Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
20,682
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 56:
Line 56: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Reverted edits by BL4NK3R (talk) to last revision by Adambro
::::::::"I looked at the article. It's fair about the dispute Reform theology people have with Catholic faith. But the claim on this page that Catholics worship Mary is false. That's the only thing I was talking about. Honestly you really missed my point unless I was unclear about referring directly to the statement Wycliffe made on this page. The article is Ok and now that I see it I will make a note to work on it to include more material explaining the Catholic perspective. Thanks. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 15:28, 31 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::"I looked at the article. It's fair about the dispute Reform theology people have with Catholic faith. But the claim on this page that Catholics worship Mary is false. That's the only thing I was talking about. Honestly you really missed my point unless I was unclear about referring directly to the statement Wycliffe made on this page. The article is Ok and now that I see it I will make a note to work on it to include more material explaining the Catholic perspective. Thanks. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 15:28, 31 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::::"I assumed you would be referring to the article itself, since if a claim is made on a talk page ''but isn't presented in any way in the article'' (which you seem to agree that it's not) then it's irrelevant. Even on this page, Wycliffe states that it is still a point of dispute. Is there anything more you want? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 15:34, 31 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::::"I assumed you would be referring to the article itself, since if a claim is made on a talk page ''but isn't presented in any way in the article'' (which you seem to agree that it's not) then it's irrelevant. Even on this page, Wycliffe states that it is still a point of dispute. Is there anything more you want? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 15:34, 31 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::::You're not reading what I wrote. It's a false claim. He hasn't justified it. All he did was state it and say there's a dispute. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 15:55, 31 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::::::Then go find us some proof that it's false, please. I'm genuinely curious now. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 16:22, 31 December 2010 (EST)
Well, we all agree that some Protestants do believe that way. And we are in agreement that Catholics deny the accusation. There is no obligation on anyone's part to prove either party correct, even if that were possible. But may I also point out that (IMO) the issue doesn't belong on that page anyway. The article is entitled "Virgin Birth" and it deals with the Virgin Birth, not all things that in some way relate to the Virgin. I'm willing to include an explanation of WHY those Protestants who believe Mary is worshipped feel as they do, as well as the reason why Catholics believe that their veneration (Nate's chosen word) of Mary does not constitute worship of her. However, a better way to go would be to strike the line altogether for the reason explained above. How about that? --[[User:Wycliffe|Wycliffe]] 16:57, 31 December 2010 (EST)
:The article is fine but I would appreciate it if you go for it here because I asked you to justify your position. There's no other page here whether it's a discussion or article where the Catholic position on this important issue is set out. I will talk to a priest buddy for guidance on this discussion if you want to talk about this. I'm just a regular guy when it comes to anything but what I believe. I sort of know the best argumnets but I need help on the theological stuff. I'd love to speak with you. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 18:54, 31 December 2010 (EST)
::Going going gone to a party and then to celebrate mass in the morning. Anyone in NW IN is welcome to email me to attend a special new years day devotional mass at the Shrine of Christ's Passion in St. John Indiana. Email me. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]]
== Just pointing out something. ==
Sorry I'm bothering you. I just wanted to say that your recent edit on Premillennialism did indeed clarify many points. But one thing I disagree with is that you wrote that Premillennialism is of fairly recent origin. That's actually untrue, for the church fathers who lived before the 3rd century believed in Premillennialism according to their writings, until Amillennialism became a popular theory.
The writings of Didache and the early theologians, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Ireneaeus, etc, all believed in Premillennialist Postribulationism.
Sorry for bringing this up. Take care. :)
(User:Nashhinton)