Us Catholic Leadership Invites Hindu Leader

[praying4carmel]

I just think the Madame has a secret crush on Al, hence the vitriolic comments..every time he posts..

Off topic, Sorry But I have learned alot..am enjoying this thread.

Socrates, I am in agreement with you that there is no way the Angel Gabriel could have spoken to muhammed and called him the final prophet, because if that is the case the Angel Gabriel has defected and we are in REAL trouble... Does anybody stop to think about what treason that would be??

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1515809' date='May 1 2008, 10:04 AM']Right worship (orthodoxy) is only offered by Christians (Catholic and Eastern Orthodox), and not by Muslims, or even the Jews any longer. That said, Islam is utterly false, while Judaism is a Christian heresy, in which the Jews accept the letter of the Old Testament revelation of God, while failing to grasp its true meaning in the Spirit.

It is important that Catholics not fall into theological indifferentism by confusing Rabbinic Judaism with Biblical Judaism, because the former is a corruption of the faith of Abraham, while the latter – especially through the prophets – experienced a living relationship with the Logos of God in the power of the Holy Spirit.[/quote]
Let me approach this from a different angle. God exists and is the way He is...His being is not determined by the beliefs of individuals...on this I think we can agree form the start. So, if we use an analogy, we can say that God is "object A," an object that remains constant. We are looking at this object. A Christian sees A as it truly is. A Jew sees A in an obscure way, seeing the whole thing, but parts appear fuzzy while other parts appear clear. A Muslim sees A in a very fuzzy way, but truly intends to be looking toward A. A person following the natural law looks toward A, but really only sees its shadow, despite any good intention. A straight-up pagan looks toward objects B, C, D, etc. This is, by analogy, how I see it. Now, this means that yes, only Christians give right worship to God, but Jews and Muslims are still worshipping the same God, the problem is not in whom they worship, it's in the fact that they aren't seeing God as He is. I really want to understand your argument, so if you can, use this analogy to tell me what you're trying to say.

I guess what I would really want to know is...does a person need to know and believe every revealed attribute about God in order to be worshipping Him and not a false god that exists only in their minds, which they truly believe to the be one true god? It's just that my understanding of St. Paul is that intention is key...the "unknown god" they worshipped was really YHWH...was that just a rhetorical device or did he really meant that they were truly worshipping God, even without knowing Him? If it works like that, then doesn't the intention of Muslims to worship "the one true God" do something for them, even though they do not know Him? At what point does a lack of correct perception of God on our part impede our ability worship Him to the point that we're worshipping false gods?

[Apotheoun]

Raphael,

I do not accept the idea that abstracted conceptual knowledge about God and His existence is worship, and the Church Fathers would also reject this viewpoint (cf. St. Gregory of Nyssa, [i]Sixth Sermon on the Beatitudes[/i]). Human concepts about God, which are formed from His energies, cannot cross the gap ([i]diastema[/i]) between the uncreated and the created. Discursive knowledge that God exists, which is good in a very limited way, has no salvific value; and moreover, to argue that it does have salvific value is to fall into a form of the Pelagian heresy, which confused created nature and the supernatural.

Ultimately, right worship ([i]orthodoxy[/i]) is not about concepts formed in the human mind from the divine "attributes" ([i]energeiai[/i]) that entered into the creation; instead, it is about the experience of God in Christ, which is solely experienced through the act of worship instituted by the eternal Logos made man. In other words, the only true act of worship that can be offered to God is the remembrance ([i]anamnesis[/i]) of the sacrifice of the incarnate Logos, and this sole act of worship is experienced in the Church, which is the perpetual extension of His incarnation through space and time.

Do not confuse profane philosophical speculation with theology (cf. St. Gregory of Nyssa, [i]The Life of Moses[/i]).

