And after thinking about it, this must be expanded upon a touch.
It was “exactly my point”, regarding your nasty opinions about Nazi Jews Etc. It would in your own words, be “hardly accurate”. IMO.
Sam
The Orthodox perspective is much the same… only more mystical and stuff, as Orthodoxy is wont to be.
Kirk **
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the link. It was very informative, and, I believe, reinforces my argument.
Throughout the article, the author states that good works done after salvation are, in fact, works of God, conferred to us through grace. That was what I was trying to say originally. The article was, naturally, more concise.
You seem to see the sacraments such as baptism and, perhaps, communion as equal to the works Paul, James, and the author of the above linked article speak of. I disagree. They may have their benefits to the adherent, and they have significance in that individual’s life, but I consider a Christian’s works to be those things which convey a testimony to the world. They may be specific, or they may be incorporated into a lifestyle or demeanor. But they are God working through us to reveal Himself to the world.
As the article stated, this cannot be done by our own will. We can control how open we are to God’s grace and guidance, but, as I stated above, the motivating factor is not us trying to move closer to God. It is us allowing God to draw us closer to Him.
I really don’t have any strenuous argument with the article. Your understanding and interpretation of it are another matter.
Okay, you see, I don’t know your perspective on the whole thing, so I was perhaps being unclear. Most non-Catholics don’t like Catholic sacraments because they view them as “works” – IE, they are things we do, that convey grace upon us. Take for instance, confession… if you lose your state of grace (Catholics do not believe in OSAS, nor do any of the historical Christian bodies except for maybe Calvinists), confession can restore it. Most non-Catholics see that as “works” taking the place of faith, and I had presumed you used the same false works/faith dichotomy that pollutes most Internet postsings about Catholicism. My bad.
Okay, you got Guin’s reference.
Is there a reference I’m missing here[sup]1[/sup], or are you actually being that much of a jackass?
[sup]1[/sup]If there is a reference, please do let us know what it is, rather than posting the incredibly annoying and also less than helpful “yes”, thus making us wonder what in the bloody blue fucking cream of Sam Hill you’re talking about. Thank you, and have a tolerable day:)
And re: works and such, it was my understanding that Baptists are generally cool with the idea and practice of confession, and are also not Catholic.
BTW, what’s OSAS?
Well, loath as I am to associate myself in any way with Kirkland’s position, him calling Guin a “filthy whore” in response to her calling him an “ignorant slut” (Chevy Chase notwithstanding) does not seem to be terribly out of line to me. If it’s good for the goose, and all that…
Once Saved, Always Saved. It’s a doctrine that once one accepts Jesus as one’s Savior, one can never fall out of the state of salvation.
jayjay
Gobear, this is a brilliant, brilliant line. It works on so many levels. I shall insert into my real life repitoire. If you stole it from someone else, please don’t tell me…
Kirkland, speaking as someone with big ol’ family-sized bottles of Wellbutrin and Neurontin right here on my desk, using mental illness as an excuse for being an asshole is detestable. If you can’t help being a prick, get offline and go see a movie.
Better yet, stay and see if you can get yourself banned.
Nope, it’s an original, although it’s such an easy joke I’m sure somebody else has beat me to it.
Thanks for the compliment. I’ll be here all week, and be sure to tip your waitress!
Filthy whore? …eh…I’ve been called worse. No skin off of my arse.
Ok are we almost done flaming the bigot? He’s getting a rise out of this and very obviously doesn’t realize that he needs much more medication and supervision than he’s getting.
Personally I find it ironic anyone calling another group ‘nazi’ when they’ve been spewing so much hate and intolerance.
Oh well, he’s already in texas, how long until he’s running his owm militia. The most ironic thing about this whole issue, this post like trippled his post count 
There’s got to be an award for having the largest percentage of posts from defending one’s self in the pit.
Maybe we should call it the Kay Kay Memorial Award? :eek:
Not to continue flogging a deceased filly, and especially since it seems the debate I was engaged in has been resolved, but FWIW, I happened to do a service at the rectory of a Catholic church today.
I actually asked the priest about the Catholic Church’s view, presenting my own take on things as I have outlined them here.
The bumper-sticker version?
He told me, “Not even the Holy Father would disagree with you.”
Still, this brings up another question:
Kirk, would you consider me, an avowed Baptist, a Christian now? 
Okay, this has all become cyclical. I made some irrational statements, exaggerated positions, backed myself into a corner, and tried to get out by being even more absurd rather than just admitting I was wrong.
I was wrong. I’m sorry. I shouldn’t have gone after theRyan, and I shouldn’t have turned this thread into a slug-fest, either. I am sorry, I will not do it again. And I am not participating in this thread anymore.
Mods, if you want to lock this one up, I wouldn’t mind.
As long as we’re nit-picking, you didn’t say that I implied it, you said that I said something “along the lines” of it, which does not mean the same thing to me. Some people, when they realize that another person does not interpret the same phrase the same way as them, realize that that is the way of human discourse. Others consider it an oppurtunity for insults. It’s strange to me how many people there are of the latter type here. But even if we adjust your claim to “Ryan implied that homoseuxality=pedophilia”, you still haven’t shown any support for your claim. Furthermore, the structure of your statement implied that I had rejected evidence against the claim that “homosexuality=pedophilia”, which is complete rubbish.
The sexuality of the person has nothing to do with whether the conduct is homosexual, and furthermore I do not recall any cites of experts stating making this claim, although I do acknowledge that I may have forgotten.
You are the one quibbling. If you wanted to say “implied”, you could have said “implied”. Instead you used a term that I interpreted in a manner other than what you meant, and you are laying all of the blame on me.
BTW, here’s the thread, just in case you’re interested in actually supporting your claims with evidence.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=105098
[Moderator Hat ON]
Locking at the request of the OP.
[Moderator Hat OFF]