The worlds gonna end
The worlds gonna end
Thank you all it has been realy helpful and interesting as well as funnyin some parts i'll show this stuff to my friend someday maybe on june 7th
The worlds gonna end
Bron,
I see what you're saying. Frankly, I wouldn't trust Rome to tell the truth about much at all.
As for my saying about the beginning, I meant from the beginning of Christianity in Rome, when it assumed "lordship" over Christiandom, around 350ish (I think).
As we all know from the scripture, the church started in Jerusalem, not Rome. And their claim to apostolic succession is laughable to me. Is it not a paradox that they claim Peter to be the first Pope, yet he was a married man. Another laughable item.
Revelation tells of a mystery religion, Babylon the Great. An interesting read can be found in an old book titled, "The Two Babylons" by Hislop.
d:-5
I see what you're saying. Frankly, I wouldn't trust Rome to tell the truth about much at all.
As for my saying about the beginning, I meant from the beginning of Christianity in Rome, when it assumed "lordship" over Christiandom, around 350ish (I think).
As we all know from the scripture, the church started in Jerusalem, not Rome. And their claim to apostolic succession is laughable to me. Is it not a paradox that they claim Peter to be the first Pope, yet he was a married man. Another laughable item.
Revelation tells of a mystery religion, Babylon the Great. An interesting read can be found in an old book titled, "The Two Babylons" by Hislop.
d:-5
The worlds gonna end
downag wrote: 1. I see what you're saying. Frankly, I wouldn't trust Rome to tell the truth about much at all.
2. As for my saying about the beginning, I meant from the beginning of Christianity in Rome, when it assumed "lordship" over Christiandom, around 350ish (I think).
3. As we all know from the scripture, the church started in Jerusalem, not Rome.
4. And their claim to apostolic succession is laughable to me.
5. Is it not a paradox that they claim Peter to be the first Pope, yet he was a married man. Another laughable item.
6. Revelation tells of a mystery religion, Babylon the Great.
7. An interesting read can be found in an old book titled, "The Two Babylons" by Hislop.1. down, as I have said in previous posts, one of the main reasons I have remained a lifelong Catholic is that the Church never lied to me about anything. I attended a Catholic high school and had, as is usual, four years of religion at the high-school level: 1st year Advanced Cathechism, 2nd year Bible History, 3rd year Church History, 4th year Apologetics. I was never taught anything that I later found to have been false, unfactual, or misleading. If I had, I can assure you that I would have found another affiliation. When we studied controversial topics like the Crusades and the Reformation, it was from the Catholic viewpoint, of course, but what I learned then is pretty much what anyone can find in a good secular encyclopedia.
Compare that with the lies, distortions, slander and false witness drummed into the brains of followers of the more fundamentalistic of the Protestant sects, especially the cult-like ones such as the SDA and Jehovah's Witnesses and the choice is clear. It is a choice of truth over falsehoood, good over evil, but most important, Church history over fiction. It's difficult to believe that any INTELLIGENT person who studied Church history from a reliable source could continue to belong to any of these sects.
Note that I am not including here the 'mailine' Protestant denoms such as the Anglicans (who are both Catholic and Protestant), Lutherans, Methodists, United Presbyterians, and others. They all have their own take on the Reformation and they do not include false witness against Catholicism as part of their teachings. They were, nonetheless, founded by men, in most cases very sinful men, while Catholicism has no founder but the sinless Christ.
Why don't you give some examples of what you think the Church has lied about? When you do, please mention your own denomination so we can check into ITS history and the truthfulness of some of its teachings. Fair is fair, and why will I not be surprised when you refuse to do so?
2. Christianty in Rome began before Peter and Paul were both martyred there. You are correct, however, that persecution of Christianity by the civil government ended with Constantine and that is indeed a significant event in Church history.
3. The Church began immediately following Peter's confession of faith, when Christ gave His apostles and their successors the authority to govern His community. That authority was lost by the so-called 'reformers', who went their own way while continuing to call themselves 'Christians'. Pretty nervy if ya ask me!
4. Every bishop today in the Catholic Church and in certain other Churches which are 'merely schismatic' rather than heretical, can trace his/her* [*the Churches of the Anglican communion have some female bishops] consecration as a bishop back to the apostles without a break in the chain. We obviously think that is very important, while those churches that have broken that chain of succession just as obviously strive to minimize its importance, as you seem to be doing.
What, exactly, do you find so laughable about it? Do you seriously believe that any lunatic should be able to invent his/her own bastardized version of Christianity, or claim to have had 'visions' or somesuch, and that those sects and cults should have equal authority with those who have remained faithful to Christ's Apostles and their successors? If so, good luck to you! I believe that's called 'freedom of religion', a freedom that I treasure as, I assume, do you.
5. You have to be joking! Did you even READ the previous several posts? Peter lived in the first century AD. Priestly celibacy, in the Western Church only, was affirmed in the 16th century. There is no reason whatever why a married man could not be elected pope even today. It is unlikely to happen any time soon, but there is nothing to prevent it. The difference is that Peter was (s)elected by Christ Himself, while his successors have been elected by their peers.
6. The Revelator uses the name Babylon as a euphemism for pagan Rome, and even points out that the name is a 'mystery', that is, a code word for the same.
7. I've never heard of the author, never heard of the book, and doubt that I would have any interest, but I would ask you this: Who is the publisher?
None of this has anything to do with the topic of the thread, nor for that matter of the subject of this entire forum, but people like yourself, telaquapacky, and others who bear false witness in public, a direct violation of a commandment, need to be challenged, and as long as I am a contributor here I will do so.
I suggest that if you respond, you do so on the Christianity forum where the discussion belongs. Don't forget to name your own denomination. If it is SDA, as I suspect, I suggest you continue the still-open 'Adventism and Catholicism' thread. Maybe while you're at it you can attempt to answer some of the questions I put to tel there, for which he has no answers.
2. As for my saying about the beginning, I meant from the beginning of Christianity in Rome, when it assumed "lordship" over Christiandom, around 350ish (I think).
3. As we all know from the scripture, the church started in Jerusalem, not Rome.
4. And their claim to apostolic succession is laughable to me.
5. Is it not a paradox that they claim Peter to be the first Pope, yet he was a married man. Another laughable item.
6. Revelation tells of a mystery religion, Babylon the Great.
7. An interesting read can be found in an old book titled, "The Two Babylons" by Hislop.1. down, as I have said in previous posts, one of the main reasons I have remained a lifelong Catholic is that the Church never lied to me about anything. I attended a Catholic high school and had, as is usual, four years of religion at the high-school level: 1st year Advanced Cathechism, 2nd year Bible History, 3rd year Church History, 4th year Apologetics. I was never taught anything that I later found to have been false, unfactual, or misleading. If I had, I can assure you that I would have found another affiliation. When we studied controversial topics like the Crusades and the Reformation, it was from the Catholic viewpoint, of course, but what I learned then is pretty much what anyone can find in a good secular encyclopedia.
Compare that with the lies, distortions, slander and false witness drummed into the brains of followers of the more fundamentalistic of the Protestant sects, especially the cult-like ones such as the SDA and Jehovah's Witnesses and the choice is clear. It is a choice of truth over falsehoood, good over evil, but most important, Church history over fiction. It's difficult to believe that any INTELLIGENT person who studied Church history from a reliable source could continue to belong to any of these sects.
