|
| Hi
Clement,You
seem
|
|
 |
|
 |
Hi Clement,You seem to enjoy charging me of cniimttmog fallacy of this and that, putting words into my mouth, missed my points, and have a skewed view of history. 1) I don't see it separated.2) I don't know how does my saying that the church's orientation is similar with pro-gay's argument.3) You are free to continue to suspect, but the main point that I made was on the what constitutes ethos.4) You obviously didn't get my point at all. I NEVER charge Roman Catholic being sub-church because of what their priests have done. In fact, I never charge Roman Catholic church as sub-church. As shown in my post, I'm critical to the Roman Catholic as much as I am to non-Roman Catholic. You seem to missed this point again and again even though I have emphasize this a few times already in the post as much as in my comments. My example of using the Methodist church was to emphasize that 1 Cor 3.4 that you quoted applies as much to the Roman Catholic church. The point Paul wrote to the Corinthians with that passage was because the some claimed that followers of Paul were more superior, some claimed that followers of Apollos were more superior. 1 Cor 3.21-23 shed light to this situation.Besides, the very idea of judging each others having sub-doctrines is a question of authority: which authority decides which doctrines are sub? Please bear in your mind that you are conversing with me, not John Chick. And non-Roman Catholic church does not function like Roman Catholic church. Seems that you are not familiar with non-Roman Catholic churches' character; thinking that one official stand of a non-Roman Catholic Christian represents the entire non-Roman Catholic church. Simplistic or not is to the eyes of the beholder. So you are free to think that I am just as I'm free to think that you are.I wrote, "The political ambition of both sides are seen after the post-council argument over canon 28 of the council. Since then there was already a tension between Rome and Constantinople. And such tension bubbled into the great schism in 1054 when both sides excommunicated each other."I know about the filioque controversy but I don't know see how is your invocation of this in any degree affect what I wrote.You wrote, "I took it that your use of "after Constantine's conversion" and "first five centuries" to be equivalent. Anyhow, Constantine made Christianity the state religion before he actually converted to the religion himself. And this "Constantine's political ambition" red-herring smacks of Dan-Brown-style history, which should not be the kind of history a theology student should be giving.First, I am not sure if any informed person who discusses historical topic would equivocate "after Constantine's conversion" with "first five centuries". The only reason that I can think of is that the person confuses over these periods and at the same time think his correspondent share his own confusion.Second, it was NOT Constantine who made Christianity the state religion. It was Theodosius. Constantine only legalized Christianity.Third, you again falsely accused me for things that I didn't say. Not only that, you also accused my personality as a theological student because I seemed to you to be using Dan Brown-style-history, which I am not at all. By your these few sentences alone, I can draw up a list of fallacies, but I'm not into name-calling business which some really enjoy; which I can see that you are into it too.You missed my point entirely on Malaysian churches. Of course I don't have evidents, if I have I don't need to urge churches to investigate. And precisely because we don't have evidents that we need to encourage victims to come out to testify should there be any. (continue..)
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(VISITOR) AUTHOR'S NAME
Ankit
MESSAGE TIMESTAMP
16 december 2014, 13:36:14
AUTHOR'S IP LOGGED
117.175.119.50
|
|
|
|
