My friend Pasquino stumbles on things, then muses on them, like:
I am not an evangelical. What other people believe about an afterlife is their business. What makes me think I know more than somebody else about heaven and hell or even if there are such places? Nobody knows. Be good and decent for the sake of other people not yourself, right?
Also, I never thought people were perfectible. Or that being perfect would get you in faster or make God reward you with riches or better seats, because, as Joe E. Brown’s character said in “Some Like It Hot,” nobody’s perfect.
Now I find out, from Ann Coulter of all people, that we are perfectible. Hallelujah! Everybody can get into heaven as long as they apply themselves and get perfect. Does that mean getting straight A’s? Perfect pitch? Bowling a perfect game? She’s not specific. How does she know that if we perfected ourselves we wouldn’t end up Jewish? God knew the Jews before he knew us. What, did he change his mind? Changing your mind is not the behavior of a supreme being.
So what is perfect? Quick somebody find out Ann Coulter’s dress size and we’ll all know. Was her hair a more Jewish color before she perfected it? Is “mean” the new “perfect”? She has never said anything mean about me, but she does sound like my kids do when they’re hungry. You know, crabby. No surprise there– how much does she eat? Somebody quick feed her! If Ann Coulter ate more she’d be less perfect and maybe a little nicer.
Does she have direct access to God’s divine wisdom? She believes she does. Prophets used to starve themselves in order to have visions, so it’s certainly plausible. Maybe that’s the secret. The less she eats the more she imagines she knows everything.
So Saint Ann says Christians are a perfection of the Jews. Are Muslims a more perfect version of us? Are Mormons even more perfect? Are Moonies the very latest model? Maybe one of those prophets on during pledge week, the ones trying to make us better people, maybe they are the new Messiah.
Somebody call the number and give them Ann Coulter’s cell. She wants to be perfect, and she certainly isn’t — yet.
Pasquino is the nom de plume of Minneapolis writer Eric Hanson.
Great, so now Ann Coulter is a theologian. We know she is a great preacher. Just does as I say, not as I do, just like Jesus taught.
She’s an embarrassment and should be shunned from polite society. She should also be invited to speak at Columbia.
Or St. Thomas. Oh wait.
I think it should be mentioned that when Coulter talks about Jews being perfected, she is talking about one of two things: conversion or death. Deutsch doesn’t follow through on it, but Coulter needs Jews to either accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior or die in the Apocalypse so that the Temple can be rebuilt, Coulter can be raptured, and Jesus can return to earth for a thousand year reign. This is (unfortunately) a mainstream Christian belief in this country and it is what her coded talk of perfection was really about.
http://suddenlysouth.blogspot.com/2007/10/fallwell-himself-said-that.html
As I understand it, Christians believe that the God of Israel, Abram’s god, promised him that his seed would be as numerous as the stars in the sky and the sands on the seashore. They believe that this God spoke to Abraham, and directed his life, and that Abram by his total commitment to obedience to his God became “the father of all who believe (put their trust in Him).”
The further believe that this God continued to speak, by word or intervention in their lives, to the physical descendents of Abraham, through His actions and through the prophets, who — among other things — promised the coming of a descendent of Kind David who would be “The Annointed One” (the Christ, the Messiah), who would establish a permanent and perfect reign over the whole world, where God would reign over all in peace and joy.
And finally, they believe that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed that promised Annointed One, and that his reign has already begun and is progressing toward the restored and perfected world that God promised the descendents of Abraham — the Israelis — through His prophets.
They believe that his “new” commandment, that we love one another to the point of laying down our lives for our fellow human beings as a father would for his children (as he did), is the “fulfillment”, the “perfection” of all the commands of the covenant made at Sinai, and that this new covenant does not abolish but brings to perfection that covenant made with Abraham’s descendents.
The first Christian communities (which were made up of Israelis who accepted the testimony of Jesus followers that he was indeed the promised Messiah) soon accepted the notion that the invitation to become “Children of Abraham” was not extended solely to those descended by blood from Abraham, but more importantly to those to were Abraham’s children in the sense that like him they put their entire trust in Abraham’s god. So Saul of Tarsus (a Jew trained as a rabbi) made it his goal to announce the “Good News” of God’s plan to rescue the entire universe, including ALL men, regardless of physical descent.