Edited May 1, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1515824' date='May 1 2008, 08:27 AM']I guess what I would really want to know is...does a person need to know and believe every revealed attribute about God in order to be worshipping Him and not a false god that exists only in their minds, which they truly believe to the be one true god? It's just that my understanding of St. Paul is that intention is key...the "unknown god" they worshipped was really YHWH...was that just a rhetorical device or did he really meant that they were truly worshipping God, even without knowing Him? If it works like that, then doesn't the intention of Muslims to worship "the one true God" do something for them, even though they do not know Him? At what point does a lack of correct perception of God on our part impede our ability worship Him to the point that we're worshipping false gods?[/quote]
Knowing things about God discursively is not the same as participating in the uncreated glory of the incomprehensible God. The only acceptable act of divine worship is Christ's paschal mystery. That said, Muslims do not worship God, for they do not know who He is, and this error is compounded by the Mohammed's explicit rejection of the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity. Sadly, they are blind, and their blindness is compounded by the errors promoted in the Qur'an, which gives a distorted view of the divine by positing a dualist principle in relation to good and evil.

The Fathers of the Church would never have accepted the idea that a person who does not know Christ can offer true worship to the Father in the power of the Spirit; and, as I see it, you are confusing intellectual (i.e., conceptual) knowledge with worship.

Edited May 1, 2008 by Apotheoun

[StColette]

This topic is getting rather interesting. I wonder though if it should be moved to TL.

[mortify]

Cathanonymous:
[quote]Mme Vengier, what you write about Islamic belief here is false. Muhammad never had a six-year-old wife.[/quote]
Cath, you often make good points but sometimes I feel you're just repeating contemporary Islamic apologetics. Islamic tradition contains the fact that Muhammad married Aisha at age 6 and *consumated* the marriage at [b]age 9[/b].

Raphael:
[quote]Yes, but this isn't necessarily a verse referring to all times. I would assume that since the dawn of Christianity, the number grew, though how significantly it grew is unknown.[/quote]

I agree, but even since Christianity the number that make it to heaven is a minority, though a larger minority. I read a commentary on this verse that included a quote from St John Chrystosom, which said that of the 100,000 Christians in Constantinople, maybe a hundred would make it to heaven.

Apotheoun
[quote]Right worship (orthodoxy) is only offered by Christians (Catholic and Eastern Orthodox), and not by Muslims, or even the Jews any longer.[/quote]

Do Eastern Orthodox really offer right worship?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='mortify' post='1515969' date='May 1 2008, 01:41 PM']Raphael:
I agree, but even since Christianity the number that make it to heaven is a minority, though a larger minority. I read a commentary on this verse that included a quote from St John Chrystosom, which said that of the 100,000 Christians in Constantinople, maybe a hundred would make it to heaven.[/quote]
Not to disagree with the good saint, but I find it hard to believe that only 1 out of 1000 dies in a state of grace. It just seems a bit drastic to me. Of course, they didn't have recourse to Confession in quite the same way we do today (I believe in his time, it was still only one post-baptismal confession allowed), and they also didn't have all the distinctions in place we have about grace, mortal sin, etc.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1515861' date='May 1 2008, 11:32 AM']Raphael,

I do not accept the idea that abstracted conceptual knowledge about God and His existence is worship, and the Church Fathers would also reject this viewpoint (cf. St. Gregory of Nyssa, [i]Sixth Sermon on the Beatitudes[/i]). Human concepts about God, which are formed from His energies, cannot cross the gap ([i]diastema[/i]) between the uncreated and the created. Discursive knowledge that God exists, which is good in a very limited way, has no salvific value; and moreover, to argue that it does have salvific value is to fall into a form of the Pelagian heresy, which confused created nature and the supernatural.

Ultimately, right worship ([i]orthodoxy[/i]) is not about concepts formed in the human mind from the divine "attributes" ([i]energeiai[/i]) that entered into the creation; instead, it is about the experience of God in Christ, which is solely experienced through the act of worship instituted by the eternal Logos made man. In other words, the only true act of worship that can be offered to God is the remembrance ([i]anamnesis[/i]) of the sacrifice of the incarnate Logos, and this sole act of worship is experienced in the Church, which is the perpetual extension of His incarnation through space and time.

Do not confuse profane philosophical speculation with theology (cf. St. Gregory of Nyssa, [i]The Life of Moses[/i]).[/quote]


[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1515877' date='May 1 2008, 11:42 AM']Knowing things about God discursively is not the same as participating in the uncreated glory of the incomprehensible God. The only acceptable act of divine worship is Christ's paschal mystery. That said, Muslims do not worship God, for they do not know who He is, and this error is compounded by the Mohammed's explicit rejection of the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity. Sadly, they are blind, and their blindness is compounded by the errors promoted in the Qur'an, which gives a distorted view of the divine by positing a dualist principle in relation to good and evil.

