Me soon come!

Now Edit: I reproduce below a post that was deleted. In the manner in which it is reproduced here, it is not directed at anyone and is not "insulting" or "religious intolerance". Rather, it can help the good ol burghers of this Religion section to identify the boundaries of "Religious intolerance: and insulting Catholics". That is the point of this thread.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look at what these people Vatican offers 'time off
purgatory' to followers of Pope
Francis tweets Papal court handling
pardons for sins
says contrite Catholics may win
'indulgences' by following World Youth
Day on Twitter!

^^^ Let them be 'indulging' themselves in self-deceit with their "indulgences".

Just like when we hear: "we do not worship Mary, we just honour her"
we can compare: "we do not lie, we just do not speak the truth".

Meanwhile the Roman Catholic apologists who are normally belligerent and cantankerous went quiet after it was shown that, from the Bible, Jesus is the only mediator and the only redeemer.

Amazing how ignorant of important Christian truths people can be if they allow themselves to be misled by others who or a "magisterium" which discourage/s them from reading the Bible and they too only read some bulletins!

Another thing, one of them was comparing the apostle Paul to their "popes" (some of whom are despicable historically - fact) who came up with the idea of "papal infallibility" (which many see as rubbish - fact) and to do that was impliedly demeaning the apostle Paul's advice that a colleague should use wine for his stomach. The person of course was simply displaying ignorance.

Yes, the Bible is not a book of science or medicine or what have you. But the apostle who gave the idea had insight we do not have: he had an idea of the stomach problem his colleague had; he had an idea of the kind of things that helped to deal with the problem. So when he said "use a little wine for your stomach", he knew what he was talking about.

But meanwhile for our friend's attempt to demean Paul, let me now point out a couple of things:

For a long time even after the apostle Paul wrote, the "scientific opinion" or "medical prescription" of wine for stomach problems was still known. It is said that wine was the considered medicine for gallstones: in fact even the Roman Catholic (though reform-minded) Erasmus took wine partly as medicine for his own gallstones in the 15th/16th century.

Further, consider this study reported as recently as 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5416413/Glass-of-wine-a-day-cuts-risk-of-gallstones-by-a-third.html

"Glass of wine a day 'cuts risk of gallstones by a third'

A glass of wine a day can cut the risk of developing gallstones by a third, a new study shows.

Scientists previously knew that moderate levels of alcohol could protect against gallstones, but did not know how much was needed.

Gallstones occur when bile from the gallbladder, which is normally fluid, forms stones."

were you banned??
happy new year oo

Following...

Me too...

Happy New year Enigma. I wish you a prosperous and rewarding 2014.

Anatomy of a post that was allegedly guilty of "Religious intolerance: insulting Catholics".

So let us break this post up and identify which part is "Religious intolerance: insulting Catholics"

Look at what these people Vatican offers 'time off
purgatory' to followers of Pope
Francis tweets Papal court handling
pardons for sins
says contrite Catholics may win
'indulgences' by following World Youth
Day on Twitter!

Above is part of someone else's post that my own post was replying to. So below the post in parts and with commentary.

^^^ Let them be 'indulging' themselves in self-deceit with their "indulgences".

So this part says that it is self deceit to be indulging in indulgences. How "insulting" is that? Oh and is that "religious intolerance"? Hmm!

Just like when we hear: "we do not worship Mary, we just honour her"
we can compare: "we do not lie, we just do not speak the truth".

So this part basically says we don't believe those who claim to only honour Mary and not worship her and it uses a rhetorical device and making a comparison of not lying but not speaking the truth. How "insulting" is that? Oh and is that "religious intolerance"? Hmm!

Meanwhile the Roman Catholic apologists who are normally belligerent and cantankerous went quiet after it was shown that, from the Bible, Jesus is the only mediator and the only redeemer.

So this part has as its main point that Roman Catholic apologists went quiet after certain things from the Bible were pointed out. It has the subordinate point that these Roman Catholic apologists are normally belligerent and cantankerous. How "insulting" is that? Oh and is that "religious intolerance"? Hmm!

Amazing how ignorant of important Christian truths people can be if they allow themselves to be misled by others who or a "magisterium" which discourage/s them from reading the Bible and they too only read some bulletins!

OK this part does make two digs i.e. some people are ignorant because they are misled and the people only read bulletins. But then How "insulting" is that? Oh and is that "religious intolerance"? Hmm!

For this one, let us do a comparison: if someone says "all you ever read is your Bible - not science or intellectual books" -- is that "religious intolerance" and how reaaaally insulting is that?

Another thing, one of them was comparing the apostle Paul to their "popes" (some of whom are despicable historically - fact) who came up with the idea of "papal infallibility" (which many see as rubbish - fact) and to do that was impliedly demeaning the apostle Paul's advice that a colleague should use wine for his stomach. The person of course was simply displaying ignorance.

Now this one is interesting: first, the main point is that someone was comparing the apostle Paul to Roman Catholic "popes" on the issue of "papal infallibility".

Then there are three statements within the point/paragraph that can be considered worth looking at further:

1. That some Roman Catholic "popes" are despicable historically. This is a statement of fact and it is true! There are Roman Catholic "popes" complicit in the murder of the one before them, some guilty or complicit in murder even as "pope", some inc.estuous, some even declared heretics. How "insulting" is that? Oh and is that "religious intolerance"? Hmm!

Compare this statement: some Nigerian heads of state are despicable historically (e.g. they looted or even committed atrocities including killings) ------ is this statement an "insult"?

2. That many people see the idea of "papal infallibility" as rubbish. Well, it is a fact and it is true that Christians of all traditions even including some Roman Catholics see the idea of "papal infallibility" as rubbish! How "insulting" is that? Oh and is that "religious intolerance"? Hmm!

