connected. Lived humbly and believed that God was everywhere and everything that was in nature.

I must say though, even though they didn't pray to saints, they did believe that they still do God's bidding

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Can you document those allegations?

IV

Anil Wadhwani

God gave all scriptures through the bible. Adding to it will get people in trouble.

Emma Surtees

How cfan you be sure its not been added too

Anil Wadhwani

The bible is complete. And with the books included, it shows our near future and the future till eternity after the 1000 year millennium.

Natasha Jordaan

Oh it’s been added to and omitted from countless times without authority from God...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It has been defined by God's authority, since by the Church's authority at Trent.

Emma Surtees

Unless you are at message sent able to percieve it with no barrier to your senses you can only ever be sure of message recieved.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fact is, there is no barrier between the decision of Trent and the senses of Catholics checking it, since the decision was documened.

Emma Surtees

But there is a barrier between your senses and it

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Barrier means sth blocking.

Now, in case sth is publically documented, in the case for instance of solemn decisions, there is indeed indirectness, but not in the sense of actually blocking checkability;

V

Harry Weatherford

Unfortunately we have very little documentation on the Ceili De. Most of what we have is from the time of Cullmceil. (Saint Coulomb) when he was accused of using druidic magic. As well some legends and documentation of an argument on the calculation of Easter.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" when he was accused of using druidic magic."

By whom?

"documentation of an argument on the calculation of Easter."

Sounds exactly what I have heard of the conflict, plus perhaps Celtic monks doing harder ascetism.

Harry Weatherford

Accused by the Roman Church, it is the where we get the saying Christ is my arch druid (high priest) and all I have done I'd in accordance with his teachings

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" Accused by the Roman Church"

Would you mind context? Documentation?

See below, I get a very divergent story from yours simply by checking wikipedia.

Continued

under VII.

VI

Natasha Jordaan

God speaks to me in various ways outside of the Bible. Sometimes audibly, sometimes more like crystal clear telepathy, He sometimes communicates from inside of me. He explains things through visions. There is nothing dark about my experiences with Him.

Anil Wadhwani

God still speaks through Words of knowledge and dreams and prophecies. However, if any of it go against the written Word. it is not true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Exactly what Rome would say.

James T Beaton

It is more often than not goes against the Word of God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

James T Beaton Why?

VII

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I took a look at wikipedia both on Columbanus and Columba - you seem to have heard a version conflating both as well as demonising Rome.

Columba was excommunicated, but not any indication Rome was involved.

Columbanus was in conflict about Easter date, and was not excommunicated, but in fact appealed to ... Rome.

Harry Weatherford ...

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl as I said. We have scant info on the Ceili De. Yes he did appeal to the Roman Church to change their calculation of Easter.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"scant info"

Scant my arse!

We have ample info, but your sect doesn't want you to read it, since it could lead to your:

• a) becoming Catholic
• b) becoming Orthodox
• c) rejecting the Ceili Dé.

"Yes he did appeal to the Roman Church to change their calculation of Easter."

I don't think that was the exact content of the letter, no.

Harry Weatherford

The Ceili De calculated that Easter was about a week before what the Romans calculated. This caused an up roar. So much so that there was a council. However the Ceili De was shot down because by this time the Roman Church had such a hold. You want to say I'm wrong?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes.

• 1) There were two uproars, one in France around Columbanus, another in England about Synod of Whitby
• 2) The Ceili Dé were NOT shot down either time, though Whitby came closer, in chosing Roman rather than Irish missionaries.
• 3) The Roman Church did not have enough hold to get Easter celebrated after Roman calendar all over British Isles to the time of Richard de Clare, a k a Strongbow. This was nearly 600 years after the first and nearly 500 years after the second uproar.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl really? The easter that is observed is based on the roman calculation, not the Irish.the Ceili De was shut down. As a matter of fact that they were thought so little of they were forced basicly to be laymen and eventually phased out almost of existence. There were a few pockets that survived living in monasteries away from roman thoughts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"was shut down."

Not in Columban's nor in Columba's time.

"As a matter of fact that they were thought so little of they were forced basicly to be laymen and eventually phased out almost of existence."

Perhaps in Strongbow's time.

In Columbanus' time, the conflict was over when he went from Gaul to Italy. Not sure whether the Popes granted him the right to use his Easter or he went with the Pope's (which is more probable), but he founded Bobbio, which is where his biographer lived.

You are aware there are a few centuries between 585 and 1169, right?

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl yes I am well aware.

Gbemisola Awelewa

Hmmmm, Interesting!

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl I am also aware that from late 600 early 700 ad Ceili De was for all purpose subjugated.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"from late 600 early 700 ad Ceili De was for all purpose subjugated."

Absolutely not true.

They were still going strong where they came from.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl it is. From about mid 700s their mention were few and far between. Their lack of influence can be seen in the manuscripts dating from the 800s on. During this time much of the land they had was disposed to the Roman Church and became basicly no more then grounds keepers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"From about mid 700s their mention were few and far between."

Not where they were from, Celtic parts of British isles.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl they are only strong because of the few that survived

Hans-Georg Lundahl

But this is a mythology. In fact, Celtic Christians had locally another discipline of monks, and they were not successful in imposing it either in France or England. They were successful in spreading God's word - by adapting to Benedictine customs.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl how do you mean? I don't understand how you phrased the last post

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Irish monks living like Irish monks were NOT successful, but Irish monks living like the monks they went among WERE successful.

Except on Ireland and Wales and Scotland, and so, where they were successful up to Norman conquests.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl that I understand however that was few communities. Do you agree with that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl very few survived most were subjugated to be laymen. Scribes and so forth without holding any real power

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, it was ALL OF Irish, Welsh etc Christendom.

Precisely as after they had had their day as missionaries, and run into a conflict, ALL OF Christians in f inst Gaul celebrated Roman Easter.

"very few survived most were subjugated to be laymen"

What the heck are you talking about?

Strongbow?

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl to be honest I know nothing of Strongbow. What I do know is the fact that after the 700s many communities were taken over by the roman Church, forced to practice the dogma of the Roman Church and since they didn't have the "education" were deemed no more then servants to the church.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but that is gibberish, if you add "survived". And since you add even here "forced".

In the Celtic parts, the Ceili Dé throve, in the rest, they were foreigners anyway. There was no occasion I know of on which they were persecuted. They decided to adapt.

And indeed, Irish Latin was a bit bad.

I think YOUR sect has amalgamated what happened c. 800 on the Continent with what really happened at Norman conquest.

Centures later. Do you get it now?

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl allow me to ask. Are you Roman Catholic? I only ask to see where you are coming from. Because these are the facts. Before the Roman Church taking over, the Ceili De did not pray to Mary, nor the saints. They celebrated Easter a couple of days after when Passover was celebrated. They were the ones that the kings would consult, as well believed that only god could forgive sin not a priest.