The Fathers of the Church would never have accepted the idea that a person who does not know Christ can offer true worship to the Father in the power of the Spirit; and, as I see it, you are confusing intellectual (i.e., conceptual) knowledge with worship.[/quote]
I agree that abstract knowledge about God and His attributes is not worship. I did not propose that it was. I think the problem here is stemming from what we mean by "worship." I see two different things when I say "worship." One definition of worship is orthodoxa, as you have said, and agree with your definition of it (given in your second quoted post above). In that, it is a divine action in which human beings participate. The second definition of worship is a simply human form. For instance, the Romans worshipped Mars, but Mars does not exist, and so, clearly, their worship ended in the human realm. It was a simple human act that bore no fruit. Now, only Christians can offer right worship, orthodoxa, to God. On this, I believe, we agree. However, we need to agree that all religions worship at least in the strictly human way of worship (the second definition). Now, they all worship someone or something. In as much as this human act of worship is a subjective experience (since it does not at all transcend the individual or group of humans involved in it), the object of that worship is entirely based on whatever or whomever they say they are worshiping. Now, the Muslims worship "the God of Abraham," and so they direct their prayers to the one true God, but because they are not in a covenant with Him and do not offer orthodoxa, their worship doesn't "get through" to Him (as it were), and so one could say that they are not worshiping Him because what they offer is not worship in the sense of orthodoxa, just as one could say that they do not have a relationship with Him, etc. However, in the strictly human sense of worship, the one true God is the object of their "worship." That's the best attempt I can make at making sense of all these things.

As for knowledge being salvific, no, I realize that it's not. The Muslims are included in God's plan of salvation as (I believe you said) everyone is involved in His plan...He desires everyone to be saved. They are closer to the truth because they are monotheists, but they are still not a true religion; they are false, their understanding of God, despite some correct attributes, is false, their worship is misguided and therefore false, their revelation is false, and their prophet is false. However, they do mean to worship and do worship in a strictly human way (not orthodoxa), the one true God.

I hope this clarifies my understanding. As always, I will conform to Magisterial statements if I am incorrect, but I am still the only person here who has quoted any Magisterial documents. I would appreciate it if those offering a different opinion would do so to support their claims (this is not aimed at you, Apotheuon), rather than just repeating the mantra, "you're wrong, I'm right," and insisting that we don't know our theology.

God bless,

Micah

[StColette]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1515773' date='May 1 2008, 07:53 AM']What it comes down to is that she (and you) were WRONG. You have been proven wrong by other posters and by the facts of Judeo-Christian theology.[/quote]

Considering that I have taken no part in the debate that is going on in this thread, nor have I mentioned my opinions or feelings about the Christian, Jewish, Muslim controversy that seems to be taking place on this thread. If you go back through the thread you will clearly see that I have not stated any such opinions wrong or right. And you can't lump my husband and my opinions together because believe me we differ on many topics even in Theology. The only time I have addressed you in any way was to remind you to be charitable, which is the duty of every phatmasser. I would have reminded any other phatmasser of the same if they were posting in a way that was not in line with the guidelines of phatmass rules regarding charity to one another. So please, before you start declaring who is right and wrong I would make sure you are addressing people who have actually stated an opinion on the topic instead of those who merely are posting in the thread to remind others to be charitable.

Edited May 1, 2008 by Raphael

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1516010' date='May 1 2008, 12:35 PM']As for knowledge being salvific, no, I realize that it's not. The Muslims are included in God's plan of salvation as (I believe you said) everyone is involved in His plan...He desires everyone to be saved. They are closer to the truth because they are monotheists, but they are still not a true religion; they are false, their understanding of God, despite some correct attributes, is false, their worship is misguided and therefore false, their revelation is false, and their prophet is false. However, they do mean to worship and do worship in a strictly human way (not orthodoxa), the one true God.[/quote]
A point of clarification: Muslims are included in God's plan of salvation because they are human, and not because they follow the vile religion created by Mohammed. Christ is the sole savior of humanity, and the only acceptable worship of God is made possible through His Incarnation and Paschal Mystery. As a Christian I feel compelled to state unequivocally that salvation is not possible through adherence to the religious principles enunciated in the Qur'an, because Mohammed presented a distorted image of God by denying explicitly the Incarnation of the Word and the doctrine of the Trinity.