In coping with the widespread rejection of Jesus and his message amongst the Israelis, these followers of Jesus saw this rejection as temporary, and believed that eventually the Jewish people would accept “their” Messiah and assume their rightful place as the chosen people in the reign that God had initiated in Jesus’ death and resurrection.
Most Christians today continue to hold this belief. In this context, for Ann Coulter to hope for the conversion of the Jewish people is neither hateful nor arrogant — it is simply the expression of the hopes of those early Israeli Christians that their brothers and sisters would join them at the celebration they believe the Lord has prepared.
Most Christians (in America) also believe that Jesus will return to earth; and that in order for this to happen, Jews must convert or die. If you can wrap your head around thinking that the people who want you to either change your ultimate beliefs or die are neither hateful nor arrogant, by all means, more power to you.
There is nothing hopeful, or positive, or good, or moral, or sane about holding a belief that peace can only come about via the extinction–excuse me, perfection–of another group of people. The only “context” here is that people are willing to suspend rational judgment and violently act against their modern peers based on the very local, very parochial, very immoral, and very incorrect world view of an ancient work of desert fiction.
There was nothing new in the Sermon on the Mount. There is nothing new about Coulter’s willingness to exchange air time for dignity. There is nothing new about the lengths to which people will go to split hairs while justifying the morality of immoral actions committed by their tribe in the name of their Lord.
I grant you this: her comments may have been made in good faith, without hate nor arrogance. If this is the case, then her belief that Jews need to convert or die should be thought of as a necessary precursor to the receipt of Thorazine rather than an admirable mainstream theological position.
“There is nothing new about Coulter’s willingness to exchange air time for dignity.”
whoops…stupid brain…flip that
With all due respect, I submit that the Islamist “convert or die” is not, and — except when politics intervened during the Inquisition (the “Church” never executed anyone)and when Charlemagne for political reasons imposed it — has never been any part of the Christian ethos, and it is not now. On the contrary, it has much more often been the tactic of their enemies, with the Christians praying for forgiveness of those who persecuted them.
To say that acceptance of Jesus by the Jews will precede the return of their Lord does NOT mean anyone at all will be forced to change views — forced change of views was not the way of Jesus or of his followers. To hopefully anticipate something is not to demand it.
Rather, Christians pray that others, including Jews, will “see the light,” hateful rants of those opposed notwithstanding.
Christian or not, truthful dialogue on this or any topic is the best way to mutual understanding, in my view.
How is hopefully anticipating the conversion or death of billions of people (not just Jews) a healthy, beautiful, or moral thing? “Seeing the light” requires more than the emotionality involved with a personal relationship with Jesus; there are theological demands to be met and they’re not pretty for those who are left behind.
I’m not saying that anyone is overtly making this demand (actually, there are people who are hard at work bringing about the end of days by way of red heifer breeding for the Temple ceremony); what I am saying is that there is an extremely wicked, immoral, nasty, etc theological belief at the heart of the modern Christian idea of “perfecting” Jews. The majority of Americans believe that Jesus will return to earth (exceedingly good) and that in order to do so, Jews must convert or die (exceedingly bad). This is absolutely a part of the modern Christian ethos. Even if you don’t believe Coulter is talking about the Apocalypse, the need for conversion is required before the endgame; leaving the convert or die equation in place. I’ve heard the sermons, I’ve sat in the pews, I’ve listened to the preachers go on and on about the coming of Christ and Revelations; in order for this to happen, billions of people need to convert or die. This is what the majority of American Christians believe. This is what people actually pray for. It may not be a demand, but it is implicit in their hopeful anticipation.
Hard to converse with someone who does not listen.
To repeat “or death” is not part of the Christian ethos, and never has been, overtly or otherwise.
I don’t know where you get your distorted views of Christianity, but it is not from any Christian I have ever encountered, whether Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Evangelical, Episcopal, Methodist, or Free Church. While you may have heard this from some pulpit, it surely did not come from any minister who had studied the Scriptures or Christianity as it has manifested itself through the centuries and today.
I am sorry if you were mislead by someone or some splinter group outside the pale, but your broad-brush painting of millions of persons borders on slander, for which correction and apology is the proper response.
It occurs to me that you may be confusing certain matters of faith for Christians.