Note that I am not including here the 'mailine' Protestant denoms such as the Anglicans (who are both Catholic and Protestant), Lutherans, Methodists, United Presbyterians, and others. They all have their own take on the Reformation and they do not include false witness against Catholicism as part of their teachings. They were, nonetheless, founded by men, in most cases very sinful men, while Catholicism has no founder but the sinless Christ.
Why don't you give some examples of what you think the Church has lied about? When you do, please mention your own denomination so we can check into ITS history and the truthfulness of some of its teachings. Fair is fair, and why will I not be surprised when you refuse to do so?
2. Christianty in Rome began before Peter and Paul were both martyred there. You are correct, however, that persecution of Christianity by the civil government ended with Constantine and that is indeed a significant event in Church history.
3. The Church began immediately following Peter's confession of faith, when Christ gave His apostles and their successors the authority to govern His community. That authority was lost by the so-called 'reformers', who went their own way while continuing to call themselves 'Christians'. Pretty nervy if ya ask me!
4. Every bishop today in the Catholic Church and in certain other Churches which are 'merely schismatic' rather than heretical, can trace his/her* [*the Churches of the Anglican communion have some female bishops] consecration as a bishop back to the apostles without a break in the chain. We obviously think that is very important, while those churches that have broken that chain of succession just as obviously strive to minimize its importance, as you seem to be doing.
What, exactly, do you find so laughable about it? Do you seriously believe that any lunatic should be able to invent his/her own bastardized version of Christianity, or claim to have had 'visions' or somesuch, and that those sects and cults should have equal authority with those who have remained faithful to Christ's Apostles and their successors? If so, good luck to you! I believe that's called 'freedom of religion', a freedom that I treasure as, I assume, do you.
5. You have to be joking! Did you even READ the previous several posts? Peter lived in the first century AD. Priestly celibacy, in the Western Church only, was affirmed in the 16th century. There is no reason whatever why a married man could not be elected pope even today. It is unlikely to happen any time soon, but there is nothing to prevent it. The difference is that Peter was (s)elected by Christ Himself, while his successors have been elected by their peers.
6. The Revelator uses the name Babylon as a euphemism for pagan Rome, and even points out that the name is a 'mystery', that is, a code word for the same.
7. I've never heard of the author, never heard of the book, and doubt that I would have any interest, but I would ask you this: Who is the publisher?
None of this has anything to do with the topic of the thread, nor for that matter of the subject of this entire forum, but people like yourself, telaquapacky, and others who bear false witness in public, a direct violation of a commandment, need to be challenged, and as long as I am a contributor here I will do so.
I suggest that if you respond, you do so on the Christianity forum where the discussion belongs. Don't forget to name your own denomination. If it is SDA, as I suspect, I suggest you continue the still-open 'Adventism and Catholicism' thread. Maybe while you're at it you can attempt to answer some of the questions I put to tel there, for which he has no answers.
The worlds gonna end
Pinky wrote: Well if it does end, at least I can say I`ve lived my life to the full.
Never regret the things you`ve done, only the things you haven`t.
Pink, this is starting to get creepy...ask how often I have used that exact phrase. Go ahead....ask.
I use that phrase ALL THE TIME. Would you please get out of my head??!?! :yh_bigsmi
Never regret the things you`ve done, only the things you haven`t.
Pink, this is starting to get creepy...ask how often I have used that exact phrase. Go ahead....ask.
I use that phrase ALL THE TIME. Would you please get out of my head??!?! :yh_bigsmi
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
The worlds gonna end
Bronwen wrote: 1. down, as I have said in previous posts, one of the main reasons I have remained a lifelong Catholic is that the Church never lied to me about anything. I attended a Catholic high school and had, as is usual, four years of religion at the high-school level: 1st year Advanced Cathechism, 2nd year Bible History, 3rd year Church History, 4th year Apologetics. I was never taught anything that I later found to have been false, unfactual, or misleading. If I had, I can assure you that I would have found another affiliation. When we studied controversial topics like the Crusades and the Reformation, it was from the Catholic viewpoint, of course, but what I learned then is pretty much what anyone can find in a good secular encyclopedia.
Compare that with the lies, distortions, slander and false witness drummed into the brains of followers of the more fundamentalistic of the Protestant sects, especially the cult-like ones such as the SDA and Jehovah's Witnesses and the choice is clear. It is a choice of truth over falsehoood, good over evil, but most important, Church history over fiction. It's difficult to believe that any INTELLIGENT person who studied Church history from a reliable source could continue to belong to any of these sects.
Note that I am not including here the 'mailine' Protestant denoms such as the Anglicans (who are both Catholic and Protestant), Lutherans, Methodists, United Presbyterians, and others. They all have their own take on the Reformation and they do not include false witness against Catholicism as part of their teachings. They were, nonetheless, founded by men, in most cases very sinful men, while Catholicism has no founder but the sinless Christ.
Why don't you give some examples of what you think the Church has lied about? When you do, please mention your own denomination so we can check into ITS history and the truthfulness of some of its teachings. Fair is fair, and why will I not be surprised when you refuse to do so?
2. Christianty in Rome began before Peter and Paul were both martyred there. You are correct, however, that persecution of Christianity by the civil government ended with Constantine and that is indeed a significant event in Church history.
3. The Church began immediately following Peter's confession of faith, when Christ gave His apostles and their successors the authority to govern His community. That authority was lost by the so-called 'reformers', who went their own way while continuing to call themselves 'Christians'. Pretty nervy if ya ask me!
4. Every bishop today in the Catholic Church and in certain other Churches which are 'merely schismatic' rather than heretical, can trace his/her* [*the Churches of the Anglican communion have some female bishops] consecration as a bishop back to the apostles without a break in the chain. We obviously think that is very important, while those churches that have broken that chain of succession just as obviously strive to minimize its importance, as you seem to be doing.
What, exactly, do you find so laughable about it? Do you seriously believe that any lunatic should be able to invent his/her own bastardized version of Christianity, or claim to have had 'visions' or somesuch, and that those sects and cults should have equal authority with those who have remained faithful to Christ's Apostles and their successors? If so, good luck to you! I believe that's called 'freedom of religion', a freedom that I treasure as, I assume, do you.
5. You have to be joking! Did you even READ the previous several posts? Peter lived in the first century AD. Priestly celibacy, in the Western Church only, was affirmed in the 16th century. There is no reason whatever why a married man could not be elected pope even today. It is unlikely to happen any time soon, but there is nothing to prevent it. The difference is that Peter was (s)elected by Christ Himself, while his successors have been elected by their peers.
6. The Revelator uses the name Babylon as a euphemism for pagan Rome, and even points out that the name is a 'mystery', that is, a code word for the same.
7. I've never heard of the author, never heard of the book, and doubt that I would have any interest, but I would ask you this: Who is the publisher?
None of this has anything to do with the topic of the thread, nor for that matter of the subject of this entire forum, but people like yourself, telaquapacky, and others who bear false witness in public, a direct violation of a commandment, need to be challenged, and as long as I am a contributor here I will do so.
I suggest that if you respond, you do so on the Christianity forum where the discussion belongs. Don't forget to name your own denomination. If it is SDA, as I suspect, I suggest you continue the still-open 'Adventism and Catholicism' thread. Maybe while you're at it you can attempt to answer some of the questions I put to tel there, for which he has no answers.
Bron, I am not SDA.