Now as far as the monotheism of Islam is concerned, I do not agree that the monotheistic views of Muslims, which involve making God the cause of both good and evil, while also denying truths explicitly revealed by God through the Incarnation of the Logos, make them any closer to the truth than the followers of other religions. In point of fact, many false religions accept the idea that the divine principle is one; Hinduism, for example, which looks to many people like a form of polytheism, can also be viewed as monotheistic, because the divine principle behind each of the so-called deities is one and the same.

One final point, according to the teaching of the Eastern Fathers conceptual knowledge of the divine energies (i.e., what the West calls "attributes") is not the same thing as participating in God's energies, for [i]theosis[/i] is possible only through the incarnate Logos, who empowers man to experience the uncreated "things around God" (cf. St. Gregory of Nyssa, [i]Sixth Sermon on the Beatitudes[/i]), while discursive knowledge about God's "attributes" cannot be compared to graced union with the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit.

Edited May 1, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1516109' date='May 1 2008, 04:33 PM']A point of clarification: Muslims are included in God's plan of salvation because they are human, and not because they follow the vile religion created by Mohammed.[/quote]

That's what I said, so I'm glad we agree.

[quote]Christ is the sole savior of humanity, and the only acceptable worship of God is made possible through His Incarnation and Paschal Mystery. As a Christian I am feel compelled to state unequivocally that salvation is not possible through adherence to the religious principles enunciated in the Qur'an, because Mohammed presented a distorted image of God by denying explicitly the Incarnation of the Word and the doctrine of the Trinity.[/quote]

Again, I agree entirely.

[quote]Now as far as the monotheism of Islam is concerned, I do not agree that the monotheistic views of Muslims, which involve making God the cause of both good and evil, while also denying truths explicitly revealed by God through the Incarnation of the Logos, make them any closer to the truth than the followers of other religions. In point of fact, many false religions accept the idea that the divine principle is one; Hinduism for example, which looks to many people like a form of polytheism, can also be viewed as monotheistic, because the divine principle behind each of the so-called deities is one and the same.[/quote]

Very well, point taken. However, if there is a religion that does not see the divine principle as one, but as a plurality, then I think you would have to agree that Muslims are closer to the truth in regard to this matter.

[quote]One final point, according to the teaching of the Eastern Fathers conceptual knowledge of the divine energies (i.e., what the West calls "attributes") is not the same thing as participating in God's energies, for [i]theosis[/i] is possible only through the incarnate Logos, who empowers man to experience the uncreated "things around God" (cf. St. Gregory of Nyssa, [i]Sixth Sermon on the Beatitudes[/i]).[/quote]

Again, I agree entirely. I'm not an expert in the Eastern concept of theosis, but the theology of divinization (as close as we come to having a Western counterpart) has very heavily influenced my theological worldview, so I agree completely with you on that.

Again, my point was that Muslims do worship the true God to the extent that they intend to, but intent alone can only be a human venture, a type of worship more like the veneration pagans give to their idols or Pythagorians gave to basic geometric shapes. It is not in any way a relationship with the living God. The only way worship can be right worship, orthodoxa, is if it is through the means of the Incarnation and Paschal Mystery (an idea upon which many Church doctrines are contingent).

Anyway, I'd like to see more magisterial clarification on this, because I can definitely see how some of the vocabulary is ambiguous or easily misunderstood and leads, as we have seen, to semantic arguments.

[Akalyte]

so the American church never learns i see. Their still flirting with these pagan and false religions. When will this nonsense end.!? We are the one holy catholic and apostolic church. The true Faith. Why must we have relationships with pagans and false religions!? Sure be nice to them but also try to convert them! Dont act as if their religion is good enough for Salvation!

