HGL's F.B. writings: novembre 2018

vendredi 30 novembre 2018

Michel Snoeck takes the Moderator's View

Michel Snoeck‎

to the group

Kent Hovind: Evolutionist's Nemesis (Creationism & Bible prophecy examined)

ABOUT CATHOLICISM/ANTI-PROTESTANTISM POSTINGS...

The group rules thus say:

"This group is thus nót a platform for evolutionists or atheists to peddle their dogma! The same goes for Flat Earth endorsers and any other religious directions that can be perceived as being propaganda for these."

I will now specify that this includes any member that either upholds Catholicism and/or discredits Protestantism. You are free to disagree on matters and forward your rebuttal, but it will have to be CONSTRUCTIVE! Something that here on out will not be tolerated is ironical comments intended to discredit but that are NOT rebutting ánything! Too much of this is going on in this group about this. I get complaints from worried members via pm.

If you would want to discuss something, that is totally fine, but you will present that as an inquiry, as a question in the group, not by means of memes making some claim. After all we expect that áll members are willing to LEARN something they did not know about before! This is ultimately why I created this group! Évery member will háve to respect that!

One member doing these things that comes up by name is 'JC not JC'. but he is not the only one. Warnings will NOT be given, violate and you receive a mute (meaning you can not post or respond during 12 or more hours).

I

MGR

Good start. Spamming is obnoxious.

JL not JL

About time! He's nothing but a sectarian bigot.

Ib

JL not JL

About time! He's nothing but a sectarian bigot.

JC not JC

Bigoted of you to disrespect the Apostles and to think Catholics are Satanic cultists.

Pastor Jim conspiracy theorists sound awfully like cultists.

JL not JL

No idea who that is but going bu your memes, youre nothing more than a low life sectarian troll. Back to the online war games with you, trash!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, "trash" sounds like Raca ... (Matthew 5:22)

Back to I

Michel Snoeck

I went about and checked a variety of OPs about this, on some of them I turned off commenting (meaning it will be out of sight pretty soon), some other OPs I deemed permissible. If I missed any please report the posting or tag and we will look at it.

II

PMB

Way too many militant catholic and militant atheists....I agree those discussions belong ELSEWHERE....GOD bless

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The discussions? Or the people?

Yesterday you were flaming and then telling me I was on the wrong page.

PMB

Hans-Georg Lundahl you are on the wrong page

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am here because it is a YEC group.

And I am YEC.

PMB

Lundahl let me clarify what I'm saying.

The topic for or against the policy of them is not appropriate to the page that is what I mean by saying you were on the wrong post to have that discussion is the wrong post.

Stick to the topic of young Earth creationism and have those arguments at another place

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I was not proposing them, but as you attacked, I was defending.

PMB

Hans-Georg Lundahl fair enough. Had i notice the post was on young Earth page in the first place so I just would have said it was off-topic have a nice day

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thanks, that's nicer than yesterday at least, same to you.

PMB

Hans-Georg Lundahl I like you I'm very passionate on my beliefs . I got carried away. Sorry . I meant you no harm

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Without doubt you imagined you were saving my soul.

When just a bit too many Protestants band up about that while a Catholic is poor while "Catholics" are ignoring his work bc he's creationist, it gets a bit obnoxious and may in the end cause some harm.

Apology accepted.

PMB

Hans-Georg Lundahl for the record I'm not a Protestant

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I know lots of Baptists don't believe that they are.

I believe you are wrong on that one.

Your Church was nowhere in AD 1000 that you can point to.

PMB

Hans-Georg Lundahl we disagree

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I would like to invite you to a RC Creationist group, where this has not happened, I'd first ask them if they'll allow the discussion to go on there.

Would you accept, if I do that tomorrow?

PMB

Hans-Georg Lundahl you want to discuss Catholicism on a creationist page?

Not sure that is a wise idea

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I was offering you to do so on a RC Creationist page.

I am on one.

III

Michel Snoeck

No one should ignore my notice. [JC not JC] has been muted for 12 hours after posting another OP that I find is discrediting protestants. The OP was removed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It was probably correct.

Meaning the OP as to content.

Perhaps also your deed as to deed.

It's a group you are moderating.

However, the conditions given by you in above OP of yours are not correct, see my next comment.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[I didn't mean this one]

I recall how you circumvened the spirit of this action before, however.

Innocently, as it were, you presented three scientists as Bible believing Creationist Christians.

I intervened about them arguably being wrong more than one of them (if I recall correctly all three were Heliocentrics) and after posing a question ultimately meant as on my motives, you started flaming Inquisition for witch hunts ...

IV

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"but you will present that as an inquiry, as a question in the group, not by means of memes making some claim."

Even in the case of truths we would go to Hell for doubting?

"After all we expect that áll members are willing to LEARN something they did not know about before!"

Sure. In a sense.

BUT it is absolutely forbidden for a Catholic to take this group as its teacher.

I can take an argument for Creationism, the dogma is already there, common to both sides. In that sense I can learn, as I can lear how you pronounce "don't" in Scottish. BUT as to religious truth not endorsed by the Catholic Church, it is not a thing I have even a right to learn and therefore also not a thing I can post as an enquiry.

Two examples:

I don't know whether a named Pharao has been carbon dated or whether he is reasonably linked to a Biblical unnamed pharao or not.

I ASK. That is a very licit ENQUIRY.
I DO very well know that Matthew 28:20 requires there is for all days from when Christ gave this command and promise a Church, which is His and which teaches (this means publically) ALL Christ taught it.

I also know, a series like "Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians, Bogumils, Cathars, Albigensians, Henricians, Petrobrussians, Waldensians, Munzer Anabaptists, Menno Anabaptists, John Smyth Baptists from 1609 on" will NOT provide it, since they contradict each other on vital points falling into four or five so diverse groups that if one of them is right, the others are wrong.

I do NOT ask. This is NOT a licit enquiry.

V

BBJ

Thank you. I agree it was out of hand and this is a creation group not a protestent "bashing" group. That was all [JC not JC] was here for.

AT

Just checked JC not JC's profile... :)

He is a #1 g33k that just has too much time. And it seems he is only bashing the Bible and Protestantism during his gaming breaks when he is not killing for trophys.

"My 1500th trophy. PS4
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Future Soldier™
Platinum Trophy (Platinum)
All Trophies obtained"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What does "He is a #1 g33k that just has too much time," mean?

In discussing topics involving knowledge, being a number one geek and having time is usually an asset, right?

"during his gaming breaks when he is not killing for trophys."

So? His hobby, a bit less attractive to me than his knowledge of Church history.

AT

I think grown up people dont waste time on computer games.

If he spent at least half of his gaming time to read the Bible he might have some decent posts, he might even become a protestant.

Q: "What does "He is a #1 g33k that just has too much time," mean?"

A: I know people that play PC games 5-10h a day and they dont have titles JC not JC does.

So that MEANS he plays silly games longer each day than I spend my time at work.

I wonder Hans-Georg if you would consider that a work of the Spirit? Does the Holy Spirit lead you into wasting your days behind PC, killing and earning trophys?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I think grown up people dont waste time on computer games."

I think grown up people usually dispose of their own time.

"If he spent at least half of his gaming time to read the Bible"

You are aware he is always citing Bible?

"he might have some decent posts,"

He has.

"he might even become a protestant."

I doubt that, since he saw it was incompatible with the Bible. In case you missed it, he's an ex-Baptist.

"I know people that play PC games 5-10h a day and they dont have titles JC not JC does."

I haven't checked, which ones?

And are you sure the ones who do play them don't get them even if they want them or that they show them to you?

"So that MEANS he plays silly games longer each day than I spend my time at work."

I think you may be wrong. I also think there are situations where it would be licit.

I don't know him.

I think you judge about other people's time a lot, and I think that Nimrod did so too when forcing lots of people to work at Göbekli Tepe.

"I wonder Hans-Georg if you would consider that a work of the Spirit? Does the Holy Spirit lead you into wasting your days behind PC, killing and earning trophys?"

I don't think every justified person has his life equally filled with the Holy Spirit.

I also think there could be worse, like wasting one's days and virtue on porn.

There is 30-fold, 60-fold and 100-fold fruit and one reason Evangelicals strike me as dead wrong is you don't see that, you require everyone to be equally holy.

AT

Wau Hans-Georg you are just like Jackson, you have too much time.

Playing PC games in the extent Jackson does is clearly not the work of God. Just like your bashing of Protestantism isnt.

"You are aware he is always citing Bible?"

Firstly, he is not ALWAYS citing the Bible. There were some memes with some verses.

Secondly, so did Satan when he tempted Jesus. So we can go back to my first point: should we trust someone who spends half a day playing PC games (even if that person gives us a few Bible verses)?

NO. Period.

People in this group would like to follow the Truth and not waste time with some immature boys.

"I think you judge about other people's time a lot"

Yes, I always judge people who try to preach the Word of God because that is commanded by the Lord.

That is how I can spot a false prophet and call you out.

HGL

"Wau Hans-Georg you are just like Jackson, you have too much time."

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house implies thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's time.

I have reasons to loathe people who have covetted mine.

"Playing PC games in the extent Jackson does is clearly not the work of God."

Not everything a Christian does needs to be the work of God, there is such a thing as bearing 30-fold fruit, as long as what is not fruit is not the work of Satan : and you don't know the exact extent he is spending, nor if much what circumstances are involved (some could for instance be security guards at night and need to keep awake while things are boring).

"Just like your bashing of Protestantism isnt."

Whether my bashing it is or isn't, bashing it is. It contradicts Matthew 28:20. [it=Protestantism all three times]

"Firstly, he is not ALWAYS citing the Bible. There were some memes with some verses."

You are not always just citing the Bible, there is some false history or some hasty judgement.

"Secondly, so did Satan when he tempted Jesus."

Illustrates my point about you. No, not quite like you are personally a demon, but you are doing the work of an accuser (in Hebrew that is Satan).

"So we can go back to my first point: should we trust someone who spends half a day playing PC games (even if that person gives us a few Bible verses)?"

Someone offering to teach needs to be trusted before you engage in that. Someone offering argument and debate needn't. You are confusing apples and oranges, like an illiterate man.

"NO. Period."

Irrelevant.

"People in this group would like to follow the Truth and not waste time with some immature boys."

Why are you tolerated then?

"Yes, I always judge people who try to preach the Word of God"

He wasn't, and I am not. Apologetics is not preaching.

"because that is commanded by the Lord."

If you are referring to Timothy or Titus, St Paul was instructing a bishop on how to chose ordained preachers.

"That is how I can spot a false prophet and call you out."

You can't spot someone as a false prophet if he's not pretending either prophecy or preaching in the first place.

Again, an illiterate man unaware of the distinction between prophet / monk / bishop / preacher on the one hand and lay apologist on the other hand.

You even read a book by a man who has too much time, namely Valentin Pivk. And you trust him.

AT

1. "You are not always just citing the Bible"

I havent claimed that. BUT you have. Please be consisent and keep track of your own statemnts.
2. "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's time"

Again you are creating a strawman. I never lusted for your time, instead I feel pity for people who write extended posts on a very clear and short topic of e.g. playing video games.
3. "Apologetics is not preaching."

Apologetics = reasoned arguments or writings in justification, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

I consider that preaching. If you and JC not JC are not claiming religious truths than you should be more modest and start asking questions.

Since you are obviously preaching your Catholic dogmas to us we have the right and obligation to judge you by the Scripture.

I have done that and spoted you out several times now.

Your catholic dogma "dont judge me" might work in your system but it does not work for Christians. We are comanded to spot wolfs in sheeps clothings.
4. All your other arguments are again just a waste of time, mainy yours.

HGL

1. "I havent claimed that. BUT you have. Please be consisent and keep track of your own statemnts."

I was using "always" as a literate man would, with some latitude. You were disputing the latitude and even making it abusively synonym of only.
2. "Again you are creating a strawman. I never lusted for your time, instead I feel pity for people who write extended posts on a very clear and short topic of e.g. playing video games."

I did not mean lust to personally have the time I am having. I meant lust to control it. It's the third time you complain of me having too much time, and it's God's providence which gave me the time.
3. "Apologetics = reasoned arguments or writings in justification, typically a theory or religious doctrine."

So far correct.

"I consider that preaching."

Not if it's done in a debating way, directed at those disputing it. Without any claim of making their conversion our main business.

"If you and Jackson are not claiming religious truths than you should be more modest and start asking questions."

We are definitely claiming religious truths, but this is not preaching.

"Since you are obviously preaching your Catholic dogmas to us"

Not preaching, defending. In debate. Claiming religious truth is not automatically preaching, even if your country under Tito had a régime which liked obfuscating this, so as to limit access to Catholic truth to those who go and listen to sermons.

"we have the right and obligation to judge you by the Scripture."

Not so, since none of us are preachers, again not so, since the one judging a preacher is the one who ordains him.

"I have done that and spoted you out several times now."