Christians believe that in Adam the human race broke its tie with God, and began a plunge back to non-existence that inevitably followed. Pain, suffering, and death were not a penalty imposed, but a simple consequence of being cut off by choice from the Source of all life.
When Jesus came to rescue (save) the race, he held out the promise that those who accepted him and his “good news” would live forever, spared the consequences of Adam’s actions.
When Christians hope for the acceptance of Jesus by his own people, it is to spare them the death that is the legacy of all descendents of Adam, not to impose a death sentence.
Does this help understand references to death you may be referring to?
No. I don’t think you have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Do you or do you not believe that Adam was a real person; the first man as created by God?
Where did Jesus himself reference the concept of atonement as it relates to original sin?
Do you or do you not believe that human sacrifice atones for the sins of man?
There was no Adam. Modern humans were in full existence for between 98,000-248,000 years before Jesus may or may not have been hung up on a cross. Not only was the first creation story from Genesis a primitive fabrication, but so was the second one a mere chapter later. Are we to believe that in the time between Lucy and Mt. Sinai that the One True God sat idly by, unwilling to let his creation in on the secret that adultery, killing, perjury, and stealing were bad while treating one as one would like to be treated was a pretty hot idea?
You can’t have this a’la carte. (Especially when you put Paul’s words in Jesus’ mouth.) You can’t cite a person who didn’t exist as a foundation for the fundamental concept of New Testament theology. Don’t tell me “Oh, it’s just a story.” Hogwash. If it is, then it is philosophy; it is Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings.
This ancient scapegoating doctrine is immoral and false. I think I have a clear grasp on the terminology and ideas. Born dirty and commanded to be clean is not a moral idea, let alone a description of the ultimate ends of the universe.
Do you or do you not believe in atonement for original sin? If you are not Christian, I think it is clear that you (correctly) view this as a central truth of Christianity. This sick moral concept doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Where does it lead? It’s payoff IS death. There is no way that you can possibly be taken seriously, even by apologists, if you continue to insist that death is not a part of the Christian ethos. Name me another religion where its adherents wear an execution device around their necks. Christianity is because of death. Death, death, death, death, death. I repeat: if this is your view of Christianity, you have absolutely zero idea of what you are talking about. This isn’t a fringe view. I grew up on this:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
In it, I’m told that I literally eat the body and blood of a dead man. In it, I’m told that a living human had to die to atone for sins I was born into. Here is the current catechism relating to the second coming (as helped along by Herr Ratzinger, the Bishop of Rome):
PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
CHAPTER TWO
I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD
ARTICLE 7
“FROM THENCE HE WILL COME AGAIN TO JUDGE THE LIVING AND THE DEAD”
… 671 Though already present in his Church, Christ’s reign is nevertheless yet to be fulfilled “with power and great glory” by the King’s return to earth.556 This reign is still under attack by the evil powers, even though they have been defeated definitively by Christ’s Passover.557 Until everything is subject to him, “until there be realized new heavens and a new earth in which justice dwells, the pilgrim Church, in her sacraments and institutions, which belong to this present age, carries the mark of this world which will pass, and she herself takes her place among the creatures which groan and travail yet and await the revelation of the sons of God.”558 That is why Christians pray, above all in the Eucharist, to hasten Christ’s return by saying to him:559 Marana tha! “Our Lord, come!”560
672 Before his Ascension Christ affirmed that the hour had not yet come for the glorious establishment of the messianic kingdom awaited by Israel561 which, according to the prophets, was to bring all men the definitive order of justice, love and peace.562 According to the Lord, the present time is the time of the Spirit and of witness, but also a time still marked by “distress” and the trial of evil which does not spare the Church563 and ushers in the struggles of the last days. It is a time of waiting and watching.564
…again, if you continue to insist that death has nothing to do with the Christian ethos, or that the logical and desired outcome for the idea of atonement, of which the entire New Testament theology is centered upon, does not gleefully point towards the apocalypse, then no, you do not know what you are talking about.
No. I don’t think you have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
>I have to wonder who “has the slightest clue.”
Do you or do you not believe that Adam was a real person; the first man as created by God?
>”Adam” in the Hebrew means “Man” or “Mankind.” In reading the Scriptures, one is most likely to interpret them correctly if one knows the language and world in which they were written.
