(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)
Welcome
Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."
God bless you...
Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."
God bless you...
Response to a message by Brewer's "people"
|
I happened upon this forum purely by accident, and read some of the messages....for the most part the messages and discussions, were intelligent...However, I read one that actually made me laugh. It was regarding a response to someone who had posted a question/comment about the Catholic church. The original question/comment was itself, a good one; but the answer by Mr. Bartholomew Brewer's "people" was not. If you are Catholic, it is important to remember that not everything from the bible is literal. Do we actually drink blood in church on Sunday..no....but we drink wine, which strictly symbolizes the blood and sacrifice of Christ. Mr Brewer is an ex-Catholic priest, who at one point in his life became lost, because he thought the Church was duping him into believeing that every word of the bible was literal. He was mistaken, and fell away from the church. Now, in various forums, he tries to pollute Catholic minds into believing that what the church teaches are lies. In fact, they are not. If you are Catholic, then you know that the essence of everything you have been taught, has been based on faith. Something, that Mr. Brewer lost many years ago. He doubted, and wanted proof... We do not need proof; we have faith; that is why we are Catholics. I pray that all you Catholics trust your faith, especially when you read articles by those anti-Catholic persecutors that are out there. |
to:
Messages
Outline:
Adoi, No Need to Paranoia by 'Santa' Monica, 2001, Apr 06
reply by af29, 2001, Apr 06
Not Say I Want to Said One by 'Santa' Monica, 2001, Apr 06
MORE LIKE THE CHRISTIANS TELLING THE JEWS WERE WRONG, 2001, Apr 06
af29 said: "I repeat: Catholics do not need proof." by Christopher Yip, 2001, Apr 06
Untitled by af29, 2001, Apr 06
SO IS EVERY CHRISTIAN LED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, 2001, Apr 06
Untitled, 2001, Apr 06
Not All Christians Appointed Teachers, Apostles. /nt by Matthew Tan Yew Hock, 2001, Apr 11
CONVERSELY SOME ARE APPOINTED - NOT JUST ONE !, 2001, Apr 11
All devout followers have the ability to be teachers...it's a choice......., 2001, Apr 11
Only one is appointed the "rock", "key-bearer", "confirmer of the brethen" by Matthew Tan Yew Hock, 2001, Apr 12
PAUL REBUKED PETER FOR WHAT ?, 2001, Apr 12
Rebuking Peter, Yet Paul Needed His Support and Blessing (Gal 1 and 2) by Matthew Tan Yew Hock, 2001, Apr 13
But Paul Did Not SUBMIT TO PETER'S "AUTHORITY" by Christopher Yip, 2001, Apr 14 
Yes, you are right: the Pope is Peter...but all Christians can "teach" or lead others, 2001, Apr 12
Yes! The Rock is Christ, Keys Given to ALL Apostles, Peter - Primacy of HONOUR ONLY! by Christopher Yip, 2001, Apr 14 
? - True Light, 2001, Apr 06
Untitled, 2001, Apr 06
Do you mean baptised in Jesus name ONLY?, 2001, Apr 07
Catholic Baptize In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit by Matthew Tan Yew Hock, 2001, Apr 11
"the Pope is human...he can make mistakes" - THANK YOU! by Christopher Yip, 2001, Apr 07
Infallibility - No mistakes under very limited conditions /nt by Matthew Tan Yew Hock, 2001, Apr 11 
Like Honorius on Monotheletism and Zosimus on Pelagianism - both of which are HERESIES even in the RCC! (eom) by Christopher Yip, 2001, Apr 14
Not all Popes' teachings are infallible. For Pope Zosimus and Honorius, read: by Matthew Tan Yew Hock, 2001, Apr 15
Read the rebuttals ... by Christopher Yip, 2001, Apr 15
Rebutting James White. In Defence of Pope Zosimus by Matthew Tan Yew Hock, 2001, May 18
Rebutted here.... by Matthew Tan Yew Hock, 2001, May 18 
Untitled by jcmarshall@hotmail.com, 2001, Apr 06