In English it is spotted. Yes, I have recorded our debates fairly carefully. I know that claim.

"Your catholic dogma "dont judge me" might work in your system"

Again, you are not a bishop judging whether to ordain someone.

"but it does not work for Christians."

It definitely does.

"We are comanded to spot wolfs in sheeps clothings."

That passage didn't really include the word "judge" about a man, does it?

I am not setting up to be your pastor, JC not JC is not doing so, and the man you do presumably accept as pastor, you are not spotting the wolf in sheep's clothing.
4. Saving time for you.

AT

1. "That passage didn't really include the word "judge" about a man, does it?"

lol, how can you spot a wolf unless you judge the person :D
2. You are hiding behind words. Pastor or a person who defends his beliefs, it doesnt matter. A Christian has to judge his words by the Bible.
3. "I was using "always" as a literate man would, with some latitude."

Always does correlate with ONLY. Next time choose your words more wisely - e.g. often, many times, sometimes etc. Secondly why did you then accuse me of "not always" citing the Bible if you consider the therm "always" as so flexible. Be consistent then and dont defend "your boy" with words you use later against others. Thirdly JC not JC mostly uses memes, he is not really good at citing the Bible - so your entire argument of citing the Bible is useless anyway.
4. "I meant lust to control it."

I have no desire to control your time. If you have noticed my posts are usualy shorter then yours BECAUSE I dont like to waste time for non-significant topics like you do. I honor Gods gift of time far better than trying to waste it while apologizing immature boys playing games constantly.

"t's God's providence which gave me the time"

The way you complicate clear topics shows us that you abuse Gods gifts, just like JC not JC does collecting killing trophys. And that is why I have to constantly warn you.

HGL

1. "lol, how can you spot a wolf unless you judge the person :D"

By judging the words?
2. "Pastor or a person who defends his beliefs, it doesnt matter."

It does according to the Bible.

"A Christian has to judge his words by the Bible."

If you are literate enough in it to be able to use it correctly.
3. "Always does correlate with ONLY."

Not as strictly as that JC not JC was each time citing Bible, but he was saying otyher things as well. This means I was right to say always, if I should perhaps have said "nearly always". I did not say "only".

"Next time choose your words more wisely - e.g. often, many times, sometimes etc."

I did ... it was wasted on you.

"Secondly why did you then accuse me of "not always" citing the Bible"

Let me cite my actual words for you:

"You are not always just citing the Bible, there is some false history or some hasty judgement."

In other words, I was not saying there were times when you didn't cite the Bible, I said there were times when you didn't JUST cite the Bible. Understatement of the year, but true as far as it goes.

" if you consider the therm "always" as so flexible."

I don't - except that "nearly always" is to me an admissible meaning of "always".

"Be consistent then and dont defend "your boy" with words you use later against others."

Check above.

"Thirdly JC not JC mostly uses memes,"

Many of which correlate to a verse in the Bible.

"he is not really good at citing the Bible - so your entire argument of citing the Bible is useless anyway."

Not really good is your view - a biassed one.
4. "I have no desire to control your time. If you have noticed my posts are usualy shorter then yours BECAUSE I dont like to waste time for non-significant topics like you do."

My posts are longer than yours, because it takes you little time to state and me more time to debunk a historic factoid.

"I honor Gods gift of time far better than trying to waste it while apologizing immature boys playing games constantly."

Attacking someone without clear evidence for being "immature boy" and for "playing games constantly" (as if one or other were a reproach in the Bible) is obviously more to your taste. Guess what? That is a sin against commandment VIII (but you would call it IX) and I would also sin, if I did not defend him as long as the defenses seem plausible.

"The way you complicate clear topics shows us that you abuse Gods gifts, just like JC not JC does collecting killing trophys. And that is why I have to constantly warn you."

Oh, you are lusting to control me, after all?

VI

EM

Personally I am neither Protestant nor Catholic, often when there is conflict (always ?) both sides are right and both sides are wrong and we should instead learn from each other. My personal opinion is that God preserves the Word in a different manner, either it is similar to how the law is written in our hearts Ezekiel 11:39, Hebrews 8:10. OR it is preserved in a manner still to be revealed to us.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Or, it was revealed and you are blowing it by discarding Catholicism.

VII

RL

Okay, this may need to be given an example, please. Let's say, I, as a protestant, wants to point out a doctrinal error of the catholic church, do I do so like for example: In the catechism of the catholic church, paragraph #???, contradicts The Bible, (and quote the BCV to show how it contradicts), or to use history of why something in the rcc is wrong???

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As a Catholic : feel free to try either way.

Now, whichever of the two you try, I will feel free to respond both ways, whichever suits me.

VIII

JC not JC

Michel, have you apologized for agreeing with Judas yet?

Not constructive of Michel Snoeck to agree with Judas in what is supposed to be a 'Christian' forum.

Michel Snoeck

JC not JC has burned his ships...

Well, no one can say he did not have a chance. A bit odd that a person that is discrediting Protestantism as he did is this easily persuaded to personally attack a person that tries to discipline him. I guess this is live as you preach... 🤨

I had to block him now as he harassed me on my FB page as well.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"a person that tries to discipline him"

You are neither my father, nor his, you have no business trying to discipline either of us.

IX

Michel Snoeck

Hans-Georg Lundahl For what reason do you give thumbs up for those two denigrating comments here above of JC not JC?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Because, if you meant "giving money to the poor" about money spent on liturgy, you are repeating Judas Ischariot's point about the ointment.

Michel Snoeck

Ah, and that means I have to be spiritually in the mind of Judas? I then must be of the devil?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you are saying that on money spent on liturgy, yes.

Michel Snoeck

That's insane logic... Jesus said things to the same effect.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not about the ointment or money spent on liturgy, He didn't.

Michel Snoeck

And how does that matter? Did I say anything about 'ointment' or 'liturgy'? I did not. Still you deem me of the Devil?`That's nuts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I actually inserted an "if".

If on the other hand you were thinking of prelates enriching their personal purse and spending it on their personal wellbeing, that would not be of the devil to criticise that, however, you are greatly overdoing the extent to which this is what "riches of the Catholic Church" is about.

Now, if a bishop who is obliged to be poor as administrational arrangement is the legal owner of a fortune, but spends it on the Church (liturgy, vocations for priesthood, forming new priests), books, schools, sustaining the poor ... would you take the same view?

I have basically cited the late carreer of St Albert.

He had been friar, also known as "beggar monk" and he was the teacher of St Thomas Aquinas as well as disciple's disciple of St Dominic of Guzmán. He got elected to the see of Cologne, and as said, spent a fortune, but not on his flesh.

jeudi 29 novembre 2018

If a FB Debate Goes On after it's Published in Several Subthreads ...

I deal with it like this, first going to the notification and responding, then copying and tidying and THEN, I look for where to insert it.

My response to TDG's comment on Church not being supposed to be a government was easy, that was last subthread, but the other one this morning was more interesting and involved a response to the moderator Michel Snoeck (also a blogger of Wise Old Goat).

First I look at the page to finding last words in my previous comment (yes, I usually have the last words in each subthread when I publish the arguments myself, since, if I have time to publish someone's response to it, I have time to answer it too, and often it's needed).

I knew from Michel Snoeck's words that it was the subthread where I had "demeaned" his competence in history by referring to his referring to Kurt Baschwitz in a previous exchange. So, I scrolled down to where Kurt Baschwitz is mentioned and see it is just before the start of subthread VIII.

Then I go to edit and look for start of subthread VIII:

And when I have saved the edit, the space before subthread VIII includes the new material:

You are all saying thank you for the lesson in applied html? My pleasure! Enjoy!/HGL

mercredi 28 novembre 2018

Someone admired Kent Hovind without my reservations

HGL's F.B. writings : A Shorty from a Long Debate : on Innocent III as a pretended "mass murderer of Christians" · Albigensians and Innocent III - Which was the Christian Side? · "Sola Scriptura inevitably results in countless contradicting theologies." · Someone admired Kent Hovind without my reservations · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Kent Hovind's Errors on Anti-Catholicism and Heliocentrism

This is what happened:

FB: I believe with all my heart that Kent Hovind is a devout bible scholar, therefore I must conclude that he is a man of God.
I
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Why?

It's like saying "I believe with all my heart that Kent Hovind misrepresents Catholicism, therefore I must conclude he is a man of the devil".

He does that, but fortunately, he most often concentrates on other stuff.
Michel Snoeck: Other people may say that those that adore and defend Catholicism are doing the work of the devil. All that amassing of riches, why not give it to the poor... 🤔
AT: Its because Jesus said to keep the money for yourself!

Oh wait, He didnt say that...

Mt 19:21
“If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor"

But the Bible speaks about a Church that will be wealthy on this planet, the Church of Babylon:

Rev 17
"And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand...And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth."

"By accident" the same Church sits on 7 hills, is arrayed in purple colours and rules the world.

"And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth."
Michel Snoeck: Matthew 19:24: And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Guess which Church actually encourages members to become Franciscan?

"Other people may say that those that adore and defend Catholicism are doing the work of the devil."

Even if they don't misrepresent you?
Michel Snoeck: It is not about the tings you say, it is the things you do! Your walk in life tells where you are at, not one's words. 🤔
Hans-Georg Lundahl: in certain walks, like me being a writer, saying is doing

in certain connexions too, saying is doing

I was reacting to a overimpulsive characterisation of Kent Hovind, by pointing out there is another side.

Someone took a cue from that to start ... Catholic bashing.

Michel Snoeck "Your walk in life tells where you are at, not one's words."

If that is supposed to be educative, you are a few decades too late - fortunately, I would not have been happy to have you among those educating me.

In this forum, how we deal with each other is words.

Words can be fair - or unfair.

A fair disagreement would have been sth like "where is Kent Hovind misrepresenting Catholicism?"

Well, if you had posed that question (but don't let me put words into your mouth), I would have answered last time in his Q and A video with the words "which Church" in the title.

Video:

11/26/18 - Dr. Kent Hovind: Questions and Answers - Which Church?
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL | 27.XI.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu-KzqbG-Pc

Summary of my comments (on two topics only):

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Kent Hovind's Errors on Anti-Catholicism and Heliocentrism
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/11/kent-hovinds-errors-on-anti-catholicism.html

AT "the Bible speaks about a Church that will be wealthy on this planet, the Church of Babylon"

It involves another Church which was probably pretty wealthy just after Pentecost:

Acts 2:[44] And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. [45] Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need.

If 3000 souls, including some travellers from afar, were not very poor to start with, the arrangement would have made the Church fairly wealthy .... right?

The guys who attacked this arrangement 500 years ago or a little less, are historically known as Protestants.
Michel Snoeck: No, we deal with that which we can forward that support those words we say. Words themselves are insignificant.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Oh, you prefer examples (apart from your Stoic frowning on words being Antichristian, see John 1:1)?

"As members of a religious congregation the Missionaries Oblates of Mary Immaculate embrace the evangelical counsels, taking the three traditional religious vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Poverty means that all possessions are held in common and that no member may accumulate wealth. Chastity, abstaining from sexual activity, is intended to make the religious totally available for religious service."

Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary_Oblates_of_Mary_Immaculate

Father Wilhelm Imach, OMI, arguably spent less money on his personal clothes than your pastor. It's too late to attack him, he received me into the Catholic Church except he was accepting the wrong Pope (a Pole like himself at the time) and said the Novus Ordo Mass.

Oh, it's too late to attack him for another reason, he died a few years ago.

He had previous to that been beaten up by Muslims in the neighbourhood.
To clarify: as far as I know, not immediately previous.
Michel Snoeck: No, not examples.... results in real life in present day!
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Oh, "results" .... sorry, but "results in real life" is NOT what Creation versus Evolution debate is about.

It's about what words are true and about what words are false.

What I do - with reservations - admire Kent Hovind for is speaking up against textbooks and other sh*** promoting Evolution.

As for his "results in real life" ... not the ground admirers of his should take. Being out of prison is nice, but implies having been there (as with him, so with me). And someone mentioned Apocalypse and it would seem a certain entity described in Apocalypse 17 up to a certain point will have made very great results in real life.

But perhaps you meant results in personal poverty. Well, you ask your pastor what he spends on clothes per year and then you go to a Catholic priest of the OMI congregation (present in Scania) and ask him what the soutane and keeping it in shape costs.
FB: Yes, words are powerful they are even powerful to hurt, Kent Hovind has proven this during his demonstration in debunking the theories of evolution with providing scriptural verses in creationalism, but also when you provide actual results such as maps showing timelines of real live events that has occured over centuries ago speaks volumes to the credibility of the texts and authors therein.

Kent was able to do this using scripture he used Genesis 1:1-4 as he broke down each verse in real time using the timeline map to pinpoint the exact date of the occurance when God precisely began what, starting with the land appearing and the trees and scrubery, plants and hurbs, then animals and lastly, humans this was where he went ove to Genesis 1:26-27 where he did a marvelous job explaining how God made man from the dust of the ground and how he formed woman from man when he put him in a deep sleep.
JC not JC: Michel Snoeck That sounds like Judas. Have you read what Judas said? You literally sound exactly like him. Judas worked for Satan by helping murder Jesus.