Hans-Georg Lundahl as far as "surviving" I refer to the few communities that completely cut them selves off from society. The ones "forced" I refer to the ones that the Roman Church seized control of the communities.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Are you Roman Catholic? I only ask to see where you are coming from."

Most definitely, yes.

"Because these are the facts."

You haven't linked to any documentation.

"Before the Roman Church taking over, the Ceili De did not pray to Mary, nor the saints."

That is mythology, not history.

"They celebrated Easter a couple of days after when Passover was celebrated."

Yes, Sunday after. Bc that was the Roman Calendar in St Patrick's day.

"They were the ones that the kings would consult,"

Like kings have consulted monks elsewhere, yes.

"as well believed that only god could forgive sin not a priest."

They had all seven sacraments, including sacramental absolution of sins.

// as far as "surviving" I refer to the few communities that completely cut them selves off from society. //

This is not a "survival" that has been documented.

From "Dark Ages" (600 - 800) to Strongbow, you have Celtic Church technically in schism from Rome or at least from Anglo-Saxon Rome loyal clergy and you have a "separate Church" about as much as you have with Eastern Orthodox, or a bit less. This separate Church covered ALL of the Celtic lands on British Isles, while all Rome loyal (celebrating Easter on newer Roman calendar) clergy were on British Isles attached to couurts speaking Anglo-Saxon.

Precisely as you had Orthodox clergy at the Byzantine court separated from Rome from 1053 or 1054 to the taking of Constantinople in 1204 or sth.

This is much more than just a "survival".

// The ones "forced" I refer to the ones that the Roman Church seized control of the communities. //

Celtic Church never intended to be un-Roman in the first place. Precisely as Orthodox Church don't intend to (heard of "second Rome, third Rome" ideologies?). This means it was an easy step for a Celtic founded monastery on the continent to shift discipline from Celtic to Roman. It was only on the British Isles that such a step was seen as a disloyalty, since it favoured the Anglo-Saxon invasion (as it was still seen at Celtic courts despite many Anglo-Saxons in 664 already descending from lots of Celts), and so it was seen as national treason. Much like Orthodox Byzantines would see "Romeing" as a treason to the Byzantine superiority complex.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl bullocks. The monasteries existed before Roman Church take over. The full Roman Church take over started in the early 500s. The Ceili De monasteries were established about late 300s early 400s. Is is believed that the traditions originated in Asia Minor. And yes with the bible this can be confirmed just with the book of Galatians which was a Celtic settlement in Asia Minor. It was not till after the fall of Roman empire when the Roman Church really began to spread into the British Isles with Augustine at the for front. Yes they have the sacraments, yes they had the bible as put together at the Nicien conference. How ever the calculation of easter was based on the Jewish calendar. Therefore Easter was a floating Holy day that may occur during the week. However I his is the correct calculation.

They did not pray to Mary nor the saints, even to this day it is in their belief statement. That was something that was forced on them. It was idolatrist and against their belief.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You get your documentation from "their" belief statements "to this day"?

Now, that is bullocks.

"That was something that was forced on them. It was idolatrist and against their belief."

Totally undocumented, since the group which is saying this cannot document its continuity with earlier Celtic Christians.

"The monasteries existed before Roman Church take over."

Before the mainstream Latin tradition takeover of them ... also known as Reform of St Benedict of Aniane (who went by the rules known as rule of St Benedict of Nursia and Rule of the Master).

"It was not till after the fall of Roman empire when the Roman Church really began to spread into the British Isles with Augustine at the for front."

And how come Celts in Roman Empire had a different Church from Roman Empire? And how come Roman Empire shifted Church between 410 when there were still legionaries in "England" and 597 when St Augustine was consecrated bishop to go to "England"?

"Yes they have the sacraments,"

All seven, including Confession or Penance - in which the priest forgives on God's behalf.

Had, btw, I am not vouching for your contacts having valid sacraments.

"How ever the calculation of easter was based on the Jewish calendar. Therefore Easter was a floating Holy day that may occur during the week. However I his is the correct calculation."

Not quite true, Easter was Sunday with them as well.

VIII

James T Beaton

In my research in my ancestors’ history.

Most of my family were from Presbyterians and Puritans.

Celtic Christianity is a movement wherein ancient practices that were presumed to be followed in Christianity in the British Isles are integrated into current Christian practice.

The main issue was Celtic Christians claim that extra-biblical legend says that Joseph of Arimathea was a relative of Mary’s and took the young Jesus to the British Isles.

Celtic Christian practice is no longer active except in certain tribes.

The claim is that Celtic Christianity teaches the traditions of the early Christians in the British Isles before Roman Catholicism gained ground there.

The Celts were a loose association of tribes and often leads to scriptural errors. They were also known as the Gauls by the Romans.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think you have a relative who was cardinal archbishop of Edinburgh as well ...

Until Puritans murdered him.

Checked wiki, found that is so.

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl Heresy happens.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, it seems it happened to your family after a good Catholic was murdered ...

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl During that era, most denominations and Christianity, even Catholics handled heresies that way.

We no longer practice it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I suppose you refer to Ravaillac ...

Who was not exactly typical of Catholics.

If you think of St Bartholomew's Eve massacre, it was as far as I can tell half and half an execution, since on the king's orders and for his safety.

1546 was before both Ravaillac and St Bartholomew's Eve massacre.

IX

Don Nugent

Although not 100% followers of evangelical Christianity these Celts had the very correct idea of rejecting Roman heresies. Of course as usual wherever they can use force Rome will use force, murder, kill, and torture, under the guise of a "Holy Mother Church". We should have a holiday to remember those who have suffered under "Holy Mother" tyranny.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Although not 100% followers of evangelical Christianity"

Understatement of the year.

"these Celts had the very correct idea of rejecting Roman heresies."

Like the Easter calendar?

"Of course as usual wherever they can use force Rome will use force, murder, kill, and torture, under the guise of a "Holy Mother Church"."

What exact thing are you referring to, prior to Strongbow and similar?

"We should have a holiday to remember those who have suffered under "Holy Mother" tyranny."

Oh, after Foxe' Book of Martyrs became your martyrology, as a Catholic joked, you are promoting martyrs' feasts .... recatholicing fast, aren't you?

Don Nugent

Yes, a Catholic would joke about those they burned at the stake. Very proud of that. Rejoicing. Such a anti biblical cult. Not just unbiblical but anti biblical preaching another gospel.

Tom Dorsey

Don Nugent should we post every known Catholics killed by protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" Yes, a Catholic would joke about those they burned at the stake."

I think it is a joke that you can take all and any burnt at the stake as Christian martyrs.

I don't think their death is a joke, but I do think your mixing all of them together is.

St Joan of Arc is not comparable to Jacques Molay.

Even on your side, a Calvinist burnt by a Spaniard is not comparable to an Albigensian burned in Toulouse.

"should we post every known Catholics killed by protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries?"

We do celebrate St Fidelis of Sigmaringen.