Or could it simply be your own self-deception ... by Christopher Yip, 2001, Apr 08
ARGUMENT IS ONLY MEANINGFUL IF ARGUE ON ONE REFERENCE, 2001, Apr 08
Untitled, 2001, Apr 09
I understand. by Christopher Yip, 2001, Apr 10 
Lewis is right......and wrong by Seeker, 2001, Apr 10
To Seeker: Not quite the conclusion by Christopher Yip, 2001, Apr 10
Positive vs negative evidence by Seeker, 2001, Apr 10
SIGNATURE OF GOD; HANDWRITING OF GOD, 2001, Apr 11
checked out amazon, reviews for signature of God is poor (nt) by CH , 2001, Apr 11
On your probability calculations by Interested , 2001, Apr 11
SIMPLE MATHEMATICS, 2001, Apr 12
Sorry, it is not so simple. by Interested , 2001, Apr 12
THERE IS NOTHING MATHEMATICAL ABOUT THE FACT THAT GOD EXISTS, 2001, Apr 12
I agree with you on this. by Interested , 2001, Apr 13
REFERENCE ONL Y MADE TO CHRIST FULFILLING PROPHECIES, 2001, Apr 12
So you agree ..... by Interested , 2001, Apr 13
WHATEVER I SAY IS ON THE CONTRARY IF YOU UNDERSTAND PROBABILITY, 2001, Apr 13 
LEFT OUT TEXT, 2001, Apr 13
I guessed what you were trying to say but ... by Interested , 2001, Apr 14
I think the point being made is... by edmund, 2001, Apr 14
OTHER PROPHECIES IN OT ARE NOT SURE EVENTS UNLESS GOD INTERVENES, 2001, Apr 14
Hi Seeker...proves that one can only come to God if God chooses it... by edmund, 2001, Apr 15
Do you also disagree with Lewis? by Seeker, 2001, Apr 16
I both agree and disagree with Lewis...borrowing your phrase..ahem... by edmund, 2001, Apr 16
Question for Edmund by Seeker, 2001, Apr 18
Hey Edmund, answering this one? (eom) by Seeker, 2001, Apr 20
And I was just beginning to enjoy asking all the questions!.... by edmund, 2001, Apr 21
You're right, they don't cut it with me by Seeker, 2001, Apr 23
Some points of clarification by edmund, 2001, Apr 23
Evolution as an example of scientific acceptability by Seeker, 2001, Apr 24
But the salmon is still salmon, not a totally new species of fish by edmund, 2001, Apr 25
It's just the beginning of the process by Seeker, 2001, Apr 25
Very interesting statement by edmund, 2001, Apr 25
But not exactly what you made of it by Seeker, 2001, Apr 25
My basis for belief in God not different at all by edmund, 2001, Apr 26
Question by Seeker, 2001, Apr 26
LET'S LOOK AT mtDNA FOR HUMANS INSTEAD, 2001, Apr 26
Weight of evidence by Seeker, 2001, Apr 27
Answer to your question by edmund, 2001, Apr 27
Beginning to see why we can't agree by Seeker, 2001, Apr 27
GOSH!!! WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE STILL TRYING TO LINK SCIENCE AND GOD???!!!, 2001, Apr 27
More Comments by edmund, 2001, Apr 28
To Seeker and Edmund by Interested , 2001, Apr 16
Question for Seeker by edmund, 2001, Apr 16
Curiosity, I think by Seeker, 2001, Apr 18
Hmmmmmmm by edmund, 2001, Apr 19
Hmmmmmmmm by Seeker, 2001, Apr 19
Hmmmmmmmm more....... by edmund, 2001, Apr 20
Science will do by Seeker, 2001, Apr 20
Define Scientific Acceptability by edmund, 2001, Apr 20
Hi Seeker, you answering this one? by edmund, 2001, Apr 21
more additions..... by edmund, 2001, Apr 22
Scientific acceptability is......... by Seeker, 2001, Apr 23
Hello! by Benjamin, 2001, Apr 23
A BIG hello too! by Seeker, 2001, Apr 23
Evolution and evolution theories by Seeker, 2001, Apr 24
Sir Isaac Newton on gravity by Interested , 2001, Apr 24
Salmon for lunch? by Benjamin, 2001, Apr 25
No thanks, don't like salmon by Seeker, 2001, Apr 25
Still it is not science by Benjamin, 2001, Apr 25
What is evolution? by Seeker, 2001, Apr 25
What evolution is by Benjamin, 2001, Apr 26
Horse evolution by Seeker, 2001, Apr 25
Horsing around with evolution by Benjamin, 2001, Apr 26
Of Transitional Fossils by edmund, 2001, Apr 29
one missing fossil link, 2001, Apr 29
i forgot another...., 2001, Apr 29
Examples by Seeker, 2001, Apr 30
Yes, following the "feathered" dinos closely. And thanks for the website. Must look see n/t by edmund, 2001, Apr 30