Hans-Georg Lundahl It's incredibly how a Kent Hovind fan can sound exactly like Judas, essentially agreeing with Judas, and then say a Catholic is working for Satan. Insane.
Michel Snoeck: Well JC not JC, what exactly did I say and what exactly did Judas say, and where did he say that... I haven't seen that forwarded yet.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: FB "Yes, words are powerful they are even powerful to hurt, Kent Hovind has proven this during his demonstration in debunking the theories of evolution with providing scriptural verses in creationalism,"

Oh, on that side I rather admire Kent Hovind.

And he does more than just provide Scriptural verses.

"but also when you provide actual results such as maps showing timelines of real live events that has occured over centuries ago"

Here we are on shakier grounds. History more recent than Acts and less recent than Civil War is not Kent Hovind's best ground.

"speaks volumes to the credibility of the texts and authors therein."

If you mean Bible authors, well, yes, but that is not "centuries" but millennia ago. The most recent books, namely NT, nearly two thousand years old.

"Kent was able to do this using scripture he used Genesis 1:1-4 as he broke down each verse in real time etc."

No big issue with this, except I think he is wrong on some dates (he'd perhaps go with October 4004 BC, I go with March 5199 BC).

If you have not yet seen Kent Hovind misrepresent Church history, I can see why you admire him, but I think such an assessment as you made was hasty.

Michel Snoeck, I think JC not JC refers to this comment:

"Other people may say that those that adore and defend Catholicism are doing the work of the devil. All that amassing of riches, why not give it to the poor..."

If by "amassing of riches" you mean luxurious items in liturgy, yes, it sounds VERY much like Judas Ischariot.

"Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?"
[John 12:5]

(Note that the penny was previously worth more and used as translation for denarius).
JC not JC: Michel Snoeck Judas also wanted to sell things that were made/purchased for the purpose of praising God. You would be one of the other disciples who agreed with him. Wrong side of history.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Just goes to show that these Hovind fans sound like cultists. Kent Hovind even has his own compound where he asks for donations at the beginning of every YT video he makes.
Michel Snoeck: If that, JC not JC, is what you use to associate me with Judas, then it is silly... Jesus said things to the same effect...
HGL: DP "don’t forget the forgiving sins for a price too."

Never happened.

"Jesus said things to the same effect..."

Not about riches devoted to Him (like ointment of St Mary Magdalene or gold on a chalice in Church).
FB: People forget that.

This is why I do not do religion is because everything is counterfiet even though there are those individuals who are religious they present themselves as being holier then thou like they know no sin.

This is the problem with religion.
HGL: DP "Catholics trading labor and money for the forgiveness of sins to cut down their time in purgatory is called Indulgences"

Check your facts.

Luther is not an unbiassed historian, neither are the other Protestant Reformers.

In Sweden someone tried to put this lie in a text book, and Catholics are suing him for it, or at least contacting the company editing his book.

DP "They also removed the 2nd commandment about idols"

Ten commandments in 16 verses, how exactly do YOU tell where one commandment begins and another ends?

If you meant catechisms giving shorter versions, not giving full text, so did Jesus and the rich young man in Gospel of Mark.
FB: They are all precepts, precept upon precept, line upon line is what the scripture says.
HGL: So, there are 16 commandments? I thought it said somewhere, they were ten!
HGL
[checked and]: Yes, I was right:

"And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights: he neither ate bread nor drank water, and he wrote upon the tables the ten words of the covenant."
[Exodus 34:28]
"And he shewed you his covenant, which he commanded you to do, and the ten words that he wrote in two tables of stone."
[Deuteronomy 4:13]
"And he wrote in the tables, according as he had written before, the ten words, which the Lord spoke to you in the mount from the midst of the fire, when the people were assembled: and he gave them to me."
[Deuteronomy 10:4]

So - sixteen verses Exodus 20:2 to 17, contain only TEN words.

Now, where do you tell where a word begins and where a word ends in these 16 verses?

Or you meant, however you divide, you must cite all of the text in Exodus 20?

No, not really.

Matthew 19:[18] He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. [19] Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

But "Honour thy father and thy mother" is far shorter than Exodus 20:[12] "Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be longlived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee."
FB: Yes, 16 commandments in all for the Beatitudes in Matthew 5:12-17 are the rest of the commandments these are from those who possess a pure heart to do the will of the Father. So, in essence the 10 commandments do correlate with much of the NT. because of much of the 10 commandments are dealing with reverence towards God.
HGL: You are contradicting the Bible when you say there are 16 commandments.
FB: It is important to see how this all correlates with the teachings of the apostles for they all speak and point to the 7 churches which is why the 7 churches are not pagan worship because they do not come from pagan origins this was why John had wrote to them to encourage them to remain faithful and in the keeping of sound doctrine.

There are, we still have the 10 commandments we just don't have the 4th commandment which partains only to Israel Jesus has already fulfilled all of the old laws so when he had died and risen he had put an end to all those ritual laws and now the kingdom belongs to whoever comes unto Christ.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Well, guess what, one of them had an Eastern Orthodox bishop into XXth C. who would not have agreed with you (he later became bishop of Athens). Ephesus also had Roman Catholic bishops claiming the see without being there.

"are not pagan worship because they do not come from pagan origins"

How do you tell WHAT comes from pagan origins? Because Kent Hovind tells you?

"There are, we still have the 10 commandments"

In 16 verses, mind you. Now, again, tell me how you tell where a commandment ends and next one begins?
II
JC not JC: Kent Hovind believes Christianity went extinct.

It's not the blood of the martyrs which saved the true religion of Christ, it's the Protestants apparently. Never mind that they are splintered into tens of thousands of sects. Coz that just means nothing…Voir plus
HGL: Kent Hovind actually believes in Baptist Continuity theory.

He believes Baptists are original and non-extinct Church, and that Reformation added a second not true kind of Church to Catholicism.

He probably believes, as do some in this group, that martyrdoms of Early Christians went on ininterrupted over "martyrdoms" of Waldensians and Albigensians up to Reformation.
JC not JC: HGL That's even more idiotic. Invisible Baptists never reunited with the Baptists of the 1600s. He might as well believe in invisible leprechauns.
HGL: With these guys, historic knowledge is not the overreaching achievement.
FB: That is what I am saying JC not JC, this proves he is not Southern Baptist, just a Baptist pretty soon he going to discover the ultimate truth of his salvation he's been preaching and teaching truth so far.
HGL: Oh, you mean he is going to become Catholic?
III
FB: Kent Hovind is a mastermind of showing proof backed up by scripture he presents.
HGL: Nice enough with Creationism.

Not quite so with Church history.
IV
FB: With Christianity it is a way of life we practice what we preach we do not teach from the bible and then go out and purposely sin against God we are creators of habit so we are also creators who fall short, but that does not give us an excuse to sin just because we are in the flesh.

Constitinopole had made it his life's mission to spread the boarders of the Christian church making Christianity the authentic relgion on paper.
HGL: I don't get what you mean. Are you referring to Constantine after whom Constantinople is named?
FB: Yes I am.
HGL: OK, what do you mean by "on paper"?
FB: He was not the founder of Christianity he only petitioned the Christian movement as the official religious movement and still is thriving today.
HGL: He is certainly not the founder of Christianity, but he made it legal.

Thanks to him, Christians need not hide in catacombs when praying together and those representing it need not fear for their lives.
FB: These are changing times we're living in Christianity as a whole is being challenged and at some points compremised this is why we need not go off the ban waggon compremising our faith God because that is all I have left. The devil is doing all he can to make a mockery of our faith in Christ.
HGL: Well, that's an extra reason to be Catholic.
V
FB: When you think about it the first day of the week begins on Sunday this is the day when the Lord Jesus Christ arosed from the grave this places emphasis on the church because it was through the sheding of blood that he bought all mankind from the grave of sin and death rendering all humans with hope of eternal life.
FB: Think about the # 7 for a minute how perfect that # is it shows a greater significance in the building of the new Jerusalem in how it plays out on Mars Hill when Peter had preached that first gospel sermon and 3,000 souls responded to the gospel message, this is a powerful message within this message John the Revelator written to each of the 7 churches in Asia Minor.
HGL: "on Mars Hill when Peter had preached that first gospel sermon and 3,000 souls"

Mars Hill is Athens, and Paul.

Peter in Jerusalem, that was the 3000 souls.
FB: Exactly.
HGL: Yes ... (and I think you have either shown sloppy Bible knowledge or an intent of testing mine, whatever good that would be for).

mardi 27 novembre 2018

"Sola Scriptura inevitably results in countless contradicting theologies."

I

other thread, parallel debate to previous:

JC not JC

status

Sola Scriptura inevitably results in countless contradicting theologies. So sad Kent Hovind's fanbase thinks Jesus wanted His disciples to split off into contradicting churches. Such heresy.
John 17:21

leaving

a lot out

Hans-Georg Lundahl

JC not JC - how can you be sure Kent Hovind's fan base includes no Catholics or Orthodox?

It includes (on his core issue for his public speaking and writing on internet) at least this Catholic writing this.

JC not JC

Kent Hovind worked with Jack Chick. If a Catholic or Orthodox likes Kent on his YEC work, I'd advise against that. Kent Hovind uses old and long debunked arguments. Answers in Genesis, ICR, and CMI have largely abandoned the arguments from Kent's era.

Michel Snoeck

Any "fan base" is entirely worthless... As in regard to Kent Hovind's materials logic has been applied to them. I find that for example evolutionists habitually theorize 'evidence' as they theorize 'debunking' something.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is in fact true that some arguments or theoretic solutions by Kent Hovind (notably water canopy) are no longer in use on AiG, CMI and ICR.

In two cases, I am actually backing up Kent's position in more detail.

1) Carbon 14 content in atmosphere rose (in relation to carbon 12) meaning was less earlier, which leads to inflated dates.

Some are now preferring Setterfield, variations in speed of light, leading to variations in decay rate.

I still support this and add tables over how it would work out (for instance, Abraham and early Dynastic Egypt was c. 2000 BC, but carbon dates are to sth like 3200 BC for Genesis 14 times - this also explains why Ebla tablets dated to 2400 BC are NOT mentioning Sodom and Gomorrha as live cities, those tablets are after the time of Joseph in Egypt). Also, for much of the carbon 14 rise, carbon 14 was produced quicker than now, up to 11 times and a bit more quicker.
2) There is no geologic column outside the text books.

Untrue if we go to lithology, but accurate enough as to vertebrate palaeontology.

I have checked in detail - and am getting rejection over this from ICR, CMI and AiG.

Michel Snoeck

Something one should never do is following what some entities support or get rid of what they abandoned. The matter of understanding is not privileged to followers, only to individuals. 🤔

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Michel Snoeck In that case, you might like to take a look on my work, done as an individual?

Here is the blog:

http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com

If you don't find one matter by using search bar, how about asking?

I had to

correct a spelling mistake in this last one, after it was correctly published. Here is what happened:

I tried again:

And it seems that was censored, see what happens if I try to click "voir plus de réponses" ("see more answers"):

Well, corrected that for this time:

Or did I? Here is how it looks, again:

II

still under JC not JC's status.

MSi

JC not JC It doesn't sound like you even know Jesus.

What you call splitting off, We call the great commission.

Acts 1: 8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

What you call contradicting we call freedom

romans 14:3 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.

What you call unity we call the antichrist

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. "

Revelation 13:2 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

SL

He may not realize that he is supposed to be "Christ Centered" and not "Church Centered". Some Catholics believe the Church is actually the Incarnation of Christ here on Earth.

MSi

SL which means that they believe in church and not in Christ. I once interviewed and atheist who was raised catholic. He was spouting off all the usual atheist propaganda. So I decided to do something different I knocked the then Pope Benedict for being a member of the hitler youth. He instantly snapped at me and said he was a "holy man". Why did it matter to him? Because he was a catholic atheist! He figures he can be godless and have nuns pray him to heaven. but if the sacraments don't work he is screwed!

That my friend is why all these catholics are arguing on a page about creation science. because they have to stop playing atheist and convert if Catholicism is wrong!

SL

Most of the anti-christian people I know were brought up Roman Catholic. When you try to share Christianity with them they say they already know all about it, then they start spewing misrepresentations of what the Scriptures says. They have no clue of what we actually believe.

HGL

To both of you:

"What you call splitting off, We call the great commission."

Sorry, but Catholics and Orthodox would agree that the great commission was under years up to 1000 AD and beyond carried out by a Church which Catholics identify as Catholic and Orthodox as Orthodox.

We just disagree about exactly how it looked on certain details and therefore who of us is carrying on after 1053.