Where did Jesus himself reference the concept of atonement as it relates to original sin?
>Where did I reference the concept of atonement? That is a later Christian theological concept that became popular during the middle and late middle ages. Current scripture scholarship, with insights from biblical archaeological studies, speaks of salvation history — the theological picture of Creation, Breaking of the link by Mankind, and the Rescue (not atonement) by a loving Creator Who wills to bring Mankind and the creation linked to Him by Mankind to the full expression of vibrant existence originally planned for His creation.
>This, by the way, was the “Good News” that converts to Christianity in the Roman Empire heard and accepted. The decorations of ancient basilicas, the “Jeweled Cross” (not the crucifix) bear witness.
Do you or do you not believe that human sacrifice atones for the sins of man?
>It was Jesus’ obedience, even unto death (like Abraham’s and unlike Mankinds in Adam) that brought about the initiation of a restored creation in the New Adam, himself. To see Human sacrifice (ala the Aztecs and some pre-Christian faithes) as a Christian concept — for atonement or any other reason — is absurd.
There was no Adam.
>There was no Mankind? Hmmm.
Modern humans were in full existence for between 98,000-248,000 years before Jesus may or may not have been hung up on a cross.
>I will agree that for some Christians who attempt to make a 19th Centry science-history text out of a theological treatise from times long before “scientific history” was even conceived of, this might be a problem. The problem, however, is in this mistaken “literal” reading of the Scriptures.
>To my way of thinking, the “literal” meaning of a text must be ascertained by determining what it meant to those to whom it was first addressed. Since those readers were concerned about the theological affirmations being made (No dual divinities and no battles between good and evil as proposed by the neighboring cultures’ creation stories) tha the god of Israel alone created all that exists from nothing.
>In context, the “how” is not important except to iterate over and over that everything was included. (This was the Hebrew way to emphasize a point — say it over and over in different ways, as in the psalms). It was the doctrinal affirmation that was of interest. If that be true for us as well, evolution is not a problem: how God did it is not the point. That He did it is.
Not only was the first creation story from Genesis a primitive fabrication, but so was the second one a mere chapter later.
>Doesn’t the fact that the two stories are openly laid side by side, the one being about waters covering the earth (a restatement of the flood stories from the Tigris-Euphrates area) and the other about dry and lifeless starting points (a redaction of the desert stories about beginnings) hint to you that the details of how were not important? If you lived when these writings were first presented, the point you would have taken is that both stories need to be recast to show that the God of Israel (alone) made and is Lord of all that we see about us.
Are we to believe that in the time between Lucy and Mt. Sinai that the One True God sat idly by, unwilling to let his creation in on the secret that adultery, killing, perjury, and stealing were bad while treating one as one would like to be treated was a pretty hot idea?
>Once again, comparing this “code” to similar codes in existence at the time (e.g. Hammurabi’s), is the best way to gain insight into it’s meaning. And to note the context: this was not a “laying down of the law” but a Covenant — a special form of personal agreement unique to the middle east at that time. That the terms of the covenant echoed behavioral mandates already long established in that culture is not surprising. What IS surprising is that the common mandates contained in covenants (taxes, tribute, armies, etc) are missing.
You can’t have this a’la carte. (Especially when you put Paul’s words in Jesus’ mouth.) You can’t cite a person who didn’t exist as a foundation for the fundamental concept of New Testament theology. Don’t tell me “Oh, it’s just a story.” Hogwash. If it is, then it is philosophy; it is Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings.
>Sober historians would have a problem with these gratuitous affirmations. Sorry — no other way to say you are in error here. Too much historical and archaeological evidence to the contrary. And my position is that it is your statements that represent “a/la carte.”
This ancient scapegoating doctrine is immoral and false. I think I have a clear grasp on the terminology and ideas. Born dirty and commanded to be clean is not a moral idea, let alone a description of the ultimate ends of the universe.
>Are you referring to the concept of “original sin?” If evil is seen as a “falling short” of what something should and could be, and not an actual entity, then I see no problem here: If mankind broke the link with Life by refusing obedience to his creator, plunging back to nothingness was the inevitable result, not a “punishment.” And Mankind, having broken the link, is powerless to re-establish it, save by a return to acceptance of God as God.