3. That the person who compared the apostle Paul to Roman Catholic "popes" was displaying ignorance; that was because the person was implicitly undermining the apostle Paul's advice that a colleague should use a little wine for his stomach. Well, that was shown to be a fact by the paragraph that follows below. How "insulting" is that? Oh and is that "religious intolerance"? Hmm!

Yes, the Bible is not a book of science or medicine or what have you. But the apostle who gave the idea had insight we do not have: he had an idea of the stomach problem his colleague had; he had an idea of the kind of things that helped to deal with the problem. So when he said "use a little wine for your stomach", he knew what he was talking about.

But meanwhile for our friend's attempt to demean Paul, let me now point out a couple of things:

For a long time even after the apostle Paul wrote, the "scientific opinion" or "medical prescription" of wine for stomach problems was still known. It is said that wine was the considered medicine for gallstones: in fact even the Roman Catholic (though reform-minded) Erasmus took wine partly as medicine for his own gallstones in the 15th/16th century.

Further, consider this study reported as recently as 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5416413/Glass-of-wine-a-day-cuts-risk-of-gallstones-by-a-third.html

"Glass of wine a day 'cuts risk of gallstones by a third'

A glass of wine a day can cut the risk of developing gallstones by a third, a new study shows.

Scientists previously knew that moderate levels of alcohol could protect against gallstones, but did not know how much was needed.

Gallstones occur when bile from the gallbladder, which is normally fluid, forms stones."

This chunk is making the same point and has been taken together. It explains that the use of alcohol to treat stomach problems has a long historical scientific recognition even up till the modern day. It says that even Erasmus who was a reform-minded Roman catholic also used wine for his stomach. How "insulting" is that? Oh and is that "religious intolerance"? Hmm!

Finally we have this gem; maybe it is the biggest problem! How "insulting" is that? Oh and is that "religious intolerance"? Hmm!

Deep Sight:
Happy New year Enigma. I wish you a prosperous and rewarding 2014.

Happy new year brah, wish you all that is good and desirable even from your own perspective.

Ajibam: were you banned??
happy new year oo

Oh very yeah -- but only in the Religion section though!

Happy new year and every blessing to everyone on the thread --- now or later!

You were banned for that post

Now a quick question: who really is a "Catholic"?

1. Members of the catholic Church? Well, erm this would include erm even myself as it refers to all Christians, everywhere whatsoever and of all eras whatsoever, and of all denominations, in fact some might even be Roman Catholics!

2. Eastern Orthodox people i.e. the Orthodox Catholic Church? Many would argue that these are the real "Catholics" as they were the ones who started "the Catholic Church", gave it the name "Catholic" and so on and so on. See for example: https://www.nairaland.com/1254965/eastern-orthodox-church-orthodox-catholic

3. The Oriental Orthodox people? They too were part of the original "the Catholic Church"! See for example: https://www.nairaland.com/1257440/catholic-catholic-back-catholic

4. The Roman Catholic Church denomination or organisation? Because these ones are declaring everyone else anathema all over the place?

5. Independent Catholics?

6. Sedevacantist Catholics?

O ga oh!

Deep Sight: You were banned for that post

Oh very yes, oh very yes indeed!

But I saw it coming as I said here https://www.nairaland.com/1568827/current-moderator-religion-section-cannot#20457617

The point being that the post above is a modified version of an earlier one (reproduced below) which was also deleted and for which I was also banned.
------------------------------------------------------

^^^ Let them be 'indulging' themselves in self-deceit with their "indulgences".

Just like when we hear: "we do not worship Mary, we just honour her"
we can compare: "we do not lie, we just do not speak the truth".

Meanwhile the normally belligerent and cantankerous noisemakers went quiet after it was shown that from the Bible Jesus is the only mediator and the only redeemer.

Amazing how ignorant of important Christian truths people can be if they allow themselves to be misled by others who or a "magisterium" which discourage/s them from reading the Bible and they too only read some bulletins!

Another thing, one of them was comparing the apostle Paul to their despicable "popes" who came up with the rubbish idea of "papal infallibility" and to do that was impliedly demeaning the apostle Paul's advice that a colleague should use wine for his stomach. The person of course is a pure ignoramus.

Yes, the Bible is not a book of science or medicine or what have you. But the apostle who gave the idea had insight we do not have: he had an idea of the stomach problem his colleague had; he had an idea of the kind of things that helped to deal with the problem. So when he said "use a little wine for your stomach", he knew what he was talking about.

But meanwhile for our friend's attempt to demean Paul, let me now point out a couple of things:

For a long time even after the apostle Paul wrote, the "scientific opinion" or "medical prescription" of wine for stomach problems was still known. It is said that wine was the considered medicine for gallstones: in fact even the Roman Catholic (though reform-minded) Erasmus took wine partly as medicine for his own gallstones in the 15th/16th century.

Further, consider this study reported as recently as 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5416413/Glass-of-wine-a-day-cuts-risk-of-gallstones-by-a-third.html

"Glass of wine a day 'cuts risk of gallstones by a third'

A glass of wine a day can cut the risk of developing gallstones by a third, a new study shows.

Scientists previously knew that moderate levels of alcohol could protect against gallstones, but did not know how much was needed.

Gallstones occur when bile from the gallbladder, which is normally fluid, forms stones."

And finally for now!

Supposing I make a thread titled: “A Thread to Pray for Catholics and Help Them to Reform" and I say – the thread is not to bash Roman Catholics; rather it is to point out and correct "in love" things that may be contrary to biblical teaching and to help and encourage our Roman Catholic relatives, friends, acquaintances and other Roman Catholics generally.

Wait a minute --- let me actually go and make the thread!