I have been a Lutheran (until I was 9 and had many RCC friends my age and heard all about everything they brought home from "catholic school" every-day), Methodist (until I was 15ish), independant Baptist (18 years), Quaker (about 3 years). I will be 53 years old this year. I know the church (universally) pretty well.
I am fellowshipping with Presbyterians presently.
As for the book, The Two Babylons, Alexander Hislop first produced it as a pamphlet in 1853 and then expanded it into book form in 1858. I did a Yahoo search for it and got over 29,000 hits. It is still in print by various sources.
(seems to predate SDA's and others you find repulsive).
I am not going to address the opinions you expressed at this time.
d:-5
Compare that with the lies, distortions, slander and false witness drummed into the brains of followers of the more fundamentalistic of the Protestant sects, especially the cult-like ones such as the SDA and Jehovah's Witnesses and the choice is clear. It is a choice of truth over falsehoood, good over evil, but most important, Church history over fiction. It's difficult to believe that any INTELLIGENT person who studied Church history from a reliable source could continue to belong to any of these sects.
Note that I am not including here the 'mailine' Protestant denoms such as the Anglicans (who are both Catholic and Protestant), Lutherans, Methodists, United Presbyterians, and others. They all have their own take on the Reformation and they do not include false witness against Catholicism as part of their teachings. They were, nonetheless, founded by men, in most cases very sinful men, while Catholicism has no founder but the sinless Christ.
Why don't you give some examples of what you think the Church has lied about? When you do, please mention your own denomination so we can check into ITS history and the truthfulness of some of its teachings. Fair is fair, and why will I not be surprised when you refuse to do so?
2. Christianty in Rome began before Peter and Paul were both martyred there. You are correct, however, that persecution of Christianity by the civil government ended with Constantine and that is indeed a significant event in Church history.
3. The Church began immediately following Peter's confession of faith, when Christ gave His apostles and their successors the authority to govern His community. That authority was lost by the so-called 'reformers', who went their own way while continuing to call themselves 'Christians'. Pretty nervy if ya ask me!
4. Every bishop today in the Catholic Church and in certain other Churches which are 'merely schismatic' rather than heretical, can trace his/her* [*the Churches of the Anglican communion have some female bishops] consecration as a bishop back to the apostles without a break in the chain. We obviously think that is very important, while those churches that have broken that chain of succession just as obviously strive to minimize its importance, as you seem to be doing.
What, exactly, do you find so laughable about it? Do you seriously believe that any lunatic should be able to invent his/her own bastardized version of Christianity, or claim to have had 'visions' or somesuch, and that those sects and cults should have equal authority with those who have remained faithful to Christ's Apostles and their successors? If so, good luck to you! I believe that's called 'freedom of religion', a freedom that I treasure as, I assume, do you.
5. You have to be joking! Did you even READ the previous several posts? Peter lived in the first century AD. Priestly celibacy, in the Western Church only, was affirmed in the 16th century. There is no reason whatever why a married man could not be elected pope even today. It is unlikely to happen any time soon, but there is nothing to prevent it. The difference is that Peter was (s)elected by Christ Himself, while his successors have been elected by their peers.
6. The Revelator uses the name Babylon as a euphemism for pagan Rome, and even points out that the name is a 'mystery', that is, a code word for the same.
7. I've never heard of the author, never heard of the book, and doubt that I would have any interest, but I would ask you this: Who is the publisher?
None of this has anything to do with the topic of the thread, nor for that matter of the subject of this entire forum, but people like yourself, telaquapacky, and others who bear false witness in public, a direct violation of a commandment, need to be challenged, and as long as I am a contributor here I will do so.
I suggest that if you respond, you do so on the Christianity forum where the discussion belongs. Don't forget to name your own denomination. If it is SDA, as I suspect, I suggest you continue the still-open 'Adventism and Catholicism' thread. Maybe while you're at it you can attempt to answer some of the questions I put to tel there, for which he has no answers.
Bron, I am not SDA.
I have been a Lutheran (until I was 9 and had many RCC friends my age and heard all about everything they brought home from "catholic school" every-day), Methodist (until I was 15ish), independant Baptist (18 years), Quaker (about 3 years). I will be 53 years old this year. I know the church (universally) pretty well.
I am fellowshipping with Presbyterians presently.
As for the book, The Two Babylons, Alexander Hislop first produced it as a pamphlet in 1853 and then expanded it into book form in 1858. I did a Yahoo search for it and got over 29,000 hits. It is still in print by various sources.
(seems to predate SDA's and others you find repulsive).
I am not going to address the opinions you expressed at this time.
d:-5
The worlds gonna end
downag wrote: 1. Bron, I am not SDA.
2a. I have been a Lutheran (until I was 9 and had many RCC friends my age and heard all about everything they brought home from "catholic school" every-day),
2b. ...Methodist (until I was 15ish), independant Baptist (18 years), Quaker (about 3 years). I will be 53 years old this year. I know the church (universally) pretty well.
3. I am fellowshipping with Presbyterians presently.
4. As for the book, The Two Babylons, Alexander Hislop first produced it as a pamphlet in 1853 and then expanded it into book form in 1858. I did a Yahoo search for it and got over 29,000 hits. It is still in print by various sources.
(seems to predate SDA's and others you find repulsive).
5. I am not going to address the opinions you expressed at this time.
1. Fair enough.
2a & 3. Well, then you may have gone to parochial schools also. The Lutherans have excellent schools, and , naturally they will approach the Reformation from the Lutheran perspective. I have, however, never known the Lutherans to tell lies about Catholicism in order to enhance their position. Ditto the United Presbyterians, though there are unfortunately some outer-fringe sects calling themselves Presbyterian that are quite extreme.
2b. That is quite a diverse list.
4. I know nothing about it so will not comment further at this time and place (since this is, as I said before, really not the proper forum) except to say that if it attempts to portray the Roman Church as the 'beast' of Revelation it is nothing but nonsense of the vilest sort, since, firstly, Revelation was written as encouragment to the Christians of John's own time, the 'beastly' reference being clearly to pagan Rome, which at that time was persecuting Christians terribly (they were certainly not being persecuted by their own community!), and secondly, apart from the fact that the city of Rome is clearly referred to, none of the descriptions on 'the beast' have the least relevance to anything even distantly related to Catholicism. There are probably thousands of similar screeds, each one sillier than the next, and all aimed at people with no knowledge of Catholicism and of Church history whatever. It is not difficult to convince the ignorant and the stupid of nearly anything.
5. Well, down, I am a woman on MANY opinions, but as I re-read my previous post, most of it concerned FACTS of Church history, not opinions, so in that regard I will take your non-response to mean that you do not dispute or disagree with those facts.
The fact that you have not answered my questions, though, hardly supports your position. Why not at least be honest and say that you have no answers?
2a. I have been a Lutheran (until I was 9 and had many RCC friends my age and heard all about everything they brought home from "catholic school" every-day),
2b. ...Methodist (until I was 15ish), independant Baptist (18 years), Quaker (about 3 years). I will be 53 years old this year. I know the church (universally) pretty well.
3. I am fellowshipping with Presbyterians presently.
4. As for the book, The Two Babylons, Alexander Hislop first produced it as a pamphlet in 1853 and then expanded it into book form in 1858. I did a Yahoo search for it and got over 29,000 hits. It is still in print by various sources.
(seems to predate SDA's and others you find repulsive).