So, St. Gregory of Rome is honoured by Catholics as St. Gregory the Great and by Orthodox as St. Gregory the Dialogist. He sent to the English invaders and invader descendants and invader assimilated in Britain a man called St. Augustine of Canterbury.

Venerated in:

Anglicanism
Catholic Church
Eastern Orthodox Church

Augustine of Canterbury - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Canterbury

Similarily St. Ansgar who briefly visited my own Sweden and was a more permanent missionary in North Germany is claimed by both Catholics and Orthodox:

Venerated in:

Eastern Orthodox Church,
Roman Catholicism,
Lutheran Church,
Anglican Communion

Ansgar - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansgar

Now, bringing the Gospel to the Heathen sounds as the most basic obedience to the Great Commision that I can think of.

And it was not made by Southern Baptist dividing from northern Baptists ... except they were kind of trying to emulate Ansgar and Ausgustine.

"The word Southern in Southern Baptist Convention stems from it having been organized in 1845 at Augusta, Georgia, by Baptists in the Southern United States who split with northern Baptists over the issue of slavery, specifically whether Southern slave owners could serve as missionaries. After the American Civil War, another split occurred when most freedmen set up independent black congregations, regional associations, and state and national conventions, such as the National Baptist Convention, which became the second-largest Baptist convention by the end of the 19th century. Others joined new African-American denominations, chiefly the African Methodist Episcopal Church, which was established in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in the early 19th century, as the first independent black denomination in the United States."

Southern Baptist Convention - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention

Now, Ansgar made North Germany, Denmark, Sweden a territory open to missionaries and then Christian. Ausgustine and some more after him converted the English. But as you spoke of "the Great Commission" - what nations were converted by either northern Baptists or Southern Baptists?

"What you call contradicting we call freedom"

Oh, why are you not giving us freedom to Seven Sacraments or to Mass as a Sacrifice, then?

"What you call unity we call the antichrist"

Sorry, but Catholic or Orthodox unity is going the wrong way for this to work out. Antichrist is getting 3 and a half years at the very end.

He'll possibly pretend to restore unity for Catholics or for Orthodox or even more for both.

By the way, JC not JC, this is the reason I prefer Matthew 28 over John 17 as a prooftext against Protestantism.

"He may not realize that he is supposed to be "Christ Centered" and not "Church Centered"."

In fact, both.

"Some Catholics believe the Church is actually the Incarnation of Christ here on Earth."

The mystical body.

"I knocked the then Pope Benedict for being a member of the hitler youth. He instantly snapped at me and said he was a "holy man". Why did it matter to him? Because he was a catholic atheist!"

You are aware that the first Atheists were Protestant Atheists, in the modern movement of Western Atheism? You are aware Cuvier and Lyell were both Protestants?

"That my friend is why all these catholics are arguing on a page about creation science. because they have to stop playing atheist and convert if Catholicism is wrong!"

Sorry, but an Evolutionist is not very Catholic in being so. Some are defrauded by fake shepherds (Wojtyla and Ratzinger acting "Popes John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger and later Benedict XVI" in 1992-94).

"Most of the anti-christian people I know were brought up Roman Catholic."

Perhaps the anti-christian people who were brought up Evangelical are avoiding you?

lundi 26 novembre 2018

Albigensians and Innocent III - Which was the Christian Side?

HGL

status

If Kent Hovind believes Genesis 1, I presume he should support Pope Innocent III against Albigensians, right?

HGL

Here are my two cents on the matter, extracted from a longer debate:

HGL's F.B. writings : A Shorty from a Long Debate : on Innocent III as a pretended "mass murderer of Christians"
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2018/11/a-shorty-from-long-debate-on-innocent.html

[Added a link to this post and asked those below, after tagging whether they preferred full names. Tagging unsuccessful in the case of JC not JC. JL answered here, but really continued I.]

I

JL

Well, Kent was born 700 years too late to do that.

HGL

One can still say which side one thinks represents the Church back then ... including "neither of the two but another", if for instance you support the Orthodox instead.

JL

HGL --- What are you trying to say, Hans? Of course the Albies were hertics, but Catholics were as warped.

HGL

JL If so, where was the Church that wasn't warped?

JL

HGL --- Not sure. There is none so far that are beyond criticism of faith and practice in their history. My own prefered congregation killed Anabaptists and Baptist which I find terrible, and Preterism is a terrible eschatology, and they don't like Dispies. In my opinion, John Mac Arthur is pretty squared away with adult baptism and pre-trib/pre-mill eschatology with Calvinist soteriology, which is as unwarped as one can be. But our histories are deserving of critical opinion. As an amateur military historian I can admire a Catholic general in the 30 years war name Wallenstien as an enlightened man of good character. But that is about it.

HGL

"There is none so far that are beyond criticism of faith and practice in their history."

How does such an assessment square with Matthew 28:20?

It doesn't.

JL

HGL --- So, are you contending that only perfect churches/denominations can take the Gospel to the lost? Anyone who preaches Christ and Him crucified is okay for that.

JL not JL

The church is not an organisation. It is a body of believers.

HGL

JL "Anyone who preaches Christ and Him crucified is okay for that."

If he is in Christ's words "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:"

In other words, not individual perfection in all believers or leaders, but collective one on the matter of doctrine and morals.

And I am saying this was not just around in the Church in Jerusalem, but in all times and even all days, according to this promise:

"and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

(Matthew 28:20).

[To JL not JL] "The church is not an organisation. It is a body of believers."

Due to the clause of "teaching" it is a visible such body, therefore an organisation (not to mention Christ actually organised it, chosing 72, chosing 12, chosing St Peter).

AT

Mt 23:9
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

Hans-Georg when you call your priests father and when you follow the "Pope aka papa which means FATHER" you are blaspheming against the only Father in heaven and directly disobeying Jesuss commandments.

Now stop deceiving people with your RCC cult doctrines.

Was Peter The First Pope? DEBATE Martin vs Pacwa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjck413FOVc

HGL

If you think that, why was Christ (in the Gospeller's Greek) using the word "pater" and why is "pappas" more like "daddy"?

Also, if you think that, why would St Paul have blasphemed that in relation to Corinthians?

"For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you."
[1 Corinthians 4:15]

While one can hope your deceptions have so far been unintentional, how about starting to check and stopping back from even the risk of unintentionally deceving someone?

Here is a new article also bearing on identity of the Church:

Kent Hovind's Errors on Anti-Catholicism and Heliocentrism
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/11/kent-hovinds-errors-on-anti-catholicism.html

To use your Slovene, Christ tells us to call no one oče and pope means očka.

II

SL

Satan certainly supports the Popes... Especially during the time when there were 3 Popes all claiming authority at the same time, all excommunicating the others. The Papacy is just another secular ruling political governing party during a part of Europe's history, no different than any other rule under reigning monarchs or emperors...

Western Schism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism

HGL

Western Schism started more than a century after Innocent III.

I was asking, how about whether you are on Albigensian or on Catholic side?

DO PLEASE check out what I had to say on Albigensian doctrine being anything BUT Christian.

III

TDG

So it was okay for the RCC to slaughter Albigensians over bad doctrine?

HGL

You are saying that:

a) as if bad doctrine (I'd rather sa&y rank apostasy) were all the issue
b) the main thing happening to Albigensians was being slaughtered, rather than for instance converting.

TDG

A. Even if you consider it apostasy or heresy, it's not right to murder people for it.
B. Main or minor, slaughtering them is wrong, and converting under threat of death is not evangelism.
C. You have exposed your Roman Catholic Church as an ungodly, wicked, vile institution.

HGL

Could people *ever* be lawfully killed for doctrinal things?

Or was it murder to kill Cnaaneans or apostate Israelites over sacrifices to Baal? Was Elijah a murderer?

That is the first question.

The next one, if you say there was a time when executional killing over doctrine was correct, did Jesus explicitly do away with that?

HGL

Here is one more : do you think that the threat of death was the main and sole motivator of reconversion to Catholic?

I say re-conversion, since most Albigensians were from Catholic families and had grown up as Catholic (those born in Albigensian families and not baptised, if any, would in theory not have been able to be judged by Inquisitors).

TDG

No, evangelism by murder is not the scriptural method of evangelism.

The example you gave was from the nation of Israel. No Church, in particular the Catholic church, is Israel today.

If you want to give Israel authority to kill Heretics, according to their beliefs, they'd be killing you guys as well.

HGL

"No, evangelism by murder is not the scriptural method of evangelism."

Killing was not the main method of converting used by Inquisitors.

Arguing was, as long as there was one to argue with.

"The example you gave was from the nation of Israel. No Church, in particular the Catholic church, is Israel today."

On the contrary, we believe that the Church Christ founded is the New Israel.

"If you want to give Israel authority to kill Heretics, according to their beliefs, they'd be killing you guys as well."

Pharisees lost the right after Christ came, in accordance with the prophecy in Genesis 50 over Judah.

Romans and other nations still had a right to kill malefactors, they were meant to be converted, see Matthew 28:16-20, and that collectively.

Was there any direct revocation of the principle that some doctrinal positions merit death?

Calling the God of Israel "Satan" would arguably have been such a position even in OT, since it was a blasphemy.

IV

AV

Apples and oranges

HGL

Not at all. Albigensians were clearly denying Genesis 1.

The Albigensian Bible is only NT plus an Albigensian commen (book of two principles).

They considered that the "God of the Old Testament" was ... Satan.

AV

HGL Jesus said not the least stoke will be done away....I have come not to abolish the law but fulfill it...

HGL

Well, Innocent III was supporting Genesis.

AV

HGL Jesus supported the Old Testament too

HGL

Exactly - so, would you agree Innocent III was on Jesus' side?

AV

HGL well Jesus was is and is forever God, so he doesn't need anyone on his side. As for Inocent III and the whole catholic cult, they got a lot of things wrong.

HGL

"so he doesn't need anyone on his side."

He nevertheless promised to have someone on His side in 1215.

Check Matthew 28:20.

V

JE

Black and White Fallacy, possible Strawman...

HGL

You know, if "no side whatsoever in 1215 was right, every side was wrong" were an option for a Christian, you would logically have a point.

Now read Matthew 28:20 - especially the phrase "all days".

That includes all 366 days of 1215, from March 25 1215 to March 25 1216. (Or if that was just 365 days, and the leap day of 1216 came in what we would call February 1217, since 1216 lasted to March 25 1217).

Where was, exactly, the Church to which Christ gave the promise of "all days"?

As said, Innocent III believed Genesis 1, Albigensians didn't.

AV

JE even when Israel was carried away into captivity God saved a remnant....

HGL

AV - the thing I am asking is, would you consider Albigensians the remnant in this case, even while they were denying Genesis 1?

AV

HGL I'd have to say no. I'm saying to leave out the Old Testament is wrong. It's all or nothing.

HGL

Thank you.

So, if Albigensians were not it, where was the Church of God those years?

AV

HGL ask God?

HGL

I don't think He left the remnant so insignificant we can't find any trace of it.

So, I ask history.

AV

HGL try the case for Christ author...

HGL

You mean this one?

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

Where does it go into where the Church was in 1215?

JE

HGL, my point of the fallacy is this: if Kent believes Genesis 1 to be true, then the only result is for him to support the Pope in his slaughter. But there are other options. The most basic of which would be: Kent believes Genesis 1 and does not support the killing of those who teach false doctrines. That's my point.

HGL

OK - so that would leave him considering:

Albigensians wrong bc not believing Genesis 1
Innocent III wrong for believing Inquisition and Crusades are OK

Well, next question is, if so, who was RIGHT in AD 1215?

According to Matthew 28:20 some Church that was right had to exist.

JE

Or, Kent believes the Albigensians wrong AND Innocent III wrong for his crusades.

Neither was right in 1215, but those weren't the only two options.

HGL

Well, which one was other?

Waldensians were very insignificant as yet compared to Albigensians and probably were getting more heat than deserved over being in that bad company.

Also, it is not clear they believed Genesis back then, even if later remnants of them, when siding with Calvinism, did.

Orthodox were the guys who had both initiated First Crusade by Isaac Comnenus asking the help of Pope Urban II and he had also executed Basil the Physician (similar heresy to Albigensians) before any official execution of heretics took place among Catholics.

JE

Well, I think you answered your own question. There's more, but that's enough to get started.

HGL

I was definitely not in any kind of serious doubt about where the Church was.

So, where of these groups do you think you find the Church Our Lord founded?

I say Catholics.

JE

I'm still in need of more research, but I currently say during that time the Waldesians. That is not to say, however, that other groups, whether named or not, weren't the Body.

HGL

1) What nations did Waldensians convert (Matthew 28:16-20)?
2) "whether named or not" sounds like invisible Church (for not named) (Matthew 28:20 and "teaching" involves visibility).

JE

Nations (ethos), meaning tribes or races. Think, ethnicities. There's plenty of groups that did this, including Catholic and Waldesians.