That part is not really jokeworthy. If they wanted to hold a feast for Lollards burned in Coventry ... nearly respectable, even if they are wrong. Tyndale already is celebrated by Anglicans.

BUT here we have both Foxe and Don Nugent mixing Lollards with Albigensians, just bc both were burned on the stake by Roman Catholics.

But another joke is, part of Protestantism is protesting about celebrating and venerating martyrs and making holidays for them ... Foxe and this proposal by Don Nugent ...

I might want to add, the Catholic who joked about Foxe's new martyrology was doing so in England - where Catholics were risking death.

X

Tom Dorsey

LOL, St. Columbanus was a Catholic!!!!

Harry Weatherford

No one is disputing that. He was one of the last remaining Ceili De that had to come under the rule of the Roman Church. Though there is no record that states that he believed everything the church practiced

Tom Dorsey

Harry Weatherford he was sent to the Isles by the Catholic Church!!!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tom Dorsey - you are confusing him with St Augustine of Canterbury/

"He was one of the last remaining Ceili De that had to come under the rule of the Roman Church."

Mists of Avalon ....

"Though there is no record that states that he believed everything the church practiced"

How is there not, if he was trusted by the Church?

Harry Weatherford - Matthew 28:20 says the Church exists every day.

That alone does not make your version of what Celtic Church was a candidate, since you think it went down by becoming more mainstream Catholic.

B u t, it also implies Church is visible (teaching them ...) and therefore puts a burden of proof on whatever is claimed to be the Church : it needs to be documented.

You cannot just make up "the true Church is what St Columbanus believed before he submitted to Roman Catholicism" since you cannot document his diverging from it afterwards.

Tom Dorsey

Hans-Georg Lundahl umm no, he was a Catholic missionary

Harry Weatherford

Tom Dorsey Tom Dorsey actually st Augustine was sent by Rome. Columba studied under Irish monks and lived there till he was exiled by the king. Which is when he went to Iona

Tom Dorsey

Harry Weatherford didn't know Augustine was ever in the British Isles?

Harry Weatherford

When did he go to Rome to be commetioned

Tom Dorsey he went with the princess/queen of the franks when she married the king of England at that time

Tom Dorsey

Harry Weatherford who? Augustine?

Harry Weatherford

Tom Dorsey yes

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"umm no, he was a Catholic missionary"

Yes, but from Ireland and on the Continent. He died in Bobbio, which he founded and where Jonas of Bobbio wrote his vita.

"didn't know Augustine was ever in the British Isles?"

You are perhaps thinking of St Augustine of Hippo, contemporary of St Jerome and prolific Church Father.

I specified St Augustine of Canterbury, sent by Pope St Gregory I.

"he went with the princess/queen of the franks when she married the king of England at that time"

Confirmed by quote from wiki:

// In 595, Gregory chose Augustine, who was the prior of the Abbey of St Andrew's in Rome, to head the mission to Kent.[13] The pope selected monks to accompany Augustine and sought support from the Frankish royalty and clergy in a series of letters, of which some copies survive in Rome. He wrote to King Theuderic II of Burgundy and to King Theudebert II of Austrasia, as well as their grandmother Brunhild, seeking aid for the mission. Gregory thanked King Chlothar II of Neustria for aiding Augustine. Besides hospitality, the Frankish bishops and kings provided interpreters and Frankish priests to accompany the mission.[25] By soliciting help from the Frankish kings and bishops, Gregory helped to assure a friendly reception for Augustine in Kent, as Æthelbert was unlikely to mistreat a mission which visibly had the support of his wife's relatives and people.[26] Moreover, the Franks appreciated the chance to participate in mission that would extend their influence in Kent. Chlothar, in particular, needed a friendly realm across the Channel to help guard his kingdom's flanks against his fellow Frankish kings. //

Tom Dorsey

Hans-Georg Lundahl yes, he spent his early clerical years in Catholic monasteries

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You did get that the one Harry Weatherford was talking of was St Columba, Tom Dorsey?

The problem is not whether he spent any years in monasteries or whether they were "Catholic" in a broad sense, the problems are:

• were they Irish or general Latin tradition?
• if Irish, did that amount to a separate religion, in fact?

For St Augustine of Canterbury, we know it was Latin tradition.

Tom Dorsey

Hans-Georg Lundahl I would like to see reliable documentation showing the Christian Celts were anything but Catholic??

And if they were, documentation showing when and why they changed?

Kinda reminds me of the Baptist claim that St. Patrick was actually a Baptist LOL

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, reliable documentation, we can argue anything from Roman Catholic to Eastern Orthodox to something inbetween both which doesn't exist anymore.

Obviously at some points Celtic Church were really in schism, locally in England after Synod of Whitby and more generally considered schismatics in the time of Strongbow, when subduing Ireland was considered a kind of crusade.

But we are dealing with Harry Weatherford - a man probably able to claim St Patrick was a Baptist.

Or at least not far from.

So, in this context, St Augustine of Canterbury was of course from a mainstream Latin type monastery, but Sts Columba and Columban from Irish type monasteries.

Tom Dorsey

Hans-Georg Lundahl can you prove that? Papal declaration maybe?? Or is that just someone's guesswork??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Nel VI secolo papa Gregorio I, di famiglia anicia, costruì dall'altra parte del Clivus un monastero, in cui visse a lungo, e nel 575 una piccola chiesa dedicata a sant'Andrea, da cui il nome "Monastero di Sant'Andrea"."

"In 595, Gregory chose Augustine, who was the prior of the Abbey of St Andrew's in Rome, to head the mission to Kent"

The latter being from St Augustine of Canterbury on wiki, and the former being from Italian version of the article it links to at St Anrews in Rome - the monastery is now Gregorio magno.

Now, here is from the article on St Columbanus:

"Columbanus (the Latinised form of Columbán, meaning the white dove) was born in the Kingdom of Meath, now part of Leinster, in Ireland in 543,[1] the year Saint Benedict died at Monte Cassino.[7] Prior to his birth, his mother was said to have had visions of bearing a child who, in the judgment of those interpreting the visions, would become a "remarkable genius".[8] Columbanus was well-educated in the areas of grammar, rhetoric, geometry, and the Holy Scriptures.[1][9]

"Columbanus left home to study under Sinell, Abbot of Cluaninis in Lough Erne.[Note 2] Under Sinell's instruction, Columbanus composed a commentary on the Psalms. He then moved to Bangor Abbey on the coast of Down, where Saint Comgall was serving as the abbot. He stayed at Bangor until his fortieth year,[1] when he received Comgall's permission to travel to the continent."

Bangor would seem to be on Ireland, right? By contrast, he founded more than one monastery in both Gaul and - where he died - Italy, namely the last one Bobbio.