5. I am not going to address the opinions you expressed at this time.
1. Fair enough.
2a & 3. Well, then you may have gone to parochial schools also. The Lutherans have excellent schools, and , naturally they will approach the Reformation from the Lutheran perspective. I have, however, never known the Lutherans to tell lies about Catholicism in order to enhance their position. Ditto the United Presbyterians, though there are unfortunately some outer-fringe sects calling themselves Presbyterian that are quite extreme.
2b. That is quite a diverse list.
4. I know nothing about it so will not comment further at this time and place (since this is, as I said before, really not the proper forum) except to say that if it attempts to portray the Roman Church as the 'beast' of Revelation it is nothing but nonsense of the vilest sort, since, firstly, Revelation was written as encouragment to the Christians of John's own time, the 'beastly' reference being clearly to pagan Rome, which at that time was persecuting Christians terribly (they were certainly not being persecuted by their own community!), and secondly, apart from the fact that the city of Rome is clearly referred to, none of the descriptions on 'the beast' have the least relevance to anything even distantly related to Catholicism. There are probably thousands of similar screeds, each one sillier than the next, and all aimed at people with no knowledge of Catholicism and of Church history whatever. It is not difficult to convince the ignorant and the stupid of nearly anything.
5. Well, down, I am a woman on MANY opinions, but as I re-read my previous post, most of it concerned FACTS of Church history, not opinions, so in that regard I will take your non-response to mean that you do not dispute or disagree with those facts.
The fact that you have not answered my questions, though, hardly supports your position. Why not at least be honest and say that you have no answers?
The worlds gonna end
Bron,
I haven't answered your questions because it would take me too much time and I have other websites to read and respond too. I'll get back to you in time, I hope.
> I did not attend any private school, but am the product (victim?) of a free public education. Fortunate for me, I did learn to read and write, dispite their best efforts to create a round peg for a round hole. I don't fit in most everywhere and I LIKE IT!
Bron, I would ask that you take a read of the old work, "Fox's Book of Marytres (sp?)"
As for recorded history. The man who has freedom of the press is the man who owns one, and the RCC owns many presses. They wouldn't stretch the truth or lie, would they?
And the Bible says that Satan is able to appear as an angel of light. I wonder who it really was at Fatima and Lourdes and several other places/times! I don't believe that Jesus' earthly mother was elevated to the status of Queen of Heaven, nor did she appear to little children and speak to them. Satan likes to deceive and is good at it. Types in the bible just do not support a female ghostly image appearing anywhere. Lots of males though. The fact of the survival of the RCC through history only demonstrates to me that God is letting man fill up his cup of wrath.
I haven't answered your questions because it would take me too much time and I have other websites to read and respond too. I'll get back to you in time, I hope.
> I did not attend any private school, but am the product (victim?) of a free public education. Fortunate for me, I did learn to read and write, dispite their best efforts to create a round peg for a round hole. I don't fit in most everywhere and I LIKE IT!
Bron, I would ask that you take a read of the old work, "Fox's Book of Marytres (sp?)"
As for recorded history. The man who has freedom of the press is the man who owns one, and the RCC owns many presses. They wouldn't stretch the truth or lie, would they?
And the Bible says that Satan is able to appear as an angel of light. I wonder who it really was at Fatima and Lourdes and several other places/times! I don't believe that Jesus' earthly mother was elevated to the status of Queen of Heaven, nor did she appear to little children and speak to them. Satan likes to deceive and is good at it. Types in the bible just do not support a female ghostly image appearing anywhere. Lots of males though. The fact of the survival of the RCC through history only demonstrates to me that God is letting man fill up his cup of wrath.
The worlds gonna end
downag wrote: 1. I haven't answered your questions because it would take me too much time and I have other websites to read and respond too. I'll get back to you in time, I hope.
2. Bron, I would ask that you take a read of the old work, "Fox's Book of Marytres (sp?)"
3. As for recorded history. The man who has freedom of the press is the man who owns one, and the RCC owns many presses. They wouldn't stretch the truth or lie, would they?
4a. And the Bible says that Satan is able to appear as an angel of light.
4b. I wonder who it really was at Fatima and Lourdes and several other places/times!
4c. I don't believe that Jesus' earthly mother was elevated to the status of Queen of Heaven, nor did she appear to little children and speak to them.
4d. Types in the bible just do not support a female ghostly image appearing anywhere. Lots of males though.
5. The fact of the survival of the RCC through history only demonstrates to me that God is letting man fill up his cup of wrath.1. See, down, that is why I keep saying that the difference between Christ's community and its slanderers is the difference between truth and falsehood, between light and darkness. Saying you have no answers to my questions would be truthful. It certainly wouldn't enhance your position but it would be truthful nonetheless. Saying you don't have time is dishonest.
I only posed three very simple questions or challenges to you in the previous posts. How long could it possibly take to answer the following?
a. Give one or two examples of anything the Catholic Church has ever lied about. That certainly shouldn't take more than a minute.
b. Give one or two examples of how anything in the Revelator's description of 'the Beast' could by any stretch of the imagination refer to the community of believers founded by Christ on Peter and the other Apostles, which is to say, the very community to whom he wrote. It sounds to me like a contradiction in terms.
c1. Why do you regard Christ's delegation of authority to 'bind and loose', i.e. to administer His Church, to the Apostles and their successors as 'laughable'? The Bible certainly doesn't report Christ as having laughed when He did so.
c2. (Really part of the same question) As I asked previously, do you seriously believe that anyone at all should be able to invent his/her own bastardized version of Christianity, and that those sects and cults should have equal authority with those who have remained faithful to Christ's Apostles and their successors? That's a simple 'yes' or 'no'.
2. At least you admit that you're not sure how to spell Foxe's name! I give you credit for that. Here is what I wrote about Foxe recently on another forum when the subject of his famous Reformation-era book came up:John Foxe (1516-1587) was quite a character. An Anglican priest who drew stipends (paychecks) from the Church while performing no office, he compiled his famous book of heroes of the Reformation from some historical sources but mainly from his own imagination. A rather benign, easy-going, tolerant man, he appealed, unsuccessfully, to Queen Elizabeth I to lessen her persecution of BOTH Anabaptists and Roman Catholics. So much for Foxe. As far as persecution of one brand of Christianity by another during that dark period of Church history is concerned, there is more than enough blame to go around, and a large part of it, including many extremely brutal and gruesome murders, rests squarely on the shoulders of your own Calvinist brethren.
3. As I said in no. 1, give examples. I read several Catholic publications regularly. What am I being lied to about? If you want to read lies in the name of Christianity, you need look no further than any of the nonsensical 'creationist' garbage expounded by certain Fundamentalist sects. You'll find no such mindrot in any Catholic publication.
4. Well, that is quite a large dose of vitriol all at once, so I've broken it down into small helpings:
4a. The Bible says that indeed. The Bible also says that GOd will hold you accountable for every slanderous word that you utter. It doesn't mention posting on the Internet but that would presumably be included.