Hi Seeker! by Interested , 2001, Apr 24
Hi Interested by Seeker, 2001, Apr 24
To Seeker, by Interested , 2001, Apr 24
top to bottom...bottom to top...front to back........, 2001, Apr 24
On Science and Religion. by Interested , 2001, Apr 25
Front to back? by Seeker, 2001, Apr 25
Reply to Seeker by Interested , 2001, Apr 25
Implications of evolution by Seeker, 2001, Apr 25
Hi Seeker on the Afro-American gals by Interested , 2001, Apr 25
BRAVO!!!! Well said........, 2001, Apr 25
Faith = unscientific = rubbish? by Seeker, 2001, Apr 26
Reply to Seeker by Interested , 2001, Apr 26
Different lenses by Seeker, 2001, Apr 27
And as Christians, it stupifies us that anyone can not believe that God is highly probable!, 2001, Apr 27
Seeker, Don't despair yet by Interested , 2001, Apr 27
No "just believe" for me by Seeker, 2001, Apr 28
To Seeker, yes okay. by Interested , 2001, Apr 29
To Seeker, On Two-valued logic by Interested , 2001, Apr 30
YOU CANNOT LOOK TO SCIENCE, 2001, Apr 20
I don't think so. by Interested , 2001, Apr 20
If science came from God, you can't look to science to justify God...you can only look to God to justify science., 2001, Apr 20
I think you should be good in what you are good in. n/t. by Interested , 2001, Apr 20
and that means???????? nothing........., 2001, Apr 20
Statement is Illogical. If science comes from God, you must find evidence in science that points to Him. eom by edmund, 2001, Apr 22
Look where then? by Seeker, 2001, Apr 21
Untitled, 2001, Apr 19
Hi Seeker! by Interested , 2001, Apr 10
Hi Interested! by Seeker, 2001, Apr 11
Proves that God exists is easy. by A Christian, 2001, Apr 12
Are you frank? n/t, 2001, Apr 12
Hahaha, Christopher, see? by Seeker, 2001, Apr 13
Not Really - It's Just ONE of the 3 Ways by Christopher Yip, 2001, Apr 14
Apologetics = Evidence? by Seeker, 2001, Apr 16
Seeker, what then constitute "evidence"? by Christopher Yip, 2001, Apr 20
Objective, scientifically acceptable evidence, 2001, Apr 23
Pls ignore - duplicate post (eom) by Seeker, 2001, Apr 23
Untitled, 2001, Apr 27
Clarification on rebel label by Seeker, 2001, Apr 27
Rebels need no evidence :-)) by Christopher Yip, 2001, Apr 27
I need evidence, so I'm not a rebel :-)) by Seeker, 2001, Apr 27
Hi Seeker, sorry to interrupt but just to let you know. by Interested , 2001, Apr 27
Strict criteria for publication is good by Seeker, 2001, Apr 28
Untitled by Christopher Yip, 2001, Apr 29
Fundamental difference of opinion by Seeker, 2001, Apr 30
To Seeker by Benjamin, 2001, Apr 30
Cross purposes by Seeker, 2001, May 02
Limitation of Scope by Benjamin, 2001, May 03
Partial reply by Seeker, 2001, May 04
The rest of the reply by Seeker, 2001, May 04
Hi Seeker, by Interested , 2001, May 05
My response by Benjamin, 2001, May 09
Is God a concept like love? by Seeker, 2001, Apr 27
God IS Love by Christopher Yip, 2001, Apr 27
So god is just a concept? by Seeker, 2001, Apr 27
The Repeatability of Science Cannot Apply to Evolution too. by Christopher Yip, 2001, Apr 29
Historicity of Christ (belated) by Seeker, 2001, May 02
Aiyoay! by Eveline How, 2001, May 02
Response by Christopher Yip, 2001, May 04
Just a note about the links by Seeker, 2001, May 04
On Josephus and Pliny - Rebuttals by Christopher Yip, 2001, May 10
To Christopher, Interested and Benjamin by Seeker, 2001, May 10
Objective, scientifically acceptable evidence by Seeker, 2001, Apr 23
Hi Seeker, The real problem by Interested , 2001, May 02
You are absolutely right!...We would need to prove that there is no God, rather then proving he does exist....good point, 2001, May 02
Positive hypothesis? by Eveline How, 2001, May 03
Problems with this appoach by Seeker, 2001, May 03
you are incorrect, 2001, May 03
To Eveline and Seeker by Interested , 2001, May 03
Oops by Seeker, 2001, May 03
To Seeker, by Interested , 2001, May 04
to:
Back to Antioch's Home Page