And from the article on St Columba or Colum-kille:

"Colmcille was born to Fedlimid and Eithne of the Cenel Conaill in Gartan, a district beside Lough Gartan, in Tír Chonaill (mainly modern County Donegal) in the north of Ireland. On his father's side, he was great-great-grandson of Niall of the Nine Hostages, an Irish high king of the 5th century. He was baptised in Temple-Douglas, in the County Donegal parish of Conwal (midway between Gartan and Letterkenny), by his teacher and foster-uncle Saint Crunathan.[8][9][10] It is not known for sure if his name at birth was Colmcille or if he adopted this name later in life; Adomnán (Eunan) of Iona thought it was his birth name but other Irish sources have claimed his name at birth was Crimthann (meaning 'fox').[11] In the Irish language his name means 'dove', which is the same name as the Prophet Jonah (Jonah in Hebrew is also 'dove'), which Adomnán of Iona as well as other early Irish writers were aware of, although it is not clear if he was deliberately named after Jonah or not.

"When sufficiently advanced in letters he entered the monastic school of Movilla, at Newtownards, under St. Finnian who had studied at St. Ninian's "Magnum Monasterium" on the shores of Galloway. He was about twenty, and a deacon when, having completed his training at Movilla, he travelled southwards into Leinster, where he became a pupil of an aged bard named Gemman. On leaving him, Colmcille entered the monastery of Clonard, governed at that time by Finnian, noted for sanctity and learning. Here he imbibed the traditions of the Welsh Church, for Finnian had been trained in the schools of St. David."

So, St Augustine of Canterbury was from mainstream Roman tradition, Sts Columba and Columban (Colmkill and Columbanus) are from the Irish one.

But our friend Harry seems to have some confusion here too.

Between the two latter ones. Columban was in conflict with Latin mainstream tradition over Easter date BUT he was not excommunicated nor even slightly discouraged by Rome. That story is why he went FROM Gaul TO Italy, founding Bobbio.

Columba on the other hand was excommunicated, but that was a purely internal affair within Irish Christianity.

It is neither infallible Papal teaching, nor someone's guesswork, but in between, well documented history.

Tom Dorsey

Hans-Georg Lundahl did I miss something , where did this say Columbanus was a schismatic???

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I never said Columbanus was.

I said that the Celtic Church eventually was, like in the time of Strongbow.

Harry Weatherford is projecting that situation of schism back onto the times of Columbanus.

That is why it is important that Columbanus:

• 1) was raised in Irish monasteries
• 2) did enter into some kind of conflict with mainstream Latin clergy in Gaul over the date of Easter.

To him this is proof positive Columbanus and the then popes belonged to different confessions, which is rot.

In fact, he quit Luxeuil and similar places to found a monastery in Italy, that of Bobbio. Apparently with the full blessings of the then Popes.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl I just love how you think that I am speaking and thinking. Fact: there are mention of Christianity in the British Isles as early as 200 ad by a man from Africa. This is before the Niceian Synod. Fact: there had been many disputes between RC and the Ceili De from dating calculation to the wealth that the RC was accumulating for it self. Fact by the end of 300 beginning of 400 was the start of the transition to RC in the British Isles. By 500 ad was the full head on "assault" for transition. Fact: the RC is well known to convert or die type of mentality. Fact: anything that did not coincide with their dogma they suppressed and or destroyed. I have read what I could from both sides and tend to agree with this. The Celtic Christians had the 7 sacraments, they did hold services in somewhat the same as RC. Here were the differences, they did hold Mary and the saints in high regard yet they did not pray to them for they believed that only through Christ could you come to the father. They did not believe in wealth, what wealth that was taken in was used for the good of the community. Not only did they teach the bible, they also taught philosophy, sciences, they taught of culture and respect. They taught about nature and the healing properties of the natural world. They believed in the visible and invisible worlds. With the RC it was do as I say. The RC believed in ruling with fear. Suppressing people to think for themselves. Believed in forced conversion or die. And as to your assumption that "he would probably tell you Patrick was a Baptist" is asinine IF Patrick even existed. The RC is well known for cover ups and destruction. If it was up to the RC we would probably still be in the dark ages.

Tom Dorsey

Harry Weatherford why don't you post these "facts" along with sources please??

Harry Weatherford sounds like the typical protestant propaganda

Harry Weatherford

Tom Dorsey look at any history book. The inquisition, witch trials, suppression of the likes of Galileo, genocide of native Americans that would not convert, destruction of books that was thought to be of the devil or did not coincide with their belief, destruction of of the knights Templar. Should I go on?

Tom Dorsey now with that said, as far as "Protestant propaganda" they ate just as bad. Horrendous interpretation of the scripture, enslavement as well, their own greed. Both RC and Protestant are corrupted by greed and power.

Tom Dorsey

Harry Weatherford we're talking about Columbanus

Harry Weatherford

Tom Dorsey no. I was using Columba as an example. You and Hans-Georg Lundahl were talking about Columbanus. Two separate people. One was Irish monk the other was Roman Catholic

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Fact: there are mention of Christianity in the British Isles as early as 200 ad by a man from Africa."

No Catholic would dispute this.

However, let's be clear, this was Christianity among Celts in the ROMAN parts of Britain. Later, this was EITHER supplanted by the later mission to Anglo-Saxons OR merged with the Irish tradition, which was not from 200, but from when Celtic-Roman Patricius had been taken by Niall of the Nine hostages and later returned to save their souls.

"This is before the Niceian Synod."

No Catholic would dispute this either.

"Fact: there had been many disputes between RC and the Ceili De from dating calculation to the wealth that the RC was accumulating for it self."

Had been?

By 200? This is before both the Ceili Dé (since they start with St Patrick) and what you seem to imply was the start of RC.

The Ceili Dé were not full on Quarto-decimans, they were about as Quarto-deciman as St Patrick, which means, as Quarto-deciman as the then Pope.

You seem to want to attach them to earlier Quarto-deciman and condemned sects.

"Fact by the end of 300 beginning of 400 was the start of the transition to RC in the British Isles."

Non-fact.

"By 500 ad was the full head on "assault" for transition."

Non-fact.

"Fact: the RC is well known to convert or die type of mentality."

NOT by 500 AD, no.

"Fact: anything that did not coincide with their dogma they suppressed and or destroyed."

False statement in principle and anachronistic as to date.

Anything which contradicted dogma was to be seen as false.

Suppressing or destroying by physical violence against people professing to be Christians (even if in error) was NOT a thing by 500 or even 400 AD.

"I have read what I could from both sides and tend to agree with this."

You are still vague about where you read from the "Celtic" side.

"The Celtic Christians had the 7 sacraments, they did hold services in somewhat the same as RC."

This means, among other things, they thought priests had the power to absolve and they thought Holy Mass was a real sacrifice.

"Here were the differences, they did hold Mary and the saints in high regard yet they did not pray to them for they believed that only through Christ could you come to the father."

Would you mind telling me where you have this from?

"They did not believe in wealth, what wealth that was taken in was used for the good of the community."

RC does not believe in wealth, and is using wealth taken in for good of the community.