4b. down, since way before the time of Christ there have been people who have claimed to see, or who have believed that they have seen, things that others cannot see. Such people and such visions are by no means confined to Catholicism. The Catholic Church's position has always been that when such visions involve God or His saints they constitute 'private revelation', which is binding on no one except the seer him/herself. For example, if someone says, 'Christ appeared to me and told me to help the poor in my community', the Church does not automatically claim such a vision to be false. If however, the seer claims that Christ gave him/her a message to be delivered to the pope, that is obviously different, because if Christ wished to give a message to the pope He could certainly do so directly. The Church sorts such visions out only in terms of their compatibility with Biblical and Traditional Church doctrine. In the examples you gave, everything that the seers reported was in complete accord with what the Church regards as revealed truth, and it makes no further judgment on such visions. Visions that are heretical, of which an enormous number have been reported throughout the two thousand years of Christianity, are obviously rejected by the Church. These would include those reported by slimeballs like Jerry Foulwell, Oral Roberts, Marion Robertson and their ilk. I'm not even going to get into those that George W. Bush has claimed to have had. Why would you single out as 'Satanic' the visions of a few small children, none of which contained anything that could be construed as the least bit offensive or unChristain? The mind boggles at the audacity of the enemies of Christ's community!
4c. I have often said that I think Mary's role in Catholic liturgy is somewhat overdone, but that doesn't make her any less special, as a woman or as a mother. With regard to children believing to have seen her, I've already addressed that. No Catholic is required to believe that, and undoubtedly many do not. What is amazing to me is that people like yourself seem to actually believe that Jesus Christ is just waiting at the gates of heaven to reward you for having spent your lives slandering His community and His beloved mother.
4d. What on earth are you talking about? What does the Bible say about the junction transistor? Does that mean that no such thing exists?
5. What an amazing and incredible statement! Jesus Christ founded His community on Peter and the other Apostles, it continues to flourish today, more than a billion strong, in spite of all of the various heresies, slanders, and persecutions directed against it, and it will continue until the end of time and throughout eternity. That is Church history in a nutshell. Where your bunch fits in I haven't a clue, but that is really not my concern. The fact that I've straightforwardly addressed every single one of your assertions while you have refused to address mine speaks for itself, it is, as I said, a comparison of light with darkness, and no further discussion is necessary.
I would only add that the personal history you gave indicates that you seem to keep searching for something and not finding it. The members of Christ's Mystical Body, the community of believers He founded on Peter, have no such problem. We are not on a search but rather a pilgrimage, because some day, the world really IS gonna end.
I'm not trying to convert anyone to Catholicism, I'm only saying that any Christian bewildered, as down obviously is, by all of the various sects and cults, should study Church history from a NEUTRAL and FACTUAL source, not from material eagerly provided by slanderers.
2. Bron, I would ask that you take a read of the old work, "Fox's Book of Marytres (sp?)"
3. As for recorded history. The man who has freedom of the press is the man who owns one, and the RCC owns many presses. They wouldn't stretch the truth or lie, would they?
4a. And the Bible says that Satan is able to appear as an angel of light.
4b. I wonder who it really was at Fatima and Lourdes and several other places/times!
4c. I don't believe that Jesus' earthly mother was elevated to the status of Queen of Heaven, nor did she appear to little children and speak to them.
4d. Types in the bible just do not support a female ghostly image appearing anywhere. Lots of males though.
5. The fact of the survival of the RCC through history only demonstrates to me that God is letting man fill up his cup of wrath.1. See, down, that is why I keep saying that the difference between Christ's community and its slanderers is the difference between truth and falsehood, between light and darkness. Saying you have no answers to my questions would be truthful. It certainly wouldn't enhance your position but it would be truthful nonetheless. Saying you don't have time is dishonest.
I only posed three very simple questions or challenges to you in the previous posts. How long could it possibly take to answer the following?
a. Give one or two examples of anything the Catholic Church has ever lied about. That certainly shouldn't take more than a minute.
b. Give one or two examples of how anything in the Revelator's description of 'the Beast' could by any stretch of the imagination refer to the community of believers founded by Christ on Peter and the other Apostles, which is to say, the very community to whom he wrote. It sounds to me like a contradiction in terms.
c1. Why do you regard Christ's delegation of authority to 'bind and loose', i.e. to administer His Church, to the Apostles and their successors as 'laughable'? The Bible certainly doesn't report Christ as having laughed when He did so.
c2. (Really part of the same question) As I asked previously, do you seriously believe that anyone at all should be able to invent his/her own bastardized version of Christianity, and that those sects and cults should have equal authority with those who have remained faithful to Christ's Apostles and their successors? That's a simple 'yes' or 'no'.
2. At least you admit that you're not sure how to spell Foxe's name! I give you credit for that. Here is what I wrote about Foxe recently on another forum when the subject of his famous Reformation-era book came up:John Foxe (1516-1587) was quite a character. An Anglican priest who drew stipends (paychecks) from the Church while performing no office, he compiled his famous book of heroes of the Reformation from some historical sources but mainly from his own imagination. A rather benign, easy-going, tolerant man, he appealed, unsuccessfully, to Queen Elizabeth I to lessen her persecution of BOTH Anabaptists and Roman Catholics. So much for Foxe. As far as persecution of one brand of Christianity by another during that dark period of Church history is concerned, there is more than enough blame to go around, and a large part of it, including many extremely brutal and gruesome murders, rests squarely on the shoulders of your own Calvinist brethren.
3. As I said in no. 1, give examples. I read several Catholic publications regularly. What am I being lied to about? If you want to read lies in the name of Christianity, you need look no further than any of the nonsensical 'creationist' garbage expounded by certain Fundamentalist sects. You'll find no such mindrot in any Catholic publication.
4. Well, that is quite a large dose of vitriol all at once, so I've broken it down into small helpings:
4a. The Bible says that indeed. The Bible also says that GOd will hold you accountable for every slanderous word that you utter. It doesn't mention posting on the Internet but that would presumably be included.
4b. down, since way before the time of Christ there have been people who have claimed to see, or who have believed that they have seen, things that others cannot see. Such people and such visions are by no means confined to Catholicism. The Catholic Church's position has always been that when such visions involve God or His saints they constitute 'private revelation', which is binding on no one except the seer him/herself. For example, if someone says, 'Christ appeared to me and told me to help the poor in my community', the Church does not automatically claim such a vision to be false. If however, the seer claims that Christ gave him/her a message to be delivered to the pope, that is obviously different, because if Christ wished to give a message to the pope He could certainly do so directly. The Church sorts such visions out only in terms of their compatibility with Biblical and Traditional Church doctrine. In the examples you gave, everything that the seers reported was in complete accord with what the Church regards as revealed truth, and it makes no further judgment on such visions. Visions that are heretical, of which an enormous number have been reported throughout the two thousand years of Christianity, are obviously rejected by the Church. These would include those reported by slimeballs like Jerry Foulwell, Oral Roberts, Marion Robertson and their ilk. I'm not even going to get into those that George W. Bush has claimed to have had. Why would you single out as 'Satanic' the visions of a few small children, none of which contained anything that could be construed as the least bit offensive or unChristain? The mind boggles at the audacity of the enemies of Christ's community!
4c. I have often said that I think Mary's role in Catholic liturgy is somewhat overdone, but that doesn't make her any less special, as a woman or as a mother. With regard to children believing to have seen her, I've already addressed that. No Catholic is required to believe that, and undoubtedly many do not. What is amazing to me is that people like yourself seem to actually believe that Jesus Christ is just waiting at the gates of heaven to reward you for having spent your lives slandering His community and His beloved mother.
4d. What on earth are you talking about? What does the Bible say about the junction transistor? Does that mean that no such thing exists?