I don't like the term "invisible church" and I don't know of a good one. The Bible is clear, if you're saved, your part of the Body. So, I'm sure there was at least one underground church that taught truth and was never named, and was probably killed off. Whether they were able to succeed themselves or not is irrelevant. They were saved and thus part of the Body. Some were named, some were not. Having a named does not matter though, as long as it's Christian.

"Invisible church" normally implies those people who say they don't go to church because they are the church. I agree we don't HAVE to, but we SHOULD because God has commanded it of us.

HGL

"There's plenty of groups that did this, including Catholic and Waldesians."

Unless you count Catholics as Pagans and Waldensians as making disciples of them in Piemontese region, no single ethnos was converted by Waldensians.

"The Bible is clear, if you're saved, your part of the Body."

Would be very acceptable theology about the individual soul.

"So, I'm sure there was at least one underground church that taught truth and was never named, and was probably killed off. Whether they were able to succeed themselves or not is irrelevant."

If this is your best for 1215 AD, you would have a somewhat inadequate theology about the Body as a whole.

Also, "killed off" - by whom? Catholics were converting and sometimes killing Albigensians and Waldensians and the latter had by then absorbed any possibly remaining Petrobrussians. Except such as went Albigensians, of course.

So, who would have been doing the killing?

" "Invisible church" normally implies those people who say they don't go to church because they are the church."

In the time of Luther, it meant sth else.

Catholics would ask : if you are the right Church and started out in Wittenberg 9th of March 1522, where was the Church before that? Matthew 28:20 means it has always been there, were you?

Luther(ans) would reply : oh, it was invisibly a Church of saved souls, among the Catholics.

Now, part of the Catholic case is, such an invisible Church of souls displaced into another Church than they really belong to, a false one, does not fulfil the criteria of Matthew 28:16-20, since such isolated souls are obviously not teaching the nations.

"I agree we don't HAVE to, but we SHOULD because God has commanded it of us."

It is actually the Church which commands us to assist Mass on Sundays and on Holidays of obligation. This is an application of III Commandment of keeping Holy the Lord's day, but it is not given per se in that commandment.

And dubbing that the "invisible Church" is of course to begin with a joke. Whoever came up with it knew that "invisible Church" is a term starting out as a far weightier thing in theology.

AV

HGL I'm not God, so I don't have all the answers. I do know that God makes it possible to preserve His truth, the Dead Sea scrolls for example.

HGL

The Dead Sea Scrolls are an extra.

God's main work to preserve His Truth is, according to Bible, His Church.

Knowing history and being God are two very different things.

Do you think Moses had human means to know the history from Genesis 2 to Genesis 50?

Or do you think everything was revealed to him, like Genesis 1?

JE

There was conversion among ethnos. The verse doesn't say the entire nation has to be taught. If that's the case, then Catholicism failed too.

That's not my best for 1215, I just gave a made up example. Nothing more. Knights commanded by the Pope or other church figures did the killing, as you've said before. Besides, that was an example. Maybe the believer died of a heart attack after they were saved.

I don't know how Luther meant it, I was referring to modern usage.

The CC commands mass because God commanded it first. I go to church because He said it.

Lastly, I don't think Moses had everything revealed to him. He had copies of scriptures that had been passed down since Adam. I'm happy to explain if you need me to.

HGL

" There was conversion among ethnos. The verse doesn't say the entire nation has to be taught. If that's the case, then Catholicism failed too."

No, since there have been entire nations and also nations with a clear majority which have been Catholic.

"That's not my best for 1215, I just gave a made up example. Nothing more."

OK.

"Knights commanded by the Pope or other church figures did the killing, as you've said before. Besides, that was an example. Maybe the believer died of a heart attack after they were saved."

OK, once again "single believer" perspective rather than Church of a whole perspective.

"I don't know how Luther meant it, I was referring to modern usage."

It is a modern usage among Lutherans, when I converted from Lutheranism, I had Lutherans tell me the Church survived as an invisible unity of saved souls.

"The CC commands mass because God commanded it first. I go to church because He said it."

In fact, I don't think presence every Sunday is ever stated as mandatory in the Bible itself.

"Lastly, I don't think Moses had everything revealed to him. He had copies of scriptures that had been passed down since Adam. I'm happy to explain if you need me to."

In other words, as for Luke, history is a knowable field. Meaning, I am very far from pretending to be God when I simply say I know what was around visibly in 1215 AD (visibly to us now too) and therefore can rule out what wasn't as not being the Church which was given the promise of "all days" (Matthew 28:20).

VI

and note, "JL not JL" has same initials but other name than "JL".

JL not JL

So many theological trolls about these days...or maybe one with several accounts.

HGL

I have one account - and I am Roman Catholic.

JC not JC has another account - and he is Orthodox.

I am also a Young Earth Creationist, and I'll gladly contribute to the theme of the group, which I did before.

JC not JC is not so, and I wonder whether he came in in order to post things which would make me impopular here. Because on the ground he choses, nine times out of ten, I am in conscience obliged to agree with him.

JC not JC

Hans-Georg Lundahl I am far more bothered by Kent Hovind's fanbase's belief in Pastor Jim-like conspiracy theories than I am of its views on evolution.

Really sad L not JL believes Christianity is a religion of opinion, and that the Trinity is as lowly as bickering humans. Such heresy.

HGL

JC not JC Do I get it right that you have therefore come here as a missionary to Kent Hovind's fanbase?

One of them, as said, is not into "Pastor Jim-like conspiracy theories" if you meant Hislop.

JC not JC

I used to be a brainwashed Baptist. I am hoping to plant a seed with one of these memes/

JL not JL

You're nothing but a spammer.

JC not JC

JL not JL also believes the Apostles failed. Paul traveled across the entire Mediterranean, yet none of his churches were Baptist. Every single one of them fell into 'pagan Catholicism' once he left.

Hopefully JL not JL will unharden his heart towards God the Father. John 17:21

HGL

JC not JC I didn't.

I was loosely Evangelical my first years as a Christian, but Can We Know by Dale and Elaine Rhooton had more to do with Ist C. AD matters where they are right than with 7th C. AD matters, where they are wrong. Of course, the chapter "the most persecuted book" is wrong, but the rest is very Catholic.

JL not JL

JC not JC knows nothing about me, and evidently knows very little in general given his spamming here.

JC not JC

JL not JL You seem to be one of those protestants who believes Constantine destroyed Christianity.

JL not JL You have in the past shown belief in the 'invisible church' which is very insulting to God.

HGL

Indeed, "invisible" the Church can possibly be in one country (like Catholics in Japan from beginning of persecution - excepting martyrs - to 1868). But over the world over centuries? No.

JL not JL

God is invisible, is that insulting? Jesus did not come to create the monstrosity that has evolved today. Christ's true followers are found amongst all christian denominations. Some are even living in secret in repressive communist and islamic states, they dont need to be a part of your sect or any sect to be saved.

Constantine tried to usurp christianity by blending paganism with scripture, that's historical fact, only the most brainwashed and ignorant would deny.

HGL

"God is invisible, is that insulting?"

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:"
[Colossians 1:15]

In other words, God is through this image visible.

"Jesus did not come to create the monstrosity that has evolved today."

Prove that?

He certainly did come to create a Church, at least as a means to give us access to the grace of His redemption. John 20:21-23 on absolution, Matthew 28:16-20 in teaching.

"Christ's true followers are found amongst all christian denominations."

Even if He founded one Church?

"Some are even living in secret in repressive communist and islamic states,"

That is another situation.

"they dont need to be a part of your sect or any sect to be saved."

Catholics do sometimes at least count on, in situations where external recourse to the Church is impossible, God supplies graces we would normally get through the Church, and God understands the ignorance which ensues. It is possible such cases or some of them are in God's eyes Catholics.

"Constantine tried to usurp christianity by blending paganism with scripture, that's historical fact, only the most brainwashed and ignorant would deny."

On the contrary, it is ignorant - I won't overuse the word "brainwashed" as it is a favourite Marxist expression - to believe that Hislop's fantasy is historical fact.

JC not JC

HGL JL not JL believes in a strange form of Christianity. He believes in man's interpretation.

JL not JL You are wrong to think Christianity went extinct. The Eucharist existed long before Constantine was born.

It's not the blood of the martyrs which saved the true religion of Christ, it's the Protestants apparently. Never mind that they are splintered into tens of thousands of sects. Coz that just means nothing to them. The martyrs gave their lives in the face of brutal torture by the pagan Romans, yet Constantine comes along and achieves what his predecessors couldn't achieve without firing a single shot so to speak? Give me a fugging break.

HGL He will assert that Constantine defeated God. No evidence or data will change his mind. He already believes in weird conspiracies like the Pastor Jim memes.

HGL

A somewhat different one, actually.

VII

MSi

If believing in evolution was heresy then, and if it was an excuse to murder. Then why didn't the RCC execute Pierre Teilhard de Chardin? It's not the time period of World war one and two was not murder/lynching free, it would have been easy. Heck the guy wasn't just a heretic he was forging the Piltdown man hoax! Of course you NEVER CITED ANY THING FROM THE ALBIGENSES THAT WAS HERESY. Why? Because if there was anything written by Albigenses the evidence was burnt by the inquisitors so that you can blaspheme there name. not to mention the fact that even if you found one person saying one thing heretical, it does not mean that it stould for the group. You are simply endorsing murder.

TDG

And why don't the Catholics execute their own recent popes and Bishops who have been evolutionists? Hypocrisy?

HGL

TDG - first of all the recent bishops and so called Popes of the Vatican II sect are not Catholics.

Second, there was some sense in executing heretics while there was a Catholic consensus to save, there is no sense in it now.

HGL

MSi "If believing in evolution was heresy then,"

No one believed in Evolution.

Albigensians believed in a kind of creationism, but a two level one, where God creates only spirits and a fallen spirit playing God creates bodies.

"and if it was an excuse to murder."

There is a difference between execution and murder.

"Then why didn't the RCC execute Pierre Teilhard de Chardin?"

More general terms, last state which had Inquisition and death penalty for heresy was Spain with colonies, and that ended in 1820. We do NOT believe in lynching for heresy.

More specific, Teilhard was given a ban on writing, which he obeyed, and which was lifted by the Vatican II sect. He could have been excommunicated too, but Pius XII who had given that ban considered him more or less a madman (hence no excommunication).

"It's not the time period of World war one and two was not murder/lynching free, it would have been easy."

As said, we don't believe in lynching for heresy. Executions were a means to avoid the religious pluralism which is now giving way to a one world huge hoax. In Teilhard's time, the pluralism with non-Catholic hegemony was already there, no use in any secret lynch-mob-inquisition.

This is also why I don't believe there is any use of bringing the Inquisition back as in those days.

"Heck the guy wasn't just a heretic he was forging the Piltdown man hoax!"

Like, I would have preferred if Pius XII had excommunicated the man and defrocked him.

"Of course you NEVER CITED ANY THING FROM THE ALBIGENSES THAT WAS HERESY."

// [13] On the Principle of Evil. Therefore, it behooves us of necessity to confess that there is another principle, one of evil, who works most wickedly against the true God and His creation; and this principle seems to move God against His own creation and the creation against its God, and causes God himself to wish for and desire that which in and of himself He could never wish for at all. Thus it is that through the compulsion of the evil enemy God yearns and is wearied, relents, is burdened, and is served by His own creatures. Whence God says to His people through Isaiah: "But thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thy iniquities"; and again, "I am weary of bearing them." And Malachi says, "You have wearied the Lord with your words." And David says, "And [he] repented according to the multitude of His mercies." And the Apostle says in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, "For we are God's coadjutors." Of the compulsion of God, however, the Lord himself says to Satan in the Book of Job, "But thou hast moved me against him, that I should afflict him without cause." And through Ezechiel the same Lord says, "And when they caught the souls of my people, they gave life to their souls. And they violated me among my people, for a handful of barley and a piece of bread, to kill souls which should not die and to save souls alive which should not live." And the Lord, lamenting over His people, says through Isaiah: "Because I called and you did not answer; I spoke and you did not hear, and you did evil in my eyes, and you have chosen the things that displease me." "

And so it appears plainly that this concept of how one may serve God buttresses my argument. For if there were only one First Principle, holy, just, and good, as has been declared of the true Lord God in the foregoing, He would not make Himself sorrowful, sad, or dolorous; neither would He bear pain in himself, nor grow weary or repent, nor be aided by anyone, nor be burdened with the sins of anyone, nor yearn or wish for anything to be done which was delayed in coming to pass, since nothing at all could be done contrary to His will; nor could He be moved by anyone or injured, nor could there be anything which would trouble God, but all things would obey Him from overwhelming necessity. And most especially would this be true because all things would be by Him and in Him and of Him," in all their dispositions, if there were only one First Principle, holy and just, as I have shown above in discussing the true God. //

Cathar Texts and Rituals : The Book of the Two Principles
http://gnosis.org/library/cathar-two-principles.htm

In the previous, the writer has confused the idea of God creating angels "perfect" (as in not sinful) with the idea of Him creating them "perfect" (as in not able to sin).

