Statue of Mary Draws Crowds To See a "Miracle"

[serpentdove]

[Statue of Mary Draws Crowds To See a "Miracle" Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries] linger: "Hundreds of ecstatic pilgrims are flocking to a statue of the Virgin Mary believed to be crying a single tear of blood. Images of the statue, with a red liquid dripping down its cheek, have been shared on social media, prompting a mass pilgrimage to Floridablanca in Columbia. Locals believe they have witnessed a miracle and others are swarming to catch a glimpse. Read more.

[Mike Gendron Comment] Catholics travel long distances to seek signs and messages from their distorted version of Mary instead of opening their Bible to receive a message from God. They need to listen to Peter who they refer to as the first pope: "[W]e have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention" (1 Pet. 1:19). The Lord Jesus warned, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah" (Mat. 16:4)." oly: Pro-Gospel.org

 

[Cruciform]

Catholics travel long distances to seek signs and messages from...Mary instead of opening their Bible to receive a message from God.

This is merely a False Dilemma Fallacy on Gendron's part, since Catholics ALSO (and primarily) receive spiritual insights from Scripture. Just another false "either/or" by a self-proclaimed "expert" on "Catholicism." Caveat emptor.

End of thread.

 

[patrick jane]

good thread serpy !!

 

[serpentdove]

This is merely a False Dilemma Fallacy...

It's a real dilemma.

See:

No Mary Worship

 

[Cruciform]

It's a real dilemma.

Already decisively refuted (Post #2).

No Mary Worship

That's correct: "No Mary Worship"

 

[serpentdove]

Already decisively refuted...

:yawn: Non causae ut causae Eph 4:14

 

[Cruciform]

:yawn: Non causae ut causae Eph 4:14

Post #2 (Eph. 4:14)

 

[serpentdove]

[:yawn: Non causae ut causae Eph 4:14 ] Post #2 (Eph. 4:14)

:yawn: Intensional Ga 5:9, Eph 4:14

 

[Cruciform]

:yawn: Intensional Ga 5:9, Eph 4:14

Post #2 (Eph. 4:14)

 

[serpentdove]

[:yawn: Intensional Ga 5:9, Eph 4:14] Post #2 (Eph. 4:14)

:yawn: ad nauseam Eph 4:14

 

[Cruciform]

:yawn: ad nauseam Eph 4:14

Feel free, then, to actually refute it. Still Post #2.

 

[serpentdove]

...Still Post #2.

:yawn: Non causae ut causae

As a reminder, Cruciform is a grace-perverter linger: (Gal. 1:6–8), bound by traditions (Mt 15:9) and deceitful in all his ways (Eph. 4:14).

See:

Cruciform

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

This is merely a False Dilemma Fallacy on Gendron's part, since Catholics ALSO (and primarily) receive spiritual insights from Scripture. Just another false "either/or" by a self-proclaimed "expert" on "Catholicism." Caveat emptor.

End of thread.

Cruciform The Pompous IV has spoken, guess that settles it.

 

[Cruciform]

:yawn: Non causae ut causae[

So, then, not even an attempt at a refutation. That's what I thought. Post #2 therefore stands exactly as given.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

So, then, not even an attempt at a refutation. That's what I thought. Post #2 therefore stands exactly as given.

Cruciform remains undefeated on TOL. 22,305 consecutive wins for Cruciform the Pompous.
Post a few links, refer back to those links, and declare victory. Then remain lost, and hellbound.

 

[Cruciform]

"This message is hidden because SaulToPaul is on your ignore list."

 

[Crucible]

Yep, that's what Jesus assigned us to do- go travel to see blood come out of a statue

Of all things, let's go see it not happen and still think some miracle was abroad. That's scarily vain and idolatrous.

 

[Cruciform]

Yep, that's what Jesus assigned us to do- go travel to see blood come out of a statue

Addressed HERE and HERE.

 

[Ktoyou]

Cruciform remains undefeated on TOL. 22,305 consecutive wins for Cruciform the Pompous.
Post a few links, refer back to those links, and declare victory. Then remain lost, and hellbound.

He likes priests dressed in frocks too!

 

[Cruciform]

He likes priests dressed in frocks too!

S2P's entirely ad hominem---and so utterly irrelevant---babbling aside, what is your point with this statement? Is it somehow intended as a criticism? If so, you may want to recall that Jesus and the apostles "dressed in frocks" too. Your focus on mere clothing indicates a complete lack of actual argumentation on your part. Maybe try again later. Or not.