5. What an amazing and incredible statement! Jesus Christ founded His community on Peter and the other Apostles, it continues to flourish today, more than a billion strong, in spite of all of the various heresies, slanders, and persecutions directed against it, and it will continue until the end of time and throughout eternity. That is Church history in a nutshell. Where your bunch fits in I haven't a clue, but that is really not my concern. The fact that I've straightforwardly addressed every single one of your assertions while you have refused to address mine speaks for itself, it is, as I said, a comparison of light with darkness, and no further discussion is necessary.
I would only add that the personal history you gave indicates that you seem to keep searching for something and not finding it. The members of Christ's Mystical Body, the community of believers He founded on Peter, have no such problem. We are not on a search but rather a pilgrimage, because some day, the world really IS gonna end.
I'm not trying to convert anyone to Catholicism, I'm only saying that any Christian bewildered, as down obviously is, by all of the various sects and cults, should study Church history from a NEUTRAL and FACTUAL source, not from material eagerly provided by slanderers.
The worlds gonna end
Bronwen wrote:
I would only add that the personal history you gave indicates that you seem to keep searching for something and not finding it. The members of Christ's Mystical Body, the community of believers He founded on Peter, have no such problem. We are not on a search but rather a pilgrimage, because some day, the world really IS gonna end.
Grammer has a lot to do with how people are taught things. For example, your continued reference that Peter is the foundation of the church.
I know that the scripture verse used to justify this is from one of the gospels where Yeshua and Peter are conversing. Jesus asks Peter, "Who do men say I am?" Peter answers, "One of the prophets,-----(etc). Jesus asks him, "Who do YOU say I am?" Peter says, "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God". Jesus say, "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven". (Or words to the effect.) Jesus continues, "Thou art Sephus (sp?) (here Jesus tells Peter that he will be called Peter) and upon this rock will I build my church".
The RCC claims that Jesus is referring to Peter as the ROCK. I disagree, but he is referring to statement Peter made regarding "Jesus" being the Christ AND the Son of the living God!
This ties with the vision of the King of Babylon of the terrible image that is eventually destroyed by a "rock" formed without hands that crushes the feet of iron mixed with clay and then grows to fill the whole earth.
That God performed a work in sending his son to redeem the world is the foundation stone- ROCK on which we are to stand, not Peter.
I have marveled greatly at how convoluted the teachings of the RCC are and how helpless their victims are. Truley, only God could help one who has so much to overcome. And he will, if you seek him with your whole heart.
Bron-, I am Presbyterian in name only. I'm still seeking my brethren. They're out there somewhere!
d:-5
I would only add that the personal history you gave indicates that you seem to keep searching for something and not finding it. The members of Christ's Mystical Body, the community of believers He founded on Peter, have no such problem. We are not on a search but rather a pilgrimage, because some day, the world really IS gonna end.
Grammer has a lot to do with how people are taught things. For example, your continued reference that Peter is the foundation of the church.
I know that the scripture verse used to justify this is from one of the gospels where Yeshua and Peter are conversing. Jesus asks Peter, "Who do men say I am?" Peter answers, "One of the prophets,-----(etc). Jesus asks him, "Who do YOU say I am?" Peter says, "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God". Jesus say, "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven". (Or words to the effect.) Jesus continues, "Thou art Sephus (sp?) (here Jesus tells Peter that he will be called Peter) and upon this rock will I build my church".
The RCC claims that Jesus is referring to Peter as the ROCK. I disagree, but he is referring to statement Peter made regarding "Jesus" being the Christ AND the Son of the living God!
This ties with the vision of the King of Babylon of the terrible image that is eventually destroyed by a "rock" formed without hands that crushes the feet of iron mixed with clay and then grows to fill the whole earth.
That God performed a work in sending his son to redeem the world is the foundation stone- ROCK on which we are to stand, not Peter.
I have marveled greatly at how convoluted the teachings of the RCC are and how helpless their victims are. Truley, only God could help one who has so much to overcome. And he will, if you seek him with your whole heart.
Bron-, I am Presbyterian in name only. I'm still seeking my brethren. They're out there somewhere!
d:-5
The worlds gonna end
The world will certainly end with an act of nature;possibly a comet impact or asteroid.The creator will have forseen this.We have seen nature,s wrath with the tsunami a couple of years ago.A black hole could finish us off;its gonna happen.
The worlds gonna end
downag wrote: 1. Grammer has a lot to do with how people are taught things.
2. For example, your continued reference that Peter is the foundation of the church.
3. Jesus continues, "Thou art Sephus (sp?) (here Jesus tells Peter that he will be called Peter) and upon this rock will I build my church".
4. The RCC claims that Jesus is referring to Peter as the ROCK. I disagree, but he is referring to statement Peter made regarding "Jesus" being the Christ AND the Son of the living God!
5. This ties with the vision of the King of Babylon of the terrible image that is eventually destroyed by a "rock" formed without hands that crushes the feet of iron mixed with clay and then grows to fill the whole earth.
6. That God performed a work in sending his son to redeem the world is the foundation stone- ROCK on which we are to stand, not Peter.
7. I have marveled greatly at how convoluted the teachings of the RCC are and how helpless their victims are. Truley, only God could help one who has so much to overcome. And he will, if you seek him with your whole heart.
8. Bron-, I am Presbyterian in name only. I'm still seeking my brethren. They're out there somewhere!1. Grammer and gramper both. It runs in the family. Or maybe you're referring to grammAr.
2. In any case, there is no question of Peter's primacy among the Apostles.
3 & 4. The word in Aramaic, transliterated to Roman letters of course, is Kepha. Thou art Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my Church. The Church is not built ON Christ, the Church IS Christ. The Church is His Mystical Body, which remained on earth after His physical body was taken up, an event that Christians celebrate tomorrow.
5. I think if one consulted a concordance many references to rocks would be found. Which of these refer to Christ, Peter, or any other person is a matter, I suppose, of interpretation. In the example you cite, I fail to see the relevance, since Babylon the actual city was destroyed hundreds of years before Christ was born and Babylon the euphemism for pagan Rome fell hundreds of years after Christ, by which time it had already become Christian.
6. Well, the point is, Christ obviously meant His Church to have leadership and continuity. That is obvious from the verses following the ones we just discussed ('Receive the KEYS to the Kingdom of Heaven...') The so-called 'reformers' broke that chain of succession, each starting his own confused and erroneous version of Christianity. Now, down, anybody who has ever changed jobs knows that when you leave the firm you gotta turn in your KEYS. That is why, as I keep repeating, studying Church history from a reliable source such as a good encyclopedia is so important. I am 65 years old and no Protestant has ever given me a logical explanation of why any Church started by a sinful 'reformer' rather than by the sinless Christ has any authority. That many of these churches do good things and that their members love the Lord is not in question. That is why every year millions of these good people become Catholics, because they study Church history, which you have obviously not done, and realize that the various
'reformed' denominations go back only to their human founders while Catholicism can be traced directly back to Peter's confession without a break.
7. You keep making statements like that and yet you still have not given a single example. It seems to me the ones with much to overcome are those in the various cult-like manifestations of Protestantism such as, first and foremost, the Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses. The Baptists and Assemblies of God would run a close third and fourth. I don't demonize any of these people, some are even friends of mine, but their errors are so outrageous that they are little more than systems of mind control. They take little children and teach them the most nonsensical garbage, preparing them for nothing but a life of religious fanaticism, while the Catholic education system is the best in the world, comprising some of the world's most famous institutions of higher learning, especially the schools of the Jesuits.