"Not only did they teach the bible, they also taught philosophy, sciences, they taught of culture and respect. They taught about nature and the healing properties of the natural world. They believed in the visible and invisible worlds."

What's different from RC here?

"With the RC it was do as I say. The RC believed in ruling with fear."

Where do you get that from?

"Suppressing people to think for themselves. Believed in forced conversion or die."

No. Much later, like the times of St Thomas Aquinas, men argued some who had merited death penalty could be spared if converting or reconverting. NO ONE in Catholicism has argued that peaceful and innocent non-CHristians could be licitly put before such a choice.

"And as to your assumption that "he would probably tell you Patrick was a Baptist" is asinine IF Patrick even existed. The RC is well known for cover ups and destruction. If it was up to the RC we would probably still be in the dark ages."

In other words, St Patrick could have been anything you like, because RC would have covered it up, so I can make up what I want about what was knowledge before that cover up.

NICE ... but not in the light of [Matthew 5:15].

Also, Sts Columba and Columban and the rest all believed in St Patrick.

Harry Weatherford "look at any history book."

I suppose your history books are by Protestant Historiographic tradition, probably even Whig bias.

"The inquisition,"

Started centuries after Columba and Columbanus.

"witch trials,"

Dito and stopped earlier under Spanish Inquisitors than in Salem.

"suppression of the likes of Galileo,"

Giordano Bruno was arguing the Holy Ghost was world soul of OUR solar system. Galileo had the good sense to actually repent of his idiocy (a learned idiocy, but still an idiocy) a year before he died.

"genocide of native Americans that would not convert,"

Projection, what?

Look at the origin of the name Manhattan and the origin of the name Mexico. Then check which Indian language is still spoken today.

"destruction of books that was thought to be of the devil"

Books of magic were destroyed by St Paul's converts too.

"or did not coincide with their belief,"

Or contradicted it ... yes.

"destruction of of the knights Templar."

Oh boy ... Jacques Molay had been forced to trample on a Crucifix. He had not suppressed this tradition for initiation. He was bonfire worthy. He raped consciences of those becoming Knights Templar.

Harry Weatherford "Two separate people. One was Irish monk the other was Roman Catholic"

BOTH were Irish monks and BOTH were Roman Catholics.

You confused their stories, at least earlier.

ColumbaN was the one in the Easter conflict, he simply moved to Italy after some correspondence with Rome.

ColumbA was the one who got excommunicated ... by OTHER Irish monks.

On Young Marriages VS Abortions (initials only)

Ty Barker

Admin ·

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5:20

Chelsea Clinton: Would Be ‘Unchristian’ to Return to Time Before Legal Abortion
by PAM KEY | 13 Sep 2018
https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/09/13/chelsea-clinton-would-be-unchristian-to-return-to-time-before-legal-abortion/

Skipping

some of the comments. If other participants prefer, initials only version will be replaced by a full names one.

HGL

It was un-Christian at Russian revolution to return to pre-Constantine times of legal abortion on male relative's demand.

EM

"When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit…[saying] ‘As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy'" (Luke 1:41, 44, NIV).

TH

People on the right need to consider whether or not this is a battle worth fighting. Abortion is the only issue that works for Democrats and they will go to war over it. Take that issue out of American politics somehow or other, and the Democrat party will die a natural death within five years.

HGL

Take that issue out of American politics, and you have made Republicans as bad as Democrats.

Ty Barker

It’s a battle worth fighting if we want God to bless America.

-----

“When you spread out your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from you; even when you offer many prayers, I am not listening. Your hands are full of blood!” Isaiah 1:15

JDM

HGL, why? Is murdering babies acceptable to you?

HGL

JDM - reread what TH said and then reread my response to him in the light of that, and then see whom you should be asking.

Republicans are some of them at present better than Democrats, since against abortion.

Now, if TH takes abortion issue out, these Republicans are no longer better than Democrats.

JDM

HGL sorry, I wasn't able to open all the responses.

HGL

happens!

EM

"Behold, children are a gift of the LORD; the fruit of the womb is a reward" (Psalm 127:3, NASV).

"Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body" (1 Corinthians 6:19-20, NKJV).

TH

Granted I would advise people against abortion in something like 95% of all cases; some of those other 5% however are so compelling that you may have one of those goof situations in which the law has to be written for the 5% and not the 95%.

What if Democrats were to get back into the White House with this issue and then take the whole planet down in a nuclear war...

HGL

What are the 5 % of all cases in which you recommend murder?

TH

HGL

Let me give you a concrete example. A business partner of my brothers and his wife had a child die of a genetic disorder at age 6. You can imagine the grief that would entail, nonetheless they still wanted to have a child. A second pregnancy tested positive for the same disorder and was terminated. A third pregnancy tested normal and that child is living a happy life today.

Without the safety net of legal abortion, none of that would've been possible and that child would not exist. Those two people would have simply had themselves sterilized.

JH

TH The problem is, abortion is not a matter for the Federal government to decide. Per the 10th Amendment, it is a matter for the several States. Roe V Wade is Federal overreach, pure and simple.

HGL

"A second pregnancy tested positive for the same disorder and was terminated."

So they spared themselves the anxiety and grief of a child positively dying by making sure it died?

"Those two people would have simply had themselves sterilized."

Sterilisation is also an abhomination, and should also be forbidden.

TH

HGL But you have not answered my question. Could you justify a nuclear war for the sake of the stance against abortion? This isn't hypothetical; if the Hildeabeast had won that election two years ago, the nuclear war would've already happened.

HGL

Wait - Democrats are willing to nuke for abortion?

I missed that.

TH

JH That would be a reasonable solution if you could do it. All I really want is to see the issue taken out of American politics. All I have ever seen it do in my lifetime is get good candidates for public offices defeated by vermin.

JH

TH In other words, you are saying it might be wise to lose this battle to win the war? Win the war, and THEN undo Roe V Wade. It is a strategy to consider, certainly. The thing of it is, the Democrats are funneled MILLIONS of dollars through Planned Parenthood, and Roe V Wade is what makes that possible.

HGL

What if the anti-abortion line were argued in a more coherent way which actually could appeal to people who now call it hypocritical?

JH

HGL How would you argue it in a more coherent way?

TH

HGL Democrats are Malthusians and Greentards. The Democrat party is owned, lock, stock, and barrel by George Soros and bankers who want to see the human population of the earth reduced to medieval levels for the glory of Gaia. The only plausible way to do that would be a nuclear war.

Let's Democrats into the White House one more time, and you will get to see that big old mushroom cloud, up close and personal.

Hiroshima: Dropping The Bomb - Hiroshima - BBC
BBC Studios | 14.III.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wxWNAM8Cso

HGL

Oh, so you meant their adherence to Georgia Guide Stones.

Btw, "medieval levels" may very well be a slur on Middle Ages.

TH

JH Abortion should not be an industry in the United States. It would be completely reasonable to require women seeking abortions to be apprised of all relevant information regarding options. That is, Planned Parenthood should not be the only source of information that people have access to.

