On 08/09/2020 05:17 PM, T wrote:
But as I said before, in aggregate, despite how
frustrating the Romans can be at times, they are still
a force for good in the world and are still my
brothers and sisters in Christ. And I say this as
a former Roman Catholic who skin crawls when I
come is contact with the Roman church. (My
stated reason for leaving was that I make
a terrible secular humanist and a worse communist.)

As a former Roman Catholic, departing about the time of Vatican II, I
don't have a dog in the fight although I find observing dog fights fun.
Particularly when Protestants are involved I'll egg on the Catholic dog.

Were I to suddenly desire to return to the fold Orthodox might be an
option. For that matter if I were younger, emigrating to Russia might be
an option. After the Communist foolishness they appear to be determined
to be a Christian country. Not many of those around anymore.

On 08/09/2020 05:01 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-08-09 09:59, rbowman wrote:
otoh, the thought process of Protestants always baffles me. The 33,000
different denominations is probably overstated but there are a lot
when you count all the unaffiliated groups. My wife's church shopping
had
more to do with finding a cozy group rather than any doctrinal matters.

Especially when they are 98% the same. And the bible
teaches us not to squabble over such things.


I have the sneaky feeling most could not explain the Trinity in their
own words without falling into one of the heresies. Mohamed knew his
audience and realized they didn't have a chance in the world. Joseph
Smith tiptoed around it rather adroitly.

But that's back to filoque.

On 2020-08-09 18:15, rbowman wrote:
On 08/09/2020 05:01 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-08-09 09:59, rbowman wrote:
otoh, the thought process of Protestants always baffles me. The 33,000
different denominations is probably overstated but there are a lot
when you count all the unaffiliated groups. My wife's church shopping
had
more to do with finding a cozy group rather than any doctrinal matters.

Especially when they are 98% the same.Â* And the bible
teaches us not to squabble over such things.


I have the sneaky feeling most could not explain the Trinity in their
own words without falling into one of the heresies. Mohamed knew his
audience and realized they didn't have a chance in the world. Joseph
Smith tiptoed around it rather adroitly.

But that's back to filoque.

Hi R,

Joseph Smith created his on polytheistic religion and
reused Christian names. He was quite artful indeed.

The filoque came about because the Roman church wanted to be "academic"
(use "Logic") to explain the Trinity:

The love of the Father for the Son and the Son for
the Father created a third entity called the Holy
Spirit.

This is not Jesus' teaching (Bible) and not that of
the ecumenical councils, the Bible being a product of
the first ecumenical council at Nicaea.

Do you also notice the similarity to the Buddhist belief
in "non-duality"?

The ancient church explains the Trinity this way. It is the
way God chose to present himself to us:

God who loves me and created me (Father)

God who stand beside me and loves me and teaches me (Jesus)

God who is inside me and love me (the Holy Spirit).

Interesting oops in the above. Mary gave birth to
her creator. We are not picky.

-T

On 2020-08-09 18:10, rbowman wrote:
On 08/09/2020 05:17 PM, T wrote:
But as I said before, in aggregate, despite how
frustrating the Romans can be at times, they are still
a force for good in the world and are still my
brothers and sisters in Christ.Â* And I say this as
a former Roman Catholic who skin crawls when I
come is contact with the Roman church.Â* (My
stated reason for leaving was that I make
a terrible secular humanist and a worse communist.)

As a former Roman Catholic, departing about the time of Vatican II, I
don't have a dog in the fight although I find observing dog fights fun.
Particularly when Protestants are involved I'll egg on the Catholic dog.

That kind of infighting is stupid. The enemy is not each other, but satin.

On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 19:15:17 -0600, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:


I have the sneaky feeling

I have the sneaky feeling you ARE nothing but a senile blabbermouth.

But that's back to filoque.

It's "filioque", senile moron!

On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 19:10:43 -0600, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:


As a former Roman Catholic, departing about the time of Vatican II, I
don't have a dog in the fight

Guess who gives a ****, senile blabbermouth!

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 01:11:42 -0700, T wrote:

On 2020-08-09 18:10, rbowman wrote:
On 08/09/2020 05:17 PM, T wrote:
But as I said before, in aggregate, despite how
frustrating the Romans can be at times, they are still
a force for good in the world and are still my
brothers and sisters in Christ.* And I say this as
a former Roman Catholic who skin crawls when I
come is contact with the Roman church.* (My
stated reason for leaving was that I make
a terrible secular humanist and a worse communist.)

As a former Roman Catholic, departing about the time of Vatican II, I
don't have a dog in the fight although I find observing dog fights fun.
Particularly when Protestants are involved I'll egg on the Catholic dog.

That kind of infighting is stupid. The enemy is not each other, but satin.


I give satin a pass for it's great sheets, but velour and corduroy have
some explaining to do.