8. Well, you didn't get your hatred of Catholicism from the 'mainline' Presbyterians. When we lived in Western Pennsylvania, there was a United Presbyterian Church a block away. My kids attended Bible study there, and the material they brought home every week was some of the best and most scholarly Bible study material I have ever seen. The minister was one of our best firends and a true man of God. I can assure you that no slander of any kind, let alone against Catholicism, occurred there. It's possible you have hooked up with one of several perversions of Presbyterianism such as the so-called 'Orthodox P. Chruch' or the lunatic preacher Carl McIntyre's 'Bible P. Church'. If so, it's obvious where your hatred originates. Those churches are an abomination and a major embarrassment to legitimate Presbyterians.
I've enjoyed the discussion, but you have proven by your lack of response to any of my questions and challenges to you that you don't have the least idea what you're talking about. I suggest you make even a PERFUNCTORY study of Catholicism from a reliable source such as a secular encyclopedia. Then you could discuss the subject from a perspective other than your present one of total ignorance.
I would also remind you once again that Christ Himself warned that slanderers will be held fully accountable for every false word they spread, and He wasn't just a-woofin'.
2. For example, your continued reference that Peter is the foundation of the church.
3. Jesus continues, "Thou art Sephus (sp?) (here Jesus tells Peter that he will be called Peter) and upon this rock will I build my church".
4. The RCC claims that Jesus is referring to Peter as the ROCK. I disagree, but he is referring to statement Peter made regarding "Jesus" being the Christ AND the Son of the living God!
5. This ties with the vision of the King of Babylon of the terrible image that is eventually destroyed by a "rock" formed without hands that crushes the feet of iron mixed with clay and then grows to fill the whole earth.
6. That God performed a work in sending his son to redeem the world is the foundation stone- ROCK on which we are to stand, not Peter.
7. I have marveled greatly at how convoluted the teachings of the RCC are and how helpless their victims are. Truley, only God could help one who has so much to overcome. And he will, if you seek him with your whole heart.
8. Bron-, I am Presbyterian in name only. I'm still seeking my brethren. They're out there somewhere!1. Grammer and gramper both. It runs in the family. Or maybe you're referring to grammAr.
2. In any case, there is no question of Peter's primacy among the Apostles.
3 & 4. The word in Aramaic, transliterated to Roman letters of course, is Kepha. Thou art Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my Church. The Church is not built ON Christ, the Church IS Christ. The Church is His Mystical Body, which remained on earth after His physical body was taken up, an event that Christians celebrate tomorrow.
5. I think if one consulted a concordance many references to rocks would be found. Which of these refer to Christ, Peter, or any other person is a matter, I suppose, of interpretation. In the example you cite, I fail to see the relevance, since Babylon the actual city was destroyed hundreds of years before Christ was born and Babylon the euphemism for pagan Rome fell hundreds of years after Christ, by which time it had already become Christian.
6. Well, the point is, Christ obviously meant His Church to have leadership and continuity. That is obvious from the verses following the ones we just discussed ('Receive the KEYS to the Kingdom of Heaven...') The so-called 'reformers' broke that chain of succession, each starting his own confused and erroneous version of Christianity. Now, down, anybody who has ever changed jobs knows that when you leave the firm you gotta turn in your KEYS. That is why, as I keep repeating, studying Church history from a reliable source such as a good encyclopedia is so important. I am 65 years old and no Protestant has ever given me a logical explanation of why any Church started by a sinful 'reformer' rather than by the sinless Christ has any authority. That many of these churches do good things and that their members love the Lord is not in question. That is why every year millions of these good people become Catholics, because they study Church history, which you have obviously not done, and realize that the various
'reformed' denominations go back only to their human founders while Catholicism can be traced directly back to Peter's confession without a break.
7. You keep making statements like that and yet you still have not given a single example. It seems to me the ones with much to overcome are those in the various cult-like manifestations of Protestantism such as, first and foremost, the Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses. The Baptists and Assemblies of God would run a close third and fourth. I don't demonize any of these people, some are even friends of mine, but their errors are so outrageous that they are little more than systems of mind control. They take little children and teach them the most nonsensical garbage, preparing them for nothing but a life of religious fanaticism, while the Catholic education system is the best in the world, comprising some of the world's most famous institutions of higher learning, especially the schools of the Jesuits.
8. Well, you didn't get your hatred of Catholicism from the 'mainline' Presbyterians. When we lived in Western Pennsylvania, there was a United Presbyterian Church a block away. My kids attended Bible study there, and the material they brought home every week was some of the best and most scholarly Bible study material I have ever seen. The minister was one of our best firends and a true man of God. I can assure you that no slander of any kind, let alone against Catholicism, occurred there. It's possible you have hooked up with one of several perversions of Presbyterianism such as the so-called 'Orthodox P. Chruch' or the lunatic preacher Carl McIntyre's 'Bible P. Church'. If so, it's obvious where your hatred originates. Those churches are an abomination and a major embarrassment to legitimate Presbyterians.
I've enjoyed the discussion, but you have proven by your lack of response to any of my questions and challenges to you that you don't have the least idea what you're talking about. I suggest you make even a PERFUNCTORY study of Catholicism from a reliable source such as a secular encyclopedia. Then you could discuss the subject from a perspective other than your present one of total ignorance.
I would also remind you once again that Christ Himself warned that slanderers will be held fully accountable for every false word they spread, and He wasn't just a-woofin'.
The worlds gonna end
Bronwen wrote:
I've enjoyed the discussion, but you have proven by your lack of response to any of my questions and challenges to you that you don't have the least idea what you're talking about. I suggest you make even a PERFUNCTORY study of Catholicism from a reliable source such as a secular encyclopedia. Then you could discuss the subject from a perspective other than your present one of total ignorance.
I would also remind you once again that Christ Himself warned that slanderers will be held fully accountable for every false word they spread, and He wasn't just a-woofin'.
Bron;
I am currently handicapped from using my good computer because the mouse will not function at all. I have been relegated to this junk Gateway with Windows98 and none of my library which the other 40G/WinXP beauty holds. Maybe later I can catch up with you on these things.
The Jesuits have a history all their own, like their being said to have carried out the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. But that is a topic for another time.
d:-5
I've enjoyed the discussion, but you have proven by your lack of response to any of my questions and challenges to you that you don't have the least idea what you're talking about. I suggest you make even a PERFUNCTORY study of Catholicism from a reliable source such as a secular encyclopedia. Then you could discuss the subject from a perspective other than your present one of total ignorance.
I would also remind you once again that Christ Himself warned that slanderers will be held fully accountable for every false word they spread, and He wasn't just a-woofin'.
Bron;
I am currently handicapped from using my good computer because the mouse will not function at all. I have been relegated to this junk Gateway with Windows98 and none of my library which the other 40G/WinXP beauty holds. Maybe later I can catch up with you on these things.
The Jesuits have a history all their own, like their being said to have carried out the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. But that is a topic for another time.
d:-5
The worlds gonna end
downag wrote: The Jesuits have a history all their own, like their being said to have carried out the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Yeah, right, and I think you claimed on another thread that the so-called 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' are genuine.
But, as you yourself admitted early on, you enjoy viewing everything as a conspiracy.
Enjoy, enjoy.
But, as you yourself admitted early on, you enjoy viewing everything as a conspiracy.
Enjoy, enjoy.
The worlds gonna end
Bronwen wrote: Yeah, right, and I think you claimed on another thread that the so-called 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' are genuine.