[Kitty]

[quote name='mortify' post='1515626' date='Apr 30 2008, 11:19 PM']Well, for one thing intentions are not enough, it's vital to accept truth and worship correctly. It's hard on our modern ears, but the Church is the sole and unique ark of salvation. She possesses the fullness of truth and the only form of worship pleasing to God. Even Christianities which contain elements of the Church, such as the bible for example, are not sufficient in themselves to bring people to salvation. There may be an exception for those who are sincerely ignorant, though this does not mean every person who never heard the Gospel is automatically going to heaven. Such a person would have to believe in God, at least believe in a judgment, and live according to the natural law and do what's right via God's grace. Even though God's desire is for everyone to be saved, and He provides sufficient grace even for the innocent infidel, it appears that the majority of the human population will not make it to heaven and this is due to their own choices. A truly frightful thought, and I pray that I and all of you make it to heaven, and that God may guide all to Him, and that people may respond to His grace. Lord have mercy on me.[/quote]

I do not believe that people must believe in God to go to heaven. I have known relatives, who were the kindest, most generous, loving and humble people I have known, and they did not believe in God/go to church/read the bible. One of these people was my grandmother who died several years ago. She was not a religious person at all, but respected our religion and attended church for baptisms or funerals. She was extremely loving and kind to her entire family and there was nothing more that she wanted then to spend time with them. I simply cannot believe that her, and people like her, go straight to hell. It doesn't make any sense.

[mortify]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1516321' date='May 1 2008, 07:39 PM']I do not believe that people must believe in God to go to heaven. I have known relatives, who were the kindest, most generous, loving and humble people I have known, and they did not believe in God/go to church/read the bible. One of these people was my grandmother who died several years ago. She was not a religious person at all, but respected our religion and attended church for baptisms or funerals. She was extremely loving and kind to her entire family and there was nothing more that she wanted then to spend time with them. I simply cannot believe that her, and people like her, go straight to hell. It doesn't make any sense.[/quote]

Kitty, no one can judge where another soul is, only God can judge. Sometimes the Church recognizes certain people as Saints in heaven, but this is only after a careful review of their lives has revealed a life of sanctity, and after God has confirmed their status in heaven via miracles. I personally have several family members who have passed on whom I'm worried about. One of them explicitly rejected the faith. But again, I don't presume to say they are in hell (or heaven), I simply can't judge nor will I. What I do is hope that they are in purgatory and pray for their relief. I can't look at my family members and try to alter God's Justice and Mercy because of the free choices they made in their lives. God gives all the graces necessary to make it to heaven, and it is genuinely His desire that all make it but the requirement is that we must freely choose Him. Now I'm not passing judgment on your grandmother; I know nothing about her other than what you said, and perhaps its possible that she is in heaven this very moment, we can't say. What needs to be said however, is that faith is necessary for salvation, we can't work our way into heaven, nor do we possess the natural capacity to make it to heaven, we need God's grace.

This is a touchy subject, many of us have family members who were not of the Faith, but all we can do is hope and pray for them. The concern right now ought to be for ourselves, and I say this to remind myself especially. There is a way to make it to heaven, we can't change it or reject it, we must humbly accept it as the way to God, and we will eventually see the beauty and mercy in that way.

I pray you all make it to heaven, and I kindly request you pray for me in this regard as well. And I pray for my passed loved ones and your passed loved ones that they too shall see the Face of God. Amen. With such topics I am compelled to say, Christ have mercy on me.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1515776' date='May 1 2008, 07:00 AM']Not really. They are debating others in this thread without jumping up and down claiming they're being insulted. It's the tone of your post that makes you uncharitable and is getting you into trouble here.

Have you ever seriously considered what [i]respect[/i] means? I would never, in my adult life, even think about talking to someone the way you do in your posts. It's not the content, it's the person giving it. Fix yourself or I have no doubt that you will be banned. Apotheoun will be just fine, however.[/quote]

Fix myself? Man, you make me laugh. Please don't pretend you didn't just read my comments about how I feel about being threatened, and my thoughts on being edited/censored/banned.

And I didn't claim I was being insulted. I have never made such a claim. Please try to read more carefully before you mis-quote others.