"Why? Because if there was anything written by Albigenses the evidence was burnt by the inquisitors so that you can blaspheme there name."

As shown, this is not correct. Quoting intro to above text:

"The Book of the Two Principles is the largest surviving work of Cathar literature. It provides an important witness to the sophistication of Cathar argumentation against orthodox theology -- a debate in which the Good Christians prevailed, at least in the contemporary judgment of a large portion of the population of Southern France during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It should be remembered that the Good Christians dominated the argument and won the heart of Languedoc; it was a genocidal and generation-long crusade against them by Pope and Kings that they lost."

In fact, it was not genocidal. Unlike what these Gnostics, and perhaps you too, may have thought.

But supposing this had been true, we would not have a single writing from Albigensians and those writing of them would have described them (as I do) as non-Christians, this leaves a large burden of proof on anyone pretending they were in fact Christians.

"not to mention the fact that even if you found one person saying one thing heretical, it does not mean that it stould for the group. You are simply endorsing murder."

If you are endorsing Albigensians, you are.

The Crusade and Inquisition with Death Penalty was decided against them after they had precisely murdered a Papal legate. They had also been oppressing Catholics, through the lords who endorsed and protected them.

Here is on the murdered Papal legate:

Pierre de Castelnau - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_de_Castelnau

TDG

No one defended the supposed murder of any people legate. That is a pure straw man argument.

HGL

OK, I joked (which you can see from my next comment admitting in earnest you were talking of murder of Albigensians).

But there is a point to that joke - were Albigensians murderers?

Was the killing of Pierre de Castelnau a thing one could expect of them again, if they weren't checked?

That was the position when a Crusade was launched against Raymond of Toulouse for allowing things to get out of hand.

Would my view on 69 millions (see other subthread) as spurious be a strawman too, or would you admit MSi actually wrote "69million is the total number of those killed in the inquisition over 1500 years"?

By the way, TDG - I think you referred to sth I said in that other subthread, not this one.

"the supposed murder of any people legate."

Btw, "supposed" - do you think there is doubt Pierre de Castelnau was killed by the squire of Raymond of Toulouse who had been favourable to Albigensians?

SL

Matthew 10:14 And if anyone will not welcome you or heed your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.

TDG

I wasn't there so I don't know what really went down. I do know, that you are trying to justify a church committing murder in the name of God. Therefore, I don't trust you.

HGL

SL Guess what Pierre de Castelnau was doing?

He was chased down.

By the way, I had misread the information as I was a teen into Albigensians doing the murder. It was the Count of Toulouse's squire who did it and it isn't clear he was Albigensian.

I just looked up the encyclopedia I was informed by online this time - and it was ambiguously worded.

HGL

TDG "I do know, that you are trying to justify a church committing murder in the name of God."

If you don't know what really went down, how do you know even killing Albigensians after they refused to convert to Catholicism was murder?

There are three occasions when killing of a man is licit:

death penalty
licit acts of just wars
licit self defense if there is no other way

If you don't do the history, how can you tell execution of Albigensians was murder?

"it isn't clear he was Albigensian."

It isn't clear to me, that is, I have things to read up on.

If you want to know someone who did much more research than I, take a look at Elena Maria Vidal's The Nigh's Dark Shade.

Or contact her.

As for the encyclopedia entry I was now looking up, it is here, if anyone knows Swedish (Michel Snoeck does):

Nordisk familjebok / 1800-talsutgåvan. 1. A - Barograf / 367-368
http://runeberg.org/nfaa/0367.html

The article was signed by the Lutheran curate and Court Preacher J. H. Björnström.

TDG

There is no just war against a differing religious group over doctrine.

If one of them committed a crime, that is not justification to commence war against an entire sect.

Or do you think it was good and right for Clinton and Reno to have incinerated the Branch Davidians? Was it licit for the Nazis to exterminate the Jews?

HGL

" There is no just war against a differing religious group over doctrine."

If it's just over doctrine, perhaps?

If neither side represents the obligation of baptismal vows, perhaps?

And perhaps opposite if one side does represent the obligation we have to Christ over baptismal vows and the other a break with them and if the doctrinal differences also end up in very bad behaviours, like accepting abortion and sodomy (Albigensian perfecti would not to either, since celibate chaste, but they would prefer this to marriage and childbirth in others and also be against punishing).

"Or do you think it was good and right for Clinton and Reno to have incinerated the Branch Davidians?"

I don't think Clinton or Reno can claim representing baptismal vows. I also think Branch Davidians are less likely than Clinton or Reno to exhibit the bad behaviours of Albigensians.

"Was it licit for the Nazis to exterminate the Jews?"

While I live in a country where voicing doubts on what happened is on the edge of illegal, and while I think there are some doubts, for one thing Jews are (as such, religious use of the word) not baptised and cannot be held accountable for breaking baptismal vows.

Inquisition was not only not making pogroms (as long as Jews refrained from certain extreme actions) but even protecting them against such. An Albigensian was one kind of baptised person who could end up being judged by them and a pogrom instigator another one.

Michel Snoeck

Who determines that which is a sect? It should in any case not be pixilated parrots of which many are wandering this planet! 🤔

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Catholic Church that Christ founded.

Michel Snoeck

Luther wouldn't agree with that and for solid reason... Catholic implies a 'seat' (compare with cathedral). The Catholic Church did so many wrongs that I do not even consider that.

TDG

Ignoring the fact that a baby cannot make a baptismal vow, you don't murder people for violating baptismal vows. That's wicked, ungodly.

HGL

"Luther wouldn't agree with that and for solid reason..."

Before deciding to actually definitely chose Catholicism, I had already ditched Luther - for solid reason. Matthew 28:20. Matthew 16:18.

Or simply that without Catholicism, Luther wouldn't have had a Bible in the first place.

"Catholic implies a 'seat' (compare with cathedral)."

Yes, so?

"The Catholic Church did so many wrongs that I do not even consider that."

Isn't the main one (on your view) the one you are discussing?

It was on mine until I found out what Albigensians were teaching.

"Ignoring the fact that a baby cannot make a baptismal vow,"

If we can partake of Adam's sin (and babies can, since babies do die, see the discussion by St Paul) before the age of reason, we can also partake of Christ's justice before then.

"you don't murder people for violating baptismal vows. That's wicked, ungodly."

Murdering certainly would be so.

Executing now, when the Catholic unity is already gone would be "meaningless justice" if you see what I mean. The ones killed would in a sense have deserved it, but it would serve no purpose.

As it was, it is arguably thanks to the Inquisition that we were born and that Harmageddon was postponed so we could be so. With heresy spreading quicker and unchecked, Antichrist and the False Prophet would aready have come.

Now, there is also a difference between murder and execution.

The latter implies trial, it implies some right to defense (and suspects were not just allowed but encouraged to provide lists of personal enemies, since these could have had a motive to make false denunciations, and if each denunciator was found on your list of personal enemies, you were automatically set free).

In fact, the justice of Inquisitors was so famed (OK, some centuries later, in Spain, but if you went Calvinist there and didn't repent, you would still be facing the stake) that people would make a minor religious crime (like blasphemy in anger, like what the letters "o" and "m" and "g" are stylising in English internet discourse) just in order to get a trial by inquisitors.

Michel Snoeck

Right, so if you do not leave your evil beliefs (or do not tell as we say) you get executed (or murdered, what's the difference?). Luther did not have a Bible? He must have or he would not have been able to translate it into German (NT at least, as the OT was already available in German).

Too many wrongs with Catholicism propagandists. With their 'popies' that do as they please and change rules when one dies and the next one gets inaugurated. I certainly did ditch that. Not even talking about they changed the ten commandments to fit their own view. Yeah, ditched it was! 🙄

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Right, so if you do not leave your evil beliefs (or do not tell as we say) you get executed (or murdered, what's the difference?)."

Are you posing a threat or are you playing with rhetoric?

So, Catholicism was around before Reformation. We have priority about being Christians. You have no right to judge the ones you came from. That would be murder. And the Reformation committed that murder in more than one place.

Again, Inquisition was there to prevent a mindset of spreading in which Antichrist could easily come. That mindset is already here and next decade we will probably see Antichrist in power. If nothing happens. Executing heretics for heresy is senseless. Even those actually guilty, actually deserving of death, would be senseless to kill - not to mention impossible considering the number of Apostates who are baptised.

"Luther did not have a Bible?"

WOULD not HAVE HAD. Turning a conditional into an indicative categoric is making a strawman.

"He must have or he would not have been able to translate it into German (NT at least, as the OT was already available in German)."

Both were available in German, thanks to Catholicism, and the one he translated from (at least NT) was there thanks to Catholicism too.

"Too many wrongs with Catholicism propagandists. With their 'popies' that do as they please and change rules when one dies and the next one gets inaugurated."

Well, I am not into the Vatican II Sect and its changing rules either.

"I certainly did ditch that. Not even talking about they changed the ten commandments to fit their own view. Yeah, ditched it was! 🙄"

Except we didn't. We have not cut out Exodus 20:4 from the Bible, you have not proven there is a commandment starting in that verse. Jesus has shown giving a shortlist of commandments, shorter than full text in Exodus 20 (aka Shema Israel) is licit.

Michel Snoeck

To say it briefly, I find that Catholicism is a corrupt and human institution. It is lead by humans, can it be anything other than at least a little bit corrupt? One can theorize and argue that a dead body decaying is alive, it will not make it alive, stand up and start walking...

SL

Roman Catholicism is identical to the Pharisees during Jesus time.

HGL

"To say it briefly, I find that Catholicism is a corrupt"

You are not good at arguing it from Inquisition. Not with me, at least.

"and human institution. It is lead by humans, can it be anything other than at least a little bit corrupt?"

A little bit corrupt? What is "a little bit"? Someone being a horrid sinner in it? Judas Ischariot was.

Or Church leadership as a whole being corrupt? THAT is a challenge to Matthew 28:20. And As Baltimore Catechism n3 pointed out:

Q. 513. Why must the true Church be visible?

A. The true Church must be visible because its founder, Jesus Christ, commanded us under pain of condemnation to hear the Church; and He could not in justice command us to hear a Church that could not be seen and known.

BALTIMORE CATECHISM #3 : LESSON 11 - ON THE CHURCH
http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson11.htm

"One can theorize and argue that a dead body decaying is alive, it will not make it alive, stand up and start walking..."

If you meant Vatican II Sect, I tend to agree about it. Catholicism is alive where it is not obeying Pope Francis. There are great laymen obeying him, but they are betrayed by less great pastors.

"Roman Catholicism is identical to the Pharisees during Jesus time."

If any religious body is so, it is Talmudic Judaism.

Considering how the words about Pharisees applied to bad Catholic leaders has been a constant topos for Catholic rhetoric for centuries, this was then hijacked with exaggeration by diverse Protestant sects, but is still used by Catholics (Pharisees sat on chair of MOses, bad Popes have sat on the chair of Peter).

However, the identic religion to those Pharisees rejecting Christ are Rabbis arguing why Jesus from Nazareth was not the prophecied Christ, and that you don't get from Catholics.

Noted that Michel Snoeck was not posing a serious threat, by the way, just doing rhetoric.

Michel Snoeck

Only logic applied and reference to recorded history... the grandest threat there is...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, no, rhetoric misapplying logic.

1) We are in a different position withs secularised states, there are basically no Catholic (or Protestant) states to defend and making one would normally require religious tolerance.
2) Catholics (except individual converts) do not come from Protestantism, Evangelical or otherwise and today Protestants (similar exception) do not come from Catholics. Heretics judgeable by Inquisition were ex-Catholics or people whose parents or grandparents had been Catholics - ALL of them. Where anabaptists formed a separate "ethnicity" Inquisitor Belllarmine (St Robert is noted for the Galileo and Bruno cases) considered them as unbaptised and not judgeable by Inquisition for that reason, any more than Jews or Moslems.
3) You are demanding compassion for one actor who suffered in the past, but you are doing to deprive another one (Catholics have suffered horribly by Protestant Reformations, Sweden and elsewhere even worse). AND in order to demonise one of the actors now, which is not judging heretics by an Inquisition that extradicts to the secular arm.

Three inconsistencies in your misapplied logic.

Btw, "recorded history" means very little in your mouth, when you can consider Kurt Baschwitz as an authority on it.

Michel Snoeck

Those accusing an opponent of the things you accuse me of commonly are guilty of the offense themselves... You did know nóthing of Kurt Baschwitz prior to me mentioning him, then you read a brief biography of him after an Internet search, it listed something with psychology, which then was enough for you to discard wholly of him without looking ány further! You said so in the group. At that I have not presented him as an authority or my authority, I only suggested that you should familiarize and find out what he wrote about these matters, but you would not.

