₦airaland Forum

^^^ Your complaint is your complaint.

Your actions are still hypocritical!

Simples.

italo: You dont seem to get it.

My point is: if I do the same thing my adversaries do, why am I the only one getting banned.

Could it be because I'm Catholic?

AFAIK she has already addressed your concern about your ban.

Complaining about something that you do as well and of which you do even worse IS hypocrisy.

Simples.

italo: Dont just jump to conclusions. Read from my first post to humbledbygrace.

This is my first ever complaint on this thread. Infact, I have hardly ever commented on this thread. I complained because I was banned for "insulting other members." So I asked what the insult was and how it was worse than other comments that go unpunished. She said I called someone "satan" and "Atheists dont like it" (even though I was actually referring to satan himself, but that aside) - I then asked if she would ban any Atheist that called Christians "retards,""fools""crazy" etc and any anti-Catholic that called Catholics "demonic" and "satanic" because Catholics-Christians dont like those. She said yes. Then I reported an anti-Catholic that said the pope was praying to his fellow demons...and humbledbygrace wont do anything about that.

Sir, where have I gone wrong?

Where have I been hypocritical?

Look, what specific reference did I make to your complaint about being banned?

The only thing specific that I said with a bearing on your activity here is your complaint about "follow demons". And I maintan that that is a highly hypocritical complaint.

You do as much if not worse!

Ishilove: Whew!! I'm not envying the mods right now...

One thing that I find is that most of the people who complain are in fact hypocrites.

No question that the Mods are still finding their feet and yes making mistakes.

Yes, HBG might have been more mindful and tactful about the 'latest' complaint i.e. the one about "follow demons" specifically (not even the gays aspect --- which seems what some are picking on). On the other hand I sympathise with her as the group concerned have mounted a not so subtle campaign to have her and perhaps one specific other Mod removed (or at least scrutinised rather closely) such that sometimes it had the appearance of a witch hunt.

As I said before, the worst they will do is have their undesired Mods removed and then have their own candidates installed.

Then what? Ban everyone who does not accept the "authority" or "infallibility" of the "pope"?

We have been declared anathema anyway - for all the hypocrisy about "separated brethren" yadayada nonsense!

Happy Sunday and sursum corda!

^^^ It's all good.

I am not anti "Catholic"; I am not even "anti" Roman Catholic!

I am: pro Christian and pro catholic.*

* catholic with a very deliberate small 'c'.

Your falsehood has been obvious a long time ago! Of course Alfa and even one of your fellow Catholics pointed it out early. Not to talk of those who chose not to say anything.

Your games with the Mod thing were noticed by many --- not to talk of those who kept quiet.

I wager, you are continuing to make a campaign for Mod --- either here or in another section. When you get it, we will send you congratulations.

Meanwhile, if Catholics talk identifiable falsehood (as they frequently do), I hope it always gets pointed out. Call it "anti-Catholic bias". Of course now you develop short memory when it is convenient and forget when I was defending Bergoglio only recently. Yeah right, even that is anti-Catholic bias.

Buzz me when they make you moderator somewhere.

striktlymi:
Now your true colour comes out...

PS: That is not my post.

OK I got the posters mixed up. Nevertheless I stand by my point.

More to the point about your last post. I have seen your own true colours a looong time ago!

Funny thing is that sooo many people saw it during the campaign for MOD saga.

So I say another one: the bolded in your last post is idiotic.

^^^ And your post that I quote below especially the bolded is idiotic. Do not allow your own "sentiments" blind your own reason.

Syncan: It is indeed a mighty whip and your proud self cannot admit it. You've began to allow your anti-catholic bias to affect your job. Italo and Striktlymi banned for flimsy excuses that needed seun to come to rescue. I hope its not yet too long a time to recollect the events that led to having you there in the first place. My eyes are on you.

HumbledbYGrace: you don't know what your talking about.

Do not worry all that much about such. Just perform your tasks to the best of your abilities.

Even if they get you removed and put their candidate in the position -- so what?

Takia

For purposes of cross reference, below is the link to a very related thread.

From catholic to "Catholic" and Back to catholic

https://www.nairaland.com/1257440/catholic-catholic-back-catholic

For anyone interested, there is a related thread that further shows that Roman Catholics are falsely/fraudulently claiming things done (or done mostly) by other people --- especially the Church/es to which people like Ignatius belonged.

Eastern Orthodox - The Orthodox CATHOLIC Church

https://www.nairaland.com/1254965/eastern-orthodox-church-orthodox-catholic

Thanks for understanding

I pray to God it is not false humility. Honestly, please forgive me and 'let this pass'.

I can't do it.

^^ When you see your Anglican "friend", tell him that!

@Drummaboy

Ah, please no no no no bros! It is the very last thing I want to do.

Honestly, I generally prefer to be in the background --- except I find I can't stop getting into ruckus every now and then!

Ubenedictus: you brought on the issue of anathema, so you are ignorant of the stuff you've been talking about?

Of course you want to dodge! You forgot that you are the one who brought up the issue of heresy!

So, what heresy did the Church of Antioch commit that made the Roman Catholic Church declare them "anathema"?

Ubenedictus: i didn't say they did, i clearly told you my source.

Your source is irrelevant to me ---- insofar as it contradicts the words of Jesus Christ Himself: where two or three gather in my name there am I!

Ubenedictus: the last time a checked scriptures clearly show a church with both presbyter and bishops. Your 'church' without them is exactly that 'your church'.