Edited May 2, 2008 by Madame Vengier

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1516321' date='May 1 2008, 07:39 PM']I do not believe that people must believe in God to go to heaven. I have known relatives, who were the kindest, most generous, loving and humble people I have known, and they did not believe in God/go to church/read the bible. One of these people was my grandmother who died several years ago. She was not a religious person at all, but respected our religion and attended church for baptisms or funerals. She was extremely loving and kind to her entire family and there was nothing more that she wanted then to spend time with them. I simply cannot believe that her, and people like her, go straight to hell. It doesn't make any sense.[/quote]


I have known people like this, too. Just beautiful, loving, wonderful people who show a profound respect for other peoples' religious beliefs and customs. I do believe that in their hearts they know and love God in their own way. Their actions prove it. I just can't explain it and I can't explain what the break is there where they cannot or will not accept God openly. The great news is that God is all Merciful and all Loving, and he knows the deepest insides of people. He understands everything.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1515780' date='May 1 2008, 07:04 AM']Mme Vengier, what you write about Islamic belief here is false. Muhammad never had a six-year-old wife. I presume you're referring to Aisha, whom he married when she was nine but did not live with until she was twelve - which was a normal age for marriage in many countries across the world in the seventh century.[/quote]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Aisha was 6 when he took her as his wife, and 9 when he consummated his marriage to her. This is Islam 101.

And even if she was 12, please don't make excuses for child rape. "Other were doing it, too" is not a valid excuse.

[url="http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doom_13_The_Pedophile_Pirate.slam"]http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Do...le_Pirate.Islam[/url]

I'm not going to read or respond to the rest of your comment to me. Sorry, if someone says "what you wrote is false" on the first line, and it's not false, then I don't need to proceed any further.

[Madame Vengier]

Those of you interested in a quick overview of Islamic history and teachings, you may find this link useful and enlightening:

[url="http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/"]http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/[/url]

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1515754' date='May 1 2008, 06:29 AM']"Jews don't worship the same God as Christians".

Not only not solid, but insulting and heretical.[/quote]

Okay. Taken at face value I tend to believe that quote is correct. The Church teaches that the Old Testament does teach a Trinity and that the Jews have no excuse for not believing in the Trinity. But it's a very complicated and intricate doctrine and you have to be very careful in throwing around the word heresy as if it was not a serious claim. It is and every claim must be able to be backed up by an authoritative text. Which one do you have that says that the Jews worship the true God? thanks

Edited May 2, 2008 by goldenchild17

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1515794' date='May 1 2008, 08:19 AM']for your own sake, it would be wise on your part to be polite.[/quote]

Micah, and I have told you already that you are free to do as you wish. I meant it. I won't abide by threats from you or anyone else--and remarks such as "for your own sake" are rude, chauvanistic, and inappropriate. Stop making threats and go ahead and do what you want to do. You should especially not make threats that you then turn around and admit that you can't follow through on.

I'll repeat: you may ban, edit, censor...I don't care. I will remove myself willingly before I put on a false face because of threats. I will not be something I am not. I have done nothing to hurt anyone here--unless you count having your pride hurt.

It seems that the running theme of everyone's complaints against me are that you all don't like my "tone". What, are we children here?? You are hurt and offended over a "tone"? You all have tried in numerous ways to over-dramatize my "tone" by making accusations of me being impolite, uncharitable, insulting your wife, rude, angry, capitalizing words (GASP! Oh no, not THAT!), etc. But you can never, ever point out where I have purposely hurt someone with my words, such as name-calling, vulgarity, false accusations, off-color or offensive remarks, etc. And you would never be able to find such comments because I am not that kind of person.

Unlike some people at this forum I do not insult people. I am sarcastic, yes. But last time I checked no one ever had their lives destroyed over sarcastic comments. I suggest that you and your friends grow a thicker skin or put my comments on ignore. Failing these two options, you can always ban me as you have so much enjoyed threatening to do.

It does strike me as amazing that you are so willing to edit and ban over my "tone" but when Deb, repeatedly and unapologetically, referred to Americans as "greedy selfish pigs" she was allowed to continue her disgusting diatribe without so much as a peep from the moderators at this forum. Not even when she was reported for her offensive remarks.

But when I capitalize the word "WRONG", you start in at me with rude threats that I should "watch myself", "fix myself", "for your own sake", "it would be wise". Frankly, it's appalling. I have never threatened anyone here. But you have, over and over.

Whatever. I'm tired of this. Do whatever makes you feel good, Micah. I can only tell you that I am not going to stop being myself.