You also, might I say, turn it personally, you write demeaning comments with the intent to minimize my credibility. I find that people who behave in such manners try to cover up something, usually a lack of valid arguments proving their own case! 🤔

SL

I wonder if anyone actually reads any further than the first line that Hans writes. He never makes any valid points so I'm guessing nobody bothers anymore after the first line...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I only suggested that you should familiarize and find out what he wrote about these matters,"

Meaning, you considered him as giving valid information on historical facts on this matter - i e you were presenting him as a historical authority.

Sorry, I have no intention wasting time on people whose misgrip on history a few centuries ago is as dreary as a rainy day after I find out they are not likely to have very many valid arguments about the facts.

"I wonder if anyone actually reads any further than the first line that Hans writes."

Some don't, but in that case, they should not bother to answer.

Michel Snoeck "you write demeaning comments with the intent to minimize my credibility."

In history you don't have any.

And as to demeaning, how many did you make to me first?

Study that question here, it is not just in the air:

Galileo and Hexenhammer
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2018/11/galileo-and-hexenhammer.html

VIII

JL not JL

See, trying to justify murder is where yoking oneself blindly to a cult can lead.

HGL

So, you distance yourself from the murder on Pierre Castelnau?

Pierre de Castelnau - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_de_Castelnau

In that case, can you identify with getting to grips with the murderers?

In fact, I felt like remaining a Lutheran up to when I had - unexpectedly - a justification for what I presume you are (to be serious) referring to as "murder of Albigensians".

It was not murder since execution and was not judicial murder, since merited by Albigensians actually blaspheming.

Up to realising this, I didn't have any plans on immediately going Catholic.

I did have plans on joining hands with other pro-Catholic Lutherans in sooner or later reuniting collectively, undoing the Reformation, which was a REAL affair of murders.

MSi

notice you quote "cathar" instead of Albigenses. You might as well say a muslim was behind 9/11 so lets get all muslim countries.....And thus we see more genocide.

but hey 69million is not genocide right?

Look if you want to call yourself Christian then don't make a pagan idol infront of your base of operations as in the trevi fountain! LOL

HGL

"69million is not genocide right?"

Where the Hell do you get that "statistic" from?

Some few thousand or even just some hundreds of Cathars certainly were killed. Manyfold more converted.

Btw, Albigenses were one local name of the more general designation Cathars.

"Look if you want to call yourself Christian then don't make a pagan idol infront of your base of operations as in the trevi fountain!"

Totally other subject.

MSi

The "holy Roman Empire" was never a sovereign nation. It was a terrorist organization based upon the fraud upon King Pepin. It ransomed people with frauds and black mail obtained through the priest confessional.

again you have NO DOCUMENTATION from the Albigenses. you ae using blanket documents of another group. my illustration already refuted your argument.

69million is the total number of those killed in the inquisition over 1500 years

HGL

"The "holy Roman Empire" was never a sovereign nation."

It was not a nation state in the first place.

"It was a terrorist organization"

Not so.

"based upon"

Not so.

"the fraud upon King Pepin. It ransomed people with frauds and black mail obtained through the priest confessional."

Not so.

"again you have NO DOCUMENTATION from the Albigenses. you ae using blanket documents of another group. my illustration already refuted your argument."

Cathars were not another group, but a general group which was locally called Albigenses.

You have refuted nothing, since you have no kind of argument that Albigenses were in fact Christians.

"69million is the total number of those killed in the inquisition over 1500 years"

Inquisitors were not in the business of extradicting to the secular arm for that long. The "total number" given is a total lie.

IX

MSi

a case for the Waldenses ancient origin

bible smack : a case for the Waldenses ancient origin
https://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2010/03/case-for-waldenses-ancient-origin.html

and here is the next rebuttal answered.

HGL

"They deny the existence of not only the waldenses but multiple churches throughout he centuries."

We do not deny the existence of Waldenses, but think it limited in time. Too limited to reach back to pre-Constantine Church.

Some would consider Peter Waldo as basically rehashing Peter Bruis and Henricus.

Some would even go so far as to consider they could go back to Claudius of Turin.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : History Forger James Aitken Wylie
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/12/history-forger-james-aitken-wylie.html

Claudius of Turin was contemporary with the evil Byzantine Emperors known as Iconoclasts, so this would at most link Waldensians to Leo Isaurus and Constantine Copronym.

"Even if the Waldensees were off the table. You still have the montanist, Donatist,"

Montanists and Donatists were Ancient schismatics, fairly similar to Catholicism - as were Novatians - except on particulars. Montanus believed he was incarnation of Holy Ghosts (yes, wacky Catholics exist). Novatian and Donatus were claimants to papacy who were denying absolution to penitent apostates (yes, hardline Catholics exist).

Montanists were absorbed into Catholic Church before these ither schisms, Novatians into Catholics and Donatists and Donatists after loosing bishops with Apostolic succession (St Augustine helped condemn Donatism in a Council of Carthage and this over time impressed bishops even among those), they degraded to the robber band known as Circumcelliones.

"Paulicans,"

Were like Albigensians a non-Christian and Manichaean sect.

"lumbees"

Don't know who these are.

"and several similar sects."

Similar to what of above? The enumerated sects are very different from each other!

"The fact is that these people not only existed but were murdered for their faith."

Iconoclasts were murdering Orthodox. Donatist Circumcellions were executed as robbers. Many simply disappeared when people got tired of the fad. When Albigensians were out of the way, Waldensians were treated far more leniently, that is why they survived to the time of Reformation and joined hands with Calvinism.

"The 1120 A.D. confession of faith was uncovered by Samuel moreland in 1658. Moreland was commission by Oliver Cromwell to give aid to the Waldenses and to research their history."

As if Samuel Moreland and Oliver Cromwell were above forgery!

"The Waldenses were massacred by the Roman Catholic church at that time."

In fact, this is not totally untrue, if you substitute RC secular authorities for "Church".

"In January 1655, the Duke of Savoy commanded the Waldensians to attend Mass or remove to the upper valleys of their homeland, giving them twenty days in which to sell their lands. Being in the midst of winter, the order was intended to persuade the Vaudois to choose the former; however, the bulk of the populace instead chose the latter, abandoning their homes and lands in the lower valleys and removing to the upper valleys. It was written that these targets of persecution, including old men, women, little children and the sick "waded through the icy waters, climbed the frozen peaks, and at length reached the homes of their impoverished brethren of the upper Valleys, where they were warmly received.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians#Piedmont_Easter

"By mid-April, when it became clear that the Duke's efforts to force the Vaudois to conform to Catholicism had failed, he tried another approach. Under the guise of false reports of Vaudois uprisings, the Duke sent troops into the upper valleys to quell the local populace. He required that the local populace quarter the troops in their homes, which the local populace complied with. But the quartering order was a ruse to allow the troops easy access to the populace. On 24 April 1655, at 4 a.m., the signal was given for a general massacre."

Were the reports false?

"According to one report by a Peter Liegé"

This name could not be found on French wiki ...

I did find one Jean Léger (of which Liegé could be a spelling variant) - who called on French help against the Duchy of Savoy - and Louis XIV provided it (then).

"Now one can claim that this document was forged by the Waldensees. However, the confession doesn't match the 2nd one. The first is more anabaptist and allows reading from the apocrypha. Yet the second does not. The third is entirely more reformed than anabaptist. Apparently the first is also written in Italian."

In other words, Waldensians were not even united on what to believe over the centuries. Christian unity to certain Protestants = cursing Catholicism. Christian liberty to them = differring over why Catholicism is to be cursed, a Calvinist claiming there is too much freewill and an Anabaptist claiming there is too little of it in Catholicism, for instance.

"None of the Waldensees confessions, nor other writings from the ancient church ascribe Waldo to be the founder of the church. Yet this is odd among reformers."

Peter Waldo may have believed he was reviving the Henrician and Petrobrussian movements and have projected a continuity beyond that.

"When we look at the way protestants honor Luther, Calvin, Wesley etc. It would seem odd that the Waldenses not give respect to their supposed church father."

As with Albigensians, they were making a claim of going back to Apostolic Church.

"Waldenses were commonly accused to be the same as the albigenses as well as Paulicans. It is obvious that similarity points to the fact that these groups held the same faith. which is much more ancient than Peter Waldo. Catholic apologists typicaly lump these groups together in the same heresies,"

No, we don't.

Paulicians, Bogumils and Cathars (of which the mightiest group was Albigensians) are one distinct group. They attack the notion that the true and good God has created our bodies.

Henricians, Petrobrussians, Waldensians, perhaps going back to Claudius of Turin who was perhaps an Iconoclast, are another distinct one. They attack Catholic ritual, specifically as to images.

Novatians, Donatists and before them Montanists are yet another group, Catholic compared to above, and differed in particulars, specifically rigorism, from the Catholicism that survived them.

Linking the three groups of heretics together is a lie.

"The Inquisition was used to destroy all these so-called "heretics" in order to keep an iron grip on their "holy Roman Empire"."

Where does this author get this goobledigook from?

France was West of Holy Roman Empire and Inquisition was not under the German King Emperor of Rome. It was under the Pope - except where it was under the English king (the one that persecuted Lollards, its system being imitated in process of St Joan of Arc) and where it was under both Pope and Spanish King.

"After all why were medeival europeans really so concerned with preserving Iranian doctrine?"

If you mean Albigensians, they weren't preserving, they were introducing a novelty. They came from the East. Cathars are Western Europe, Bogumils are Balkan, Paulicians were Eastern parts of Byzantine Empire. Some epochs have Eastern influences. China food is arguably better than hypnosis, and hypnosis arguably better than believing one is reincarnated from previous lives and trying to use hypnosis to grasp what one was doing back then.

So, Albigensians were not preserving, they were introducing a novelty.

"Waldenses of the past testified to their ancient origin."

BUT they did so with recent testimonies.

"voltaire reveals that there was historical revisionism among french catholics."

As if Voltaire should be taken seriously either among Christians and Historians, when he was NEITHER.

Parallel to previous

MSi had started another subthread on exact same subject, which here is counted as one:

MSi

So hans laid the axiom:

"Cathars were not another group, but a general group which was locally called Albigenses."

The Albigenses were also called the Waldenses here was their confession of faith.

Waldenses Confession of 1120

1. We believe and firmly maintain all that is contained in the twelve articles of the symbol, commonly called the apostles' creed, and we regard as heretical whatever is inconsistent with the said twelve articles.
2. We believe that there is one God - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
3. We acknowledge for sacred canonical scriptures the books of the Holy Bible. (Here follows the title of each, exactly conformable to our received canon, but which it is deemed, on that account, quite unnecessary to particularize.)
4. The books above-mentioned teach us: That there is one GOD, almighty, unbounded in wisdom, and infinite in goodness, and who, in His goodness, has made all things. For He created Adam after His own image and likeness. But through the enmity of the Devil, and his own disobedience, Adam fell, sin entered into the world, and we became transgressors in and by Adam.
5. That Christ had been promised to the fathers who received the law, to the end that, knowing their sin by the law, and their unrighteousness and insufficiency, they might desire the coming of Christ to make satisfaction for their sins, and to accomplish the law by Himself.
6. That at the time appointed of the Father, Christ was born - a time when iniquity everywhere abounded, to make it manifest that it was not for the sake of any good in ourselves, for all were sinners, but that He, who is true, might display His grace and mercy towards us.
7. That Christ is our life, and truth, and peace, and righteousness - our shepherd and advocate, our sacrifice and priest, who died for the salvation of all who should believe, and rose again for their justification.
8. And we also firmly believe, that there is no other mediator, or advocate with God the Father, but Jesus Christ. And as to the Virgin Mary, she was holy, humble, and full of grace; and this we also believe concerning all other saints, namely, that they are waiting in heaven for the resurrection of their bodies at the day of judgment.
9. We also believe, that, after this life, there are but two places - one for those that are saved, the other for the damned, which [two] we call paradise and hell, wholly denying that imaginary purgatory of Antichrist, invented in opposition to the truth.
10. Moreover, we have ever regarded all the inventions of men [in the affairs of religion] as an unspeakable abomination before God; such as the festival days and vigils of saints, and what is called holy-water, the abstaining from flesh on certain days, and such like things, but above all, the masses.
11. We hold in abhorrence all human inventions, as proceeding from Antichrist, which produce distress (Alluding probably to the voluntary penances and mortification imposed by the Catholics on themselves), and are prejudicial to the liberty of the mind.
12 We consider the Sacraments as signs of holy things, or as the visible emblems of invisible blessings. We regard it as proper and even necessary that believers use these symbols or visible forms when it can be done. Notwithstanding which, we maintain that believers may be saved without these signs, when they have neither place nor opportunity of observing them.
13. We acknowledge no sacraments [as of divine appointment] but baptism and the Lord's supper.
14. We honour the secular powers, with subjection, obedience, promptitude, and payment. "

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Waldenses Confession of 1120"

Found and published in the 17th Century.

"The Albigenses were also called the Waldenses here was their confession of faith."

While there was a while popular confusion about the two, they were not the same.