HGL

JH - instead of "adoption is the responsible option" I'd say "let teens marry".

I would also NOT give any exceptions to medical abortions, nor to sterilisations on medical grounds.

I would therefore be punishing abortions as one punishes murders, perhaps not same scale of time in prison, but still. And I would obviously be making provisions so teens actually could marry, not just lower the age, like the teens should again be able to quit school when marrying (as before Clinton Bill, as back in 1995). Thereby enabling them to take jobs and provide for children.

TH

HGL I agree with at least part of that. It has to again become both socially and economically possible for people to marry and start families in their late teens. The alternative, as we have seen, is to watch our own birthrates sag beneath replacement levels and then watch Democrats and globalists import voting blocks for themselves from the Third World.

JH

TH Trade schools, instead of at least 4 years of college, would help tremendously with that, along with the revival of industry, which President Trump is giving us.

HGL

"It has to again become both socially and economically possible for people to marry and start families in their late teens."

Why "late"?

"The alternative, as we have seen, is to watch our own birthrates sag beneath replacement levels and then watch Democrats and globalists import voting blocks for themselves from the Third World."

True enough.

"Trade schools,"

What about sending sons at age 7 for apprenticeship, not school?

JH

HGL Apprenticeship? Fine. Whatever. The point is that college for everyone is a way of prolonging adolescence and delaying marriage and maturity. As well as brainwashing young people with neo Marxist garbage, of course. What we are seeing now is tidal wave of immature people who've never grown up because they haven't had to, thinking as children think and speaking as children speak.

HGL

I'd not even agree on the maturity issue.

Give one of them a marriage and a baby, she'll mature.

JH

HGL It's not only young woman who are immature 🤣, not to mention, in case you haven't noticed, women also have to be able to support themselves, so women need apprenticeship and job-training, too, as well as men.

HGL

The woman could be supported by a husband and he could be older.

JH

HGL And what happens if he dies or becomes unable to work due to injury or illness? What happens to the wife and the children? And what happens to women who don't marry very young? Are they supposed to live with their parents until the do, as if they are children? And if they live with their parents until them marry, even if it's later, doesn't that, by definition, make them immature? You know, sometimes women don't marry simply because they never meet the right man. What are they supposed to do? This is the 21st century, and women have to be able to support themselves and their children if something happens to their husband. Which means that women have to be able to have good-paying jobs. Otherwise, they become dependent on the government, which is NOT a good thing.

HGL

Well, what about doing the right thing by marrying and then trusting God's providence?

For many mothers, the problem is, the government does not allow this.

The idea that women HAVE to have a job before getting children is part of what depopulates the West. It is way worse in Sweden and France than in US.

"You know, sometimes women don't marry simply because they never meet the right man."

If you are pregnant, if the father is not married to someone else or a celibate monk or priest and if he's of same or compatible faith or belief system with you, I think you have a fairly good clue as who the right person is, in such a situation.

ALSO, college and university actually often involves (at least in Sweden) some kind of study subsidy, which provides for mothers who are studying.

JH

HGL "If you are pregnant, if the father is not married to someone else or a celibate monk or priest and if he's of same or compatible faith or belief system with you, I think you have a fairly good clue as who the right person is, in such a situation." Oh, then you're advocating for the very immature action of getting pregnant out of wedlock? "ALSO, college and university actually often involves (at least in Sweden) some kind of study subsidy, which provides for mothers who are studying." So, you want women to be dependent on government, thereby obviating the need for her to have a husband? So, you are actually giving me reasons why women SHOULD NOT marry while simultaneously arguing FOR marriage at a very young age. In other words, you cannot support your argument that women should marry young with reasons why they should not marry at all. In other words, sir, your position is untenable.

HGL

"Oh, then you're advocating for the very immature action of getting pregnant out of wedlock?"

I am not advocating it.

I am saying how one should deal with it.

"So, you want women to be dependent on government, thereby obviating the need for her to have a husband?"

No, I am giving advice on how to deal with absence of one.

Your interpretation is faulty.

JH

HGL Then explain to me further what you mean, so that I may understand.

HGL How is a woman to deal with the absence of a husband if she is unqualified for a good-paying job?

HGL The fact of the matter is, in today's world, whether she marries young or doesn't marry at all, whether she has children or not, whether her husband is young or older, or even if she lives with her parents for her whole life, a woman needs to be able to support herself, which means that one way or another, she needs to qualify for a good-paying job. For some people that will require college. For others, trade school is the way to go. Unless you believe that the best life for a woman is to be somebody's ward for her whole life, whether she is the ward of her husband or her son or her brother or her parents or her government?, which makes her, by definition, immature. Which starts to sound a whole lot like a certain Middle Eastern religion, if you catch my drift.

HGL

Let me put it like this : Christianity is as such a Middle Eastern religion too.

God has not said "women must support themselves" or "women must not depend on husbands".

God has said, through St Paul, that in certain circumstances you should marry. His description of the case is NOT such that teens seem excluded. At all.

For my part, I have not said any woman should be forced to marry.

The Catholic Church does not consider a really and truly forced marriage as a valid one.

I have said, against the most modern idiocies on the market, she should be allowed to do so.

From her 12th birthday.

Now, let me be precise on what you sound like.

You sound as if a teen unwed person is pregnant, instead of marrying, she should be punished for her "immaturity".

Lots of good that will do to her child, right (sarcasm, if you didn't catch it).

On to some probable consequences : you do not want her to be effectively the mother of her child. You NEITHER want her to marry, NOR to support her child on some dole for pregnant and and young mother students.

This would leave her the choice EITHER murder OR be a surrogate mother for someone else, older and richer than herself.

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5:20

I think, if you don't repent, you will go to Hell with the Swedish feminists.

JH

"You sound as if a teen unwed person is pregnant, instead of marrying, she should be punished for her "immaturity"." I said no such thing, nor did I even imply it, and you could not be more wrong about what I think or what I believe if you tried. What I think is that teens should be able to marry, but that they should wait to have children until after marriage, and they both should have a good education of some kind under their belts, because being uneducated and pregnant, for boys and girls, is a sure-fire way to remain poor their whole life long and confer a bad start on the children. Also, I do not believe in abortion, and if a teen-age girl becomes pregnant, or a teen-age couple (teen girl and teen boy) falls pregnant, they should marry and raise the child. But that doesn't address what would happen to her if her husband (whatever his age) died or became ill and unable to support her and their children. The sensible thing would be for women, including teen-age girls, to marry but also be able to support themselves and their children so that the children are well-provided for, no matter what happens to either parent. p.s. I did not assume that you think women ought to be forced to marry. I didn't even imply that.

HGL

"I said no such thing,"

Hence "you sound as if".

"nor did I even imply it"

Hope I misunderstood.

"What I think is that teens should be able to marry, but that they should wait to have children until after marriage,"

That's the normal procedure, at least.