>I don’t know where this “born dirty and commanded to be clean” stuff comes from except perhaps from teachers who did not know their topic and made up images instead.
>The description of the ultimate origins of the universe — and it’s ultimate ends — contained in the scriptures and the faith of knowledgeable Christians is a very possible and reasonable world-view which is neither affirmed not denied by “science”, as it is beyond its purview. It all depends, however, on whether one is ready to accept that this God did speak to men at times in the past and does today, and explained that this is what it is all about.
Do you or do you not believe in atonement for original sin? If you are not Christian, I think it is clear that you (correctly) view this as a central truth of Christianity.
>As noted above, “atonement” is a later theological theory, and certainly not a “central truth of Christianity.”
This sick moral concept doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Where does it lead? It’s payoff IS death.
>I have seen this distortion of Christian belief advanced before — a straw man set up to allow pot-shots. As stated before, death is simply a logical eventual consequence of cutting oneself (or the race) off from the Source of all creation and of life itself.
There is no way that you can possibly be taken seriously, even by apologists, if you continue to insist that death is not a part of the Christian ethos. Name me another religion where its adherents wear an execution device around their necks. Christianity is because of death. Death, death, death, death, death. I repeat: if this is your view of Christianity, you have absolutely zero idea of what you are talking about. This isn’t a fringe view. I grew up on this:
>”I have come that they may have life, and have it more abundantly” was the message of Jesus. “Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your sting” is the context in which death is dealt with in the scriptures.
>If “Death, death, death, death, death.” was the environment in which you grew up, then I sadly propose that you have never heard the “Good News,” which explained that death for those who accept the new creation initiated by Jesus of Nazareth has become only a door to a richer and fuller existence.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
In it, I’m told that I literally eat the body and blood of a dead man. In it, I’m told that a living human had to die to atone for sins I was born into. Here is the current catechism relating to the second coming (as helped along by Herr Ratzinger, the Bishop of Rome):
> “body and blood of a dead man” — it is at the very heart of Christian belief that “He is risen” from the dead, and is not dead. Participation in the Christian mysteries — being swept to the moment in time when the one and final offering of obedience to the Father — and participating in that act of obedience by the communal meal as commanded by Jesus “in remembrance of him” is hardly the garish caricature you make of it.
PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
CHAPTER TWO
I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD
>Remember, “believe” means “put my trust in.”
ARTICLE 7
“FROM THENCE HE WILL COME AGAIN TO JUDGE THE LIVING AND THE DEAD”
… 671 Though already present in his Church, Christ’s reign is nevertheless yet to be fulfilled “with power and great glory” by the King’s return to earth.556 This reign is still under attack by the evil powers, even though they have been defeated definitively by Christ’s Passover.557 Until everything is subject to him, “until there be realized new heavens and a new earth in which justice dwells, the pilgrim Church, in her sacraments and institutions, which belong to this present age, carries the mark of this world which will pass, and she herself takes her place among the creatures which groan and travail yet and await the revelation of the sons of God.”558 That is why Christians pray, above all in the Eucharist, to hasten Christ’s return by saying to him:559 Marana tha! “Our Lord, come!”560
672 Before his Ascension Christ affirmed that the hour had not yet come for the glorious establishment of the messianic kingdom awaited by Israel561 which, according to the prophets, was to bring all men the definitive order of justice, love and peace.562 According to the Lord, the present time is the time of the Spirit and of witness, but also a time still marked by “distress” and the trial of evil which does not spare the Church563 and ushers in the struggles of the last days. It is a time of waiting and watching.564
…again, if you continue to insist that death has nothing to do with the Christian ethos, or that the logical and desired outcome for the idea of atonement, of which the entire New Testament theology is centered upon, does not gleefully point towards the apocalypse, then no, you do not know what you are talking about.
>Sorry, I see to conflict between what I have said and these statements from a “catechism,” which in any case certainly has not the status of revealed teachings for any Christian, Catholic or otherwise.
>Perhaps it depends on the eyes with which one reads it. I maintain that the Christian ethos is about Life, not death. About how to live forever, not how to die. It is an invitation to Life, though there are references, of course, to the consequences of declining the invitation — not as punishment, but as the otherwise normal end of things.
