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.