Part of reversing it is sinful but second part of its reversal is making up for sin.

"and they both should have a good education of some kind under their belts,"

It's an asset. It is also a dispensable one.

"because being uneducated and pregnant, for boys and girls, is a sure-fire way to remain poor their whole life long"

Most people do.

Renouncing a thing which could otherwise make you happy, but which is likely to keep you poor, that is not a guarantee of not remaining poor. Hence, no real need to renouncing it.

"and confer a bad start on the children"

Adam conferred a bad start on all of us. Rich and poor. That is why unwed pregnancies happen and are understandable.

"Also, I do not believe in abortion,"

Thank you very much!

"and if a teen-age girl becomes pregnant, or a teen-age couple (teen girl and teen boy) falls pregnant, they should marry and raise the child."

Thank God! This is precisely what I had misunderstood.

"But that doesn't address what would happen to her if her husband (whatever his age) died or became ill and unable to support her and their children."

Indeed - I gave one option or two. Not pretending they are ideal nor that they are exhaustive.

"I did not assume that you think women ought to be forced to marry. I didn't even imply that."

Sorry for misunderstanding.

I've been under lots of heat from feminists ...

Seems my idea of your going to Hell with Swedish feminists unless you repent was a wee bit exaggerated.

JH

HGLFeminists are delusional and hate themselves as women, which is certainly not your fault.

HGL

Taking you for one at least partly was.

With Real Protestants - Bryan Sager II and Dariusz Kulikowski

With Real Protestants - Bryan Sager Intro · With Real Protestants - Bryan Sager I · With Real Protestants - Bryan Sager II and Dariusz Kulikowski

Bryan Sager

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Descendit ad inferos means, he descended to Sheol, not to the Hell of the damned.

He went where Abraham was waiting for him, and the good thief was there too, and Paradise was there. Hodie eris mecum in paradiso.

He did not go to where the rich probably Pharisee had gone.

Dariusz Kulakowski

Hodie eris mecum in paradiso. what language is this?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Latin.

I find it a language in which it is easy to recall phrases, and I am a Roman Catholic.

Dariusz Kulakowski

Translation of scripture is not valid as it doesn't produce original meaning. Bible says abut different spirits: "who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah" So it wasn't Abraham, so your assertion is wrong!

You are bringing Hans similar manipulation as her!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I was not referring to that part of Peter's epistle.

I was referring to the Catholic catechism.

As to the part you cited, those souls had already passed through Purgatory or were released when He came down, so, they were in Abraham's bosom - where He had told the good thief they would be together.

Dariusz Kulakowski

Bible doesn't say that and for us Bible is authoritarian not catechizm. Bible doesn't mention false doctrine of aditional cleansing to perfect sacrifice of Christ Jesus!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, what does YOUR Bible say for [Luke 23:43]?

Mine in English says "And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise."

This means, Jesus was in paradise in Sheol - a k a Abraham's bosom.

When I look up your quote, I see a comment by Challoner:

[19] "Spirits that were in prison": See here a proof of a third place, or middle state of souls: for these spirits in prison, to whom Christ went to preach, after his death, were not in heaven; nor yet in the hell of the damned: because heaven is no prison: and Christ did not go to preach to the damned.

Purgatory.

Dariusz Kulakowski

What for he would proclaimed there?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

So they could get some catechesis before getting on to Heaven.

Dariusz Kulakowski

It is very interesting that Jesus had to go to Purgatory to be cleansed!😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, he went to Purgatory to do some quick cleansing of souls who had been detained there.

It is interesting you have to twist my point to answer it.

Dariusz Kulakowski

No, it was just fun, how far you have to go to bring false doctrine that Jesus's sacrifice is not sufficient for salvation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I have never said that His sacrifice was not sufficient for salvation on God's side.

On man's side, it needs to be accepted, before you die, either in hope as with the fathers, or in belief of it already having been made.

AND among those saved, some get to Heaven directly (or got directly to bosom of Abraham), and some go to Purgatory first.

Dariusz Kulakowski

If you believe in purgatory then Jesus's sacrifice is not enough!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I don't know where you get that from.

Dariusz Kulakowski

If aditional cleansing is required then Jesus did a bad job dying for our sins!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, there is the cleansing from the guilt, needed at justification by baptism, and at each subsequent justification by absolution, and THEN, in the Christian life on earth, there is the cleansing from remaining penalties.

THAT part can go on in Purgatory.

Bryan Sager

Hans, where is your proof?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Bryan Sager - right now I am not PROVING, I am correcting misunderstandings.

Bryan Sager

Hans, you're claiming. Evidence produces truth, claims produce opinions.

Dariusz Kulakowski

But where Bible suggests that What Jesus done on the cross was not enough?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Bryan Sager - if you read whom I was arguing with, namely Dariusz Kulakowski, you would know I have to EXPLAIN WHAT I believe before I can give EVIDENCE WHY I believe it.

Dariusz Kulakowski, you did it agains, pretended that Catholics do not consider the act of Christ sufficient to save us.

Bryan Sager

Hans, the Bible says Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for us, God declares us righteous by the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, the Bible also says those that deny him go to eternal tourment, not purgatory.

1 John 2:2 ESV
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Romans 3:25 ESV
whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
propitiation, sin offering
Atonement, i.e. (concretely) an expiator -- propitiation.

1 Peter 3:18 ESV
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,

Hebrews 10:10 ESV
And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Philippians 3:9 ESV
and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-

Romans 5:9 ESV
Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Hell

The Bible is clear stating that they will be locked out.

Rev 22:14-15
Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. [15] Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

The wages of our sin is death Rom 6:23, we don't deserve life, our sin is a direct offense against God, Psalm 51:4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgement; - Hell is this infinite and eternal death which we have earned because of our sin.

Hell is eternal fire

Matt 25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Matt 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."

Dan 12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Mark 9:45,47-49 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. [47] And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, [48] 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.' [49] For everyone will be salted with fire.

Rev 14:10-11 he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. [11] And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."

Your interpretation is contradictory to scripture. Move along now.

Dariusz Kulakowski

Hans-Georg Lundahl no I know that Catholics don't see sucrifice of Christ. All the system of new priesthood was introduced to bring help to Jesus's sacrifice as well

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dariusz Kulakowski, do you think EVERY man, believer and non-believer is automatically saved bc of Christ's sacrifice?

Or do you think we have to do SOMETHING?

Bryan Sager "the Bible says Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for us"

Correct.

Never disputed that.

"God declares us righteous by the work of Jesus Christ on the cross,"

Which one of your quotes was declarative only atonement?

I missed that one, if there was one.

"the Bible also says those that deny him go to eternal tourment, not purgatory."

Catholics agree.

Now, purgatory is not for unbelievers or others dying in mortal sin.

Purgatory is for those who die with not all the cleansing from remaining affections for sin as yet done.

The cleansing is done by the sacrifice of Christ, but not by pure juridical declaration on God's part, and therefore it is not over in an instant. This means it can have for some to go on after death, QED.