Show us where you find "pope" in the Bible?
Show us who was the "bishop" of the churches that met in houses as the Bible referred to?
Show us who who was "pope" and who was "bishop" of where during the Acts 15 council.

Meanwhile, I repeat for good measure!

Ubenedictus: ignatuis did.

Jesus Christ did not!

The apostles did not!

The Bible does not!

None of these three says "nothing should be done without the bishop"!

Ubenedictus: And for non protestant christians tradition is consider a source of doctrine.

You follow your "tradition" and we are happy to go with the words of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself that where two or three gather in His name, He is there!

And the Roman Catholic Church should stop being so idiotic trying to claim "jurisdiction" or "authority" over people who are following Jesus words over its "traditions".

Edited

Ubenedictus: are you saying that it is imposible for the church of antioch to fall into heresy after the death of ignatius? That is rubbish. Everything i explained is exactly on point, got back a do a little study.
Just to be clear it wasn't the church under him that was anathemized.

All I know is that despite all its claiming of Ignatius, the Roman Catholic Church currently declares the Church to which Ignatius belonged --- "anathema"!

And before you go defaming them (as is the way of the Roman Catholic Church) tell us what the Church of Antioch did to earn the anathema from the Roman Catholic Church.

Ubenedictus: that is what i call grasping at straws, if you wish to discuss catholic attitude to anglican orders then open a thread on it.

Nah, I am making fun of an alliance on this thread and the members of the alliance based on their own posts -- on this thread!

Ubenedictus: ignatuis did.

Jesus Christ did not!

The apostles did not!

The Bible does not!

None of these three says "nothing should be done without the bishop"!

Ubenedictus: And for non protestant christians tradition is consider a source of doctrine.

You follow your "tradition" and we are happy to go with the words of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself that where two or three gather in His name, He is there!

And the Roman Catholic Church should stop being so idiotic trying to claim "jurisdiction" or "authority" over people who are following Jesus words over its "traditions".

Edited

Ubenedictus: and what is your point? Ever since the times of nestorius local churches has been placed under anathema irrespective of their saintly and catholic bishops of the past. If antioch enspouse an anathemize heresy then she anathemize herself irrespective of whether or not ignatuis was once bishop of antioch

Ubenedictus: just the same way a council claimed cyril and declear it church anathema. If the church enspouse heresy she is anathema. As simple as a b c

And here the duplicity of Roman Catholic apologists and the fraudulent sham of Roman Catholic arguments exposed.

1. They say their church is called "Catholic" because Ignatius gave that name to the church: but they declare Ignatius' own church "anathema"

2. They say Ignatius was a "Catholic": but they declare Ignatius' own church "anathema"

3. They say Ignatius is the one who says we must do nothing without bishops: but they declare Ignatius' own church "anathema"

Ubenedictus: the last time i checked he didn't ask. You are now grasping straws

I never said he asked; I simply asked you to inform him.

And obviously, I am making fun of your uneasy alliance --- both sides of it.

One side says to or at least of the other: 'you are heretics without apostolic succession and your ordinations/orders are absolutely null and utterly void!' And the other side says ......... (fill in the blanks)!

Meanwhile, let me remind you of this!

Ubenedictus: Just as there is no church without Jesus nothing should be done without the bishop.

When you find where Jesus Christ, any of the apostles or anywhere in the Bible says "nothing should be done without the bishop", call me!

Ubenedictus: you brought up ignatuis, i decided to join you and you are crying about 'underming the teaching of Jesus', do you speak with two mouths?

Is Ignatius' Church "anathema" or not?

Ubenedictus: Or maybe it is just because the anglican communion is truly protestant and has rejected the teaching of the says tradition is also a source of doctrine?

I don ask you to tell your Anglican supporter that the Anglican "community" is not a Church but a "community" (of heretics? - your word earlier); and that the Anglicans do not have "apostolic succession". Not only that their ordinations/orders are "absolutely null and utterly void."

Ya own two mouths no gree you tell am abi na muscle catch you for mouth?

^^^ And the Roman Catholic Church is not speaking with four mouths? lol

Especially when Roman Catholics claim Ignatius but declare his Church "anathema."

^ I understand and indeed I am trying to be understanding. At the same time I am trying to be gently firm --- because I consider that necessary.

If you mean taking back the calling of others "judaizers", that is OK as in my view it goes against the spirit of this thread.

The real point I was making was that using the term in such manner is compounded/worsened by the fact that, in my view, you are in error to suggest that a Christian cannot/does not sin -- no matter how that is interpreted.

christemmbassey: i wish to God that every christian wd realise who he/she really is, without which he/she remain a judaizer no matter what he/e think. Peace.

This is the kind of thing I feared.

And to say you are in blatant error and calling others "judaizers"!

Smh

@ All

I am very sorry I had to make that last two posts contrary to my own suggestion not to debate/argue. I will try again to exercise restraint. And I recommend once more that this matter be moved to a new thread as I believe it is already soiling the Convention thread.

It doesn't matter where you start from. The fact is he saw himself as a sinner before God and man.

Edit: This means he realised his sin --- contrary to what you said!

christemmbassey: yes, d KEY word, HE REALISE what? Himself, that he is a SON to a very rich man, he did not realise his sin, but who he was, is this too hard to undastand?

Luke 15

From the mouth of The Prodigal Son

18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.

19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants

^^ I really like that "cat and pig" analogy very much and that is why I borrowed it from belabela to include it in my presentation.