66 books and two sacraments were not Albigensian.

X

SL

Matthew 10:14 And if anyone will not welcome you or heed your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.

TDG

Shake the Dust off must mean execute them in Latin :-/

MSi

notice how he cackles with murder in his heart?

SL

MSi I was on Catholic Answers forum a few years ago and asked the Catholics there if the Pope ordered that there needed to be a war against Protestants and would they follow his call and kill them if instructed to. The main users of the forum, men and women, said YES.

HGL

Would you mind linking to the threads, SL?

You know, linking to a thread on Catholic Forums is possible.

Also, Pierre de Castelnau was doing precisely as Matthew 10:14 prescribes.

The words of Christ were not directed to Catholic rulers who were not themselves missionaries or apostles.

SL

I can't link to it, it was over 12 years ago...

But my comment was not meant to convince anyone else, it was what convinced me about the fallacy of Catholicism from the mouths of actual prominent Catholics at the time. I still have in storage a box of autographed books those people sent me.

HGL

This one is from seven years ago, and I can link to it:

Does apologist Bob Sungenis, Ph.D. seriously believe the Earth, Planets, Stars don’t rotate ?
https://forums.catholic.com/t/does-apologist-bob-sungenis-ph-d-seriously-believe-the-earth-planets-stars-dont-rotate/229561

XI

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I have noted, no one is defending what Albigensians actually taught, though some are in denial over it and attribute it to Inquisition lying about whom they were judging.

TDG

What they taught is irrelevant when we are talking about murdering them for it.

HGL

Still leaves them out of the competition of being the actual Church that Christ founded.

PLUS you are wrong about definition of murder PLUS you are wrong about what happened to most Albigensians (they converted and got fairly light penances, like wearing a yellow cross for some years and standing up with it outside Church when people were leaving Mass).

If you realise they weren't Christians, you are very upset on some of them dying and most of them getting at least a bit more Christian. Centuries ago.

If you don't realise that, you are of course making what they taught matter.

TDG

Having doctrinal differences doesn't necessarily mean someone is not a Christian. Whether they are or not, you still don't kill people over that.

You are showing very clearly that the Roman Catholic cult is a bloodthirsty killer and indeed the whore of Revelation.

HGL

Oh, no. In order to be that, the victims would have to be Christians.

She was drunk of the blood of the saints, remember?

Well, if Albigensians weren't Christians, their demise is not proof the ones killing a few of them is that harlot.

Also, I think decapitation was mentioned in that context [of Apocalypse].

Well, I'd say Anglicans decapitating and quartering a lot of Catholics as traitors fit the description better.

Btw, one reason I'd not call Vatican II Sect Catholic is, "Pope Francis" was extremely good friend with an Anglican and said "they don't need to convert".

Not quite Tolkien's attitude to CSL.

Also, "bloodthirsty" is not very appropriate if 9/10 judgements are not concerned with death penalty, and the 1/10 which are half are not burned themselves, but only have puppets burned. This is the stats for Bernard Gui as Inquisitor of Toulouse (930 cases) and there were no serious efforts to keep all the condemned ones confined so they could get killed (42 burned in person, 45 in effigie, that is puppets with their name on it were burned while they were living on elsewhere).

"Having doctrinal differences doesn't necessarily mean someone is not a Christian."

Depends on which ones.

Calling the creator of Earth Satan is not within the pale.

Also, Matthew 28:20 says there is a rule given by Christ to Apostles outside which a doctrine cannot be considered as Christian.

TDG

So you kill a mixture of Christians and non-christians. It's wrong either way.

You don't kill them all, you only kill some of them. It's still wrong. It's still murder.

They became converts. Yeah, by force. You don't know if any of them were true converts in that case.

Instead of murdering some, you gave them a penance very much like the Nazis gave the Jews. Oh how benevolent!

If anglicans did something wrong, that is not justification for the Catholic cult to do the same thing to someone else.

You are going to Great extremes to justify and minimize murder in the name of a church.

HGL

"So you kill a mixture of Christians and non-christians. It's wrong either way."

Supposing Waldensians were real Christians, which is a generous assessment (as with you).

Well, in fact mostly it was not killing.

"You don't kill them all, you only kill some of them. It's still wrong. It's still murder."

In that case judicial murder, but where do you get it Christian states cannot exist (contrary to Matthew 28:18) or cannot punish blasphemy?

It was most certainly not murder in the normal sense of private citizens plotting deaths of other private citizens for reasons of dislike or inconvenience.

"They became converts. Yeah, by force. You don't know if any of them were true converts in that case."

I think talking to a man over weeks (after the initial max. three days of torture who someone else inflicted on him) and being a generally empathetic person would give you a hint if someone really saw "oh, Jesus said Genesis was true? why didn't the Cathar perfectus tell me so?" or if someone just blank changed his mind overnight for no stated reason at all.

"Instead of murdering some, you gave them a penance very much like the Nazis gave the Jews."

I am sorry ... you refer to the yellow six edged star?

In Nazi Germany, if it had lasted, there are two major differences from that:

"Jews" didn't (according to officially known history at least) concern confession, but genetics. You have three to four Jewish grandparents, you count as Jew, even if you are Christian (which by the way agrees with a Jewish way of thinking about it) - by contrast, Albigensian is not about origin (every Albigensian would have had three to four grandparents born in Catholic families and raised Catholics).
The yellow cross is not about the difference, it is about cessation of the difference.

"Oh how benevolent!"

I have sufficient empathy to hear an angry man blurting out a condemning shout of irony. Did you work yourself up to anger before answering?

"If anglicans did something wrong, that is not justification for the Catholic cult to do the same thing to someone else."

It was not the same thing.

It was Anglicans who did the decapitation. It is Anglicans who had that external and exact similarity with Apocalyptic evil.

Also, on a deeper level it is not the same thing. Montfort killed some over NOT having the religion of their eight great-grandparents. Henry VIII killed people over HAVING the religion of their eight great-grandparents.

Anglicans killing Catholics is like Albigensians killing Catholics over refusing to become Albigensians.

"You are going to Great extremes to justify and minimize murder in the name of a church."

You are going to great extremes to call me out on that one. Michel Snoeck pretended that the great threat to me was logic and recorded history. No, but there is a threat to me in having day after day, hour after hour spent on FB rounded up by you, him, Matt SIngleton, SL, now also AT, repeating same charge over and over again.

With people like YOU I cannot afford showing empathy, since what you will accept as such is lying flat on my back and telling you you are right, when you are wrong. Inquisitors did not use that method of converting, but possibly Albigensians and Waldensians had, and that could possibly have been one cause of the Crusade.

In fact, watching JA's video, what you have so far done is like collectively shaming the one Muslim for defending Saladin or for Mohammed's conquests (and note, Mohammed could not pretend very realistically that the 8 greatgrandparents of every Christian, Jew or Pagan he killed for not converting had been a Muslim).

TDG

Can you show me where a Christian Church is supposed to punish anyone for glass of meat? I see we are not to have fellowship with them and we can put them out of the church, but we have no business meteing out punishment. We certainly have no business executing anyone for that. Such punishment is God's job.

HGL

"Can you show me where a Christian Church is supposed to punish anyone for glass of meat? I see we are not to have fellowship with them and we can put them out of the church, but we have no business meteing out punishment. We certainly have no business executing anyone for that."

Very long, indeed up to Albigensian flood of infidelity, Catholic discipline agreed with your assessment.

When the Emperor decided to punish Priscillianists, St Martin of Tours was against that.

Nevertheless, there is a distinction between what Catholics do as CHURCH and what Catholics do as this or that NATION or other STATE.

Meting out punishments like death was done by the state power, while the Inquisitors were "handing someone out to the secular arm".

What Inquisitors were doing themselves before deciding that was pretty much what you are trying to do for me : reason someone out of an error.

DIFFERENCE : they were arguably calmer and less fanatic than you are.

And "glass of meat"? Is that a mistype?

"Such punishment is God's job."

Is EVERY punishment God's job, so no crimes can be pursued? Or is it just in the field of religion and doctrine where the foulest crimes must be tolerated bc it's God's job to punish them?

TDG

Glass of meat was supposed to be blasphemy but voice text really messed it up.

A church has no business being a government.

HGL

Well, that is not what the Catholic Church was.

The question is, can a government belong to a Church?

According to Matthew 28 "all nations" clause, yes.

A nation arguably includes its government.

TDG

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The church is supposed to go to all nations to evangelize. It is not supposed to become a nation.

HGL

Not the point. Is any nation supposed in its entirety to become part of the Church? Matthew 28 says yes.

This means that those governing, while normally laymen, normally not Church leaders, are still Catholics, part of the Church, and protecting the Church is part of their job.

TDG

You still have them blending church and civic responsibilities.

If Baptists are in govt you'd actually support them killing Catholics to protect their church?

Protecting the church by murder is never part of their job.

HGL

You are, sorry, mixing apples and oranges. Like murder and execution, for one.

A valid Catholic baptism obliges you to lifelong Christian faith. Therefore makes heresy a crime against God.

Crimes against God are the worst ones. Next question : is it hurting society?

N O W .... was there some use in Albigensians getting mostly converted but in some cases killed? Well, if it hadn't been for that, some conservative Protestants with far less heresy than Albigensians would not be around.

Also, if Antichrist had already come, we would not be around, since history would have ended.

How exactly would you imagine killing Catholics by a Baptist government (though you had that where Munzer took power!) (If you count Anabaptists as Baptists, that is) would postpone any bad things in the end times?

It's more like they are already here or close on, and you are accusing me of being on the evil side, because I don't share your horror of the Inquisition.

And Anti-Catholics in power were already on the scene, Protestant powers have massacred Catholics in the meantime, massacres you ignore to concentrate on others where we were on the killing side .... bias?

If you say you are equally against Protestants persecuting Catholics from 1534 to 1830 in England, to name one country, are you aware of the fact that you have not spent days in denouncing Protestants defending that persecution (no one was doing so, so far, you can say) and also the fact that pretending Albigensians Protestant and the numbers killed massive was part of how Protestants motivated persecuting Catholics as traitors?

AND you still have no support for Albigensians being Christians.

So, where was Christianity that year?

A question you might like to cover up by accusations of "murder"?

TDG

{{A valid Catholic baptism obliges you to lifelong Christian faith. Therefore makes heresy a crime against God}}

No, heresy against the RCC is NOT heresy against God. In fact, The RCC is heresy against God, but that's another debate.

In any case, nowhere are Christians, churches, or their leaders to mete out capital punishment for heresy.

{{Protestant powers have massacred Catholics in the meantime, massacres you ignore}}

They weren't the topic YOU originated. I'm Baptist, not a Protestant. Baptists have been persecuted by Catholics (mostly abroad) and Protestants (mostly in America). Either way, I oppose any such killing over religious doctrine. So does God.

HGL

"No, heresy against the RCC is NOT heresy against God."

Between Albigensians and RC, it was Albigensians who were heretical about Genesis 1.

"In fact, The RCC is heresy against God, but that's another debate."

I took Genesis 1 and Albigensians as an example. That is the topic I did chose.

"In any case, nowhere are Christians, churches, or their leaders to mete out capital punishment for heresy."

Bible verse for that?

Churches or their leaders are normally not civil governement anyway, Christians cannot be considered obliged to stay out of government and army, governments cannot be said to be obliged to abolish forever death penalty.

"They weren't the topic YOU originated. I'm Baptist, not a Protestant."

Baptists are a branch of Protestants.

"Baptists have been persecuted by Catholics (mostly abroad)"

Less than by Protestants. If only because Protestant countries were where they fled to and eventually got persecuted in, but also Baptist community in TRansylvania or where it was after a generation or two was by Inquisition considered as a non-baptised community of heathens and therefore not under the Inquisitors' judgement.

"and Protestants (mostly in America)."

And England.

"Either way, I oppose any such killing over religious doctrine."

That we know.

"So does God."

That you haven't shown.

You have also not answered where Christianity was that year.

If you rule out both Innocent III (since killing) and Albigensians (since heretical about Genesis 1 as well as rest of OT and therefore about a lot of passages in NT as well), where was it?

XII

Two subthreads from other status (and thereofore other thread) previously here, are now on next post. That being : "Sola Scriptura inevitably results in countless contradicting theologies."

HGL's F.B. writings

Pages

vendredi 30 novembre 2018

Michel Snoeck takes the Moderator's View

jeudi 29 novembre 2018

If a FB Debate Goes On after it's Published in Several Subthreads ...

mercredi 28 novembre 2018

Someone admired Kent Hovind without my reservations

mardi 27 novembre 2018

"Sola Scriptura inevitably results in countless contradicting theologies."

lundi 26 novembre 2018

Albigensians and Innocent III - Which was the Christian Side?

Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl

Antworten nach Sorte

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Répliques Assorties

Mes profils FB · my FB profiles · mina FB-profiler

Membres

Archives du blog

Qui êtes-vous ?

En défence de FB