Dariusz Kulakowski

Can you quote scripture for the last one?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dariusz Kulakowski how do you like this one?

I Cor 3:[11] For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. [12] Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: [13] Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. [14] If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. [15] If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

Here is the comment of Bishop Challoner:

[12] "Upon this foundation": The foundation is Christ and his doctrine: or the true faith in him, working through charity. The building upon this foundation gold, silver, and precious stones, signifies the more perfect preaching and practice of the gospel; the wood, hay, and stubble, such preaching as that of the Corinthian teachers (who affected the pomp of words and human eloquence) and such practice as is mixed with much imperfection, and many lesser sins. Now the day of the Lord, and his fiery trial, (in the particular judgment immediately after death,) shall make manifest of what sort every man's work has been: of which, during this life, it is hard to make a judgment. For then the fire of God's judgment shall try every man's work. And they, whose works, like wood, hay, and stubble, cannot abide the fire, shall suffer loss; these works being found to be of no value; yet they themselves, having built upon the right foundation, (by living and dying in the true faith and in the state of grace, though with some imperfection,) shall be saved yet so as by fire; being liable to this punishment, by reason of the wood, hay, and stubble, which was mixed with their building.

Bryan Sager

Hans, what does it mean to be justified before God?

Romans 5:1 ESV
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

I see you continue to make claims without any supporting evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Bryan Sager I note that Paul did not there say "by faith alone".

Also peace with God does not mean no more sufferings in this life, therefore, it also does not mean automatically Heaven direct once you die.

The one making claims without evidence duly supporting them is you.

Bryan Sager

That's the establishment and very foundation of the church and it's teaching which totally denotes the Catholic denomination as being the church, it's not a building but that's neither here nor there but completely off topic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Bryan Sager what are you talking about?

The pronoun "that" beginning your sentence refers to what?

Dariusz Kulakowski

Very poor! It says not about man, but man's work!

Bryan Sager

Hans, we are talking about justification, not hardships of this life. I'm still waiting on supporting evidence to back your claim about Jesus not justifying us before God?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, Bryan Sager, Purgatory means justification is already dealt with.

Bryan Sager

Hans, "that's" referring to you jumping off topic and talking about the corner Stone of the church, that has nothing to do with justification.

Hans, if we are justified before God, we are declared righteous, therefore we go to heaven, not purgatory.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" I'm still waiting on supporting evidence to back your claim about Jesus not justifying us before God?"

I am sorry, go on waiting till you are a skeleton, I never claimed that. And I have definitely no duty to support any claim I didn't make.

Now, the passage refers to being saved (that is one is justified when one is dead, before one is dead), but as by fire (that means purgatory).

"if we are justified before God, we are declared righteous,"

You have still no Bible verse for declarative only justification.

"therefore we go to heaven,"

Ultimately, yes.

"not purgatory."

NOt even, as we say, before heaven?

Doesn't follow.

Saved, but as by fire.

Bryan Sager

Romans 3:21-26 ESV
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it- [22] the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: [23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [24] and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. [26] It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

"Now, the passage refers to being saved (that is one is justified when one is dead, before one is dead), but as by fire (that means purgatory)."

What does being saved mean to you?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Being saved means ultimately getting to Heaven.

Which those who are in Purgatory do, all of them.

No, Romans 3 quote does speak of God blotting out former injustice, but not of God not requiring holiness for the future.

Hence, not a valid proof text for "declarative only" justification.

Bryan Sager

Romans 5:18-19 ESV
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. [19] For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Hans, you have got to do better then this, I need scripture from you, it's pointless to hear your opinion so much and hardly see you use scripture to back your

[underlined in Bible "matches" an underlined in his statement below - by contradiction, not agreement]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Bryan Sager, did Romans 5 say one becomes righteous in such a way as to have no need to strive for holiness?

No. Therefore, it has nothing to say against a purgatory between death and heaven, for those who die saved, but not holy enough.

Dariusz Kulakowski

You have already brought verse which doesnt says that we will be purified by fire but our works!

Bryan Sager

Hans, we don't "become" righteous we are "declared" righteous. Righteousness does not get you to heaven, Jesus does!

[underlined in his statement here "matches" an underlined in the Bible above - by contradiction, not agreement]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And why, Bryan Sager, would I waste Scripture on one who so blatantly abuses the one he quotes himself?

I never said I would abide by Bible only, since I have also the Church's tradition from the Apostles.

However, you claim to have Bible only for this: " Hans, we don't "become" righteous we are "declared" righteous. Righteousness does not get you to heaven, Jesus does!"

Where in the Bible is that? And I mean directly, since you are abusively treating the Bible as a Catechism for beginners and a simple manual.

Dariusz Kulakowski - look again.

If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

So, the man's work is affected by fire (if any man's work burn), but also he for some time (he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire).

Bryan Sager

Hans, take care, I'm not interested in your opinion, your opinion or claims don't refute what scripture says. You have yet to provide a single verse to back your claim about purgatory. The Bible speaks clearly about this, anything else you bring in from another source would have to cohere to what the Bible says or it would be contradictory.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Bryan Sager what you are interested in is not really my biggest concern.

You have shown yourself a buffoon in debate, but a good tactician, interrupting our one to one and disrupting mine with Dariusz Kulakowski as you were also disrupting another one.

Bryan Sager

Hans, I suggest you go study how to debate properly.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I have done that for 17 years on the internet, and I studied C. S. L. well before that. A better preparation than you seem to have.

Bryan Sager

preparation? didn't know I had to prep for simple topics, I do this from memory lol

Dariusz Kulakowski

It still says that by fire refering to his works; tested by fire. So all this passage refers to our endeavour on earth not why we would be saved.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dariusz Kulakowski - learn to read the whole sentence, not just the first words.

Bryan Sager I spoke about preparation for honest debating, something you are constantly ill prepared for.

Dariusz Kulakowski

This what the passage says!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dariusz Kulakowski re-read the last words.

Bryan Sager

Hans, being ill prepared for something means being not ready, not having evidence, not providing evidence, not backing your claim. I can see what im up against, I like to debate people with some type of common knowledge of terms and phares they use to try and refute someone with. Take care, you should probaly see if you can get some advice from a dead saint or two. 🤣🤣😉

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I like to debate people with some type of common knowledge of terms"

Oh, you mean, you like debating Protestants?

Quoting your earlier debate: "It's actually pointless to argue with Catholics."

"Take care, you should probaly see if you can get some advice from a dead saint or two."

I think I remembered one from St Francis of Sales, the Great Bishop of Geneva. Oh, btw, transmission from when he was alive in writing, not by seance, in case you would like to twist that.

Dariusz Kulakowski

Hans-Georg Lundahl The last words of this passage refer to all paragraf and say not by fire, but as by fire, and they refer to all texts saying that our WORKS would be tested, that it!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, as by fire implies purgatory may not involve physical fire, but not that it isn't painful.