Oh my. Behold! The revelation of John Iacono! Let me do my best to answer your questions and assertions:
1- Where did you reference the concept of atonement?
And I quote:
“When Jesus came to rescue (save) the race, he held out the promise that those who accepted him and his “good news” would live forever, spared the consequences of Adam’s actions.”
This is a really sad and/or stunning oversight and it should be a fatal flaw to your entire argument. This IS atonement. How is Adam’s original sin forgiven by God? By the acceptance of Jesus Christ. In the catechism of the Catholic Church (which you gave quotations to…another mark of true understanding), Jesus substitutes his obedience for our disobedience; he “atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.” The entire concept of atonement (like hell) is simply made up in the New Testament and tacked on to existing Jewish belief. Unfortunately, it is tacked on to something we know is false: the creation story.
2- Adam really means man or mankind.
You tip your cap on this one by writing “Christians believe that in Adam the human race broke its tie with God, and began a plunge back…” yadda, yadda. Please, substitute “mankind” into that sentence. You don’t even believe it, do you? “Christians believe that in mankind (or man) the human race broke its tie with God, and began a plunge back…” Perhaps this is your last line of defense. Who knows? Whatever it is, you apply it unevenly at best and fail to understand it at worst. What did the human race do before mankind? You better ask a biologist, because you’ve wandered off the Biblical reservation on this one. No matter how you read it, there is no defense for the creation story in the Bible. From man and animal “as-is” creation to dual stories to hopelessly incorrect views of our celestial bodies, it is false. Please tell me again how understanding the Hebrew text gives you new and valuable insight to something that can be disproved scores of different ways.
3- Jesus’ obedience (as referenced above in the central New Testament theme that you do not seem to understand) made a new mankind (Adam). Therefore, I don’t see human sacrifice in Christianity.
Was he or was he not put to death on the cross? Was he or was he not put to death on the cross to, as you say, “spare” you the consequences of Adam’s actions. You seem to understand atonement here; I wonder why you have a 2nd hand grasp of it elsewhere. Jesus needs to DIE for you to avoid the consequences of Adam’s actions. These are your words. I know you are fond of claiming I build up straw men, but you really have no where to run. Jesus needs to die to allow you to be spared of the consequences of a man who didn’t exist and/or of a concept you don’t actually believe. Let’s say that I really like you. Let’s say that I like you so much that I go to jail for you for a hypothetical crime. I can’t forgive your crime. I can’t absolve what you did. I can take the punishment for you, but I can’t take the sin. Even if I grant you the remote possibility that human sacrifice isn’t involved in the Bible, you end up with an immoral position.
This is a long post. I have a few more things to say but I need to run. I’ll respond to the rest later.
One more thing:
4- Atonement is “certainly” not a central truth of Christianity.
I’m simply speechless on this one. I’m actually questioning whether or not I should continue to argue with you. If you don’t accept this one, you’re on your own island.
You know what? I’m done with a point-by-point critique. I’ve given you 4 big points that you are wrong on and the rest is gravy. What “historical and archaeological evidence” do you have to the contrary? Have you found Moses? The Ark?
If you have not heard “born dirty and commanded to be clean” then I doubt you have read and understood the Bible.
You know what; I’m done with this. Done, done, done. Until you can answer 1-4, I’m done. You really have no idea what you are talking about. There are no straw men here. You can’t misunderstand atonement to such an extent and be given any benefit of the doubt until you explain yourself.
For responses to your objections, PLEASE just re-read what I have written, and try not to twist it into something I have not written. Please also read your comments, which in fact presented the quote from the catholic source. I only copied your quote (don’t even know where you got it from) to comment on it, along with the rest of your blog.
In any case, I’m tired of this apparently pointless discussion, and will comment no more.
Good, because you continue to make zero sense. I’m perfectly willing to let it stand as is and let people make up their own minds. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and you can’t escape massive errors in your view of atonement, Adam, and so on and so forth. Please, be done with it.
One final thing. People should see this quote on its own:
“>Sorry, I see to conflict between what I have said and these statements from a “catechism,” which in any case certainly has not the status of revealed teachings for any Christian, Catholic or otherwise.”
Yes, the Catholic catechism certainly does not have the status of revealed teachings for the Catholic Church.
Yikes, thanks for playing.