But, as you yourself admitted early on, you enjoy viewing everything as a conspiracy.
Enjoy, enjoy.
Bron, honey, this is the conspirecy theory forum.
So you're here to try to debunk anything against the RCC. Fine. You enjoy keeping the wool over people's eyes all you want. Some folk just are to smart to kow tow to Rome after it's colorful history.
I remember the stories from family friends of how the priest told them that they had to get their daughter's boyfriend to convert to Catholicism else their grandchildren would be cursed and go to hell. Stuff like that is hard to forget. Telling the family of the deceased that money HAD to be paid for masses said on behalf of that dead family member to get them out of pergatory. It just goes on and on.
d:-5
But, as you yourself admitted early on, you enjoy viewing everything as a conspiracy.
Enjoy, enjoy.
Bron, honey, this is the conspirecy theory forum.
So you're here to try to debunk anything against the RCC. Fine. You enjoy keeping the wool over people's eyes all you want. Some folk just are to smart to kow tow to Rome after it's colorful history.
I remember the stories from family friends of how the priest told them that they had to get their daughter's boyfriend to convert to Catholicism else their grandchildren would be cursed and go to hell. Stuff like that is hard to forget. Telling the family of the deceased that money HAD to be paid for masses said on behalf of that dead family member to get them out of pergatory. It just goes on and on.
d:-5
The worlds gonna end
Bronwen wrote: Yeah, right, and I think you claimed on another thread that the so-called 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' are genuine.
But, as you yourself admitted early on, you enjoy viewing everything as a conspiracy.
Enjoy, enjoy.
Bron, honey, this is the conspirecy theory forum.
So you're here to try to debunk anything against the RCC. Fine. You enjoy keeping the wool over people's eyes all you want. Some folk just are to aware to kow tow to Rome after it's colorful history.
I remember the stories from family friends of how the priest told them that they had to get their daughter's boyfriend to convert to Catholicism else their grandchildren would be cursed and go to hell. Stuff like that is hard to forget. Telling the family of the deceased that money HAD to be paid for masses said on behalf of that dead family member to get them out of pergatory. Using fear and pressure to gain money. It just goes on and on.
d:-5
But, as you yourself admitted early on, you enjoy viewing everything as a conspiracy.
Enjoy, enjoy.
Bron, honey, this is the conspirecy theory forum.
So you're here to try to debunk anything against the RCC. Fine. You enjoy keeping the wool over people's eyes all you want. Some folk just are to aware to kow tow to Rome after it's colorful history.
I remember the stories from family friends of how the priest told them that they had to get their daughter's boyfriend to convert to Catholicism else their grandchildren would be cursed and go to hell. Stuff like that is hard to forget. Telling the family of the deceased that money HAD to be paid for masses said on behalf of that dead family member to get them out of pergatory. Using fear and pressure to gain money. It just goes on and on.
d:-5
The worlds gonna end
downag wrote: 1. Bron, honey, this is the conspirecy theory forum. That's why I suggested that this exchange, if you wished to continue it, be moved to the Christianity forum. Apparently you feel more comfortable with conspirators than with Christians.
2. So you're here to try to debunk anything against the RCC.
3. I remember the stories from family friends of how the priest told them that they had to get their daughter's boyfriend to convert to Catholicism else their grandchildren would be cursed and go to hell. Telling the family of the deceased that money HAD to be paid for masses said on behalf of that dead family member to get them out of pergatory. Using fear and pressure to gain money.
4. It just goes on and on
5. Stuff like that is hard to forget. 1. I'm aware of that, and that's why I suggested that this exchange, if you wished to continue it, be moved to the Christianity forum. Apparently you feel more comfortable with conspirators than with Christians. Conspiracies are fun to read about. Taking them seriously is another matter, especially when there is no evidence at all to support the alleged conspiracy and much to the contrary. For example, the origin of the 'Protocols' is well-known and not in dispute. Anyone who continues to support it as genuine is either a hard-core anti-Semite or an idiot.
2. Not at all. I could compile a list of legitimate (or at least what I consider legitimate) criticisms of the RCC as long as my arm. That does not mean that...
a. ...those criticisms somehow make the Church less authoritative as the community of believers founded by Christ or...
b. ...that I would have LESS criticism of any of the denominations calling themselves 'Christian' but founded by sinful men rather than the sinless Christ.
Rather, I don't like to see ANY religious group, including my own, slandered by false witness such as you have given here. That is, as I keep saying, a direct violation of a commandment and any denom that engages in such slander has no right to call itself 'Christian'. You call yourself Presbyterian but true Presbyterians don't do that. Would you care to name your specific congregation? Or are you ashamed of it? I'm very proud of mine, St. Suitbertus in Ratingen, Germany. You'll find no slanderers there.
3. Prime examples of just what I'm talking about since no priest would ever make either such outrageous statement, and anyone who would suggest that either...
a. ...knows nothing about Catholicism or...
b. ...knows that such allegations are false but disseminates them anyway.
You seem to fit into both categories.
There is no question, however, that MOST clergymen of MOST denominations try to discourage mixed marriages for obvious reasons, at the same time knowing that such marriages are bound to take place. My own parents are a good example. My mother was Catholic, my father Congregationalist (known today as the United Church of Christ). The UCC is a fine church which preaches a 'social gospel', that is, that we serve God by serving our neighbors, especially those in need, but, like all the others, it was founded by heretics, so why would the children of such a marriage find it difficult to choose between truth and error? All that is required is that the history of both denoms be known. That is why I suggested you gain at some a BASIC knowledge of Catholicism before continuing this exchange, something you obviously have no interest in doing, being as you are more interested in allegation than truth.
It also takes a lot of money to run a parish and the stipend requested for Masses, which stays right there in the parish to pay bills, is quite reasonable (maybe $5 or $10 the last time I checked), nor do Mass intentions need to be for the dead, nor is any release from purgatory expressed or implied, nor have I ever heard of ANYONE who could not pay being refused. So you are batting 0 for 4 on this one.
Does your church collect money from its members? If not, how does the church continue to exist?
4. If you mean slander against Jesus Christ and His community, it certainly does go on and on, and as I keep saying, Christ Himself warns that slanderers will be held accountable for every false word. He also affirmed that the forces of hell would NEVER prevail against His Church. They certainly keep trying, though, and will no doubt continue as long as they have dupes like yourself doing their dirty work.
5. Instead of repeating slander, how about answering some of the questions and challenges I've posed? Saying you haven't time or that your computer's broken, then returning a couple of days later with more slander and no answers only proves your own moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
2. So you're here to try to debunk anything against the RCC.
3. I remember the stories from family friends of how the priest told them that they had to get their daughter's boyfriend to convert to Catholicism else their grandchildren would be cursed and go to hell. Telling the family of the deceased that money HAD to be paid for masses said on behalf of that dead family member to get them out of pergatory. Using fear and pressure to gain money.
4. It just goes on and on
5. Stuff like that is hard to forget. 1. I'm aware of that, and that's why I suggested that this exchange, if you wished to continue it, be moved to the Christianity forum. Apparently you feel more comfortable with conspirators than with Christians. Conspiracies are fun to read about. Taking them seriously is another matter, especially when there is no evidence at all to support the alleged conspiracy and much to the contrary. For example, the origin of the 'Protocols' is well-known and not in dispute. Anyone who continues to support it as genuine is either a hard-core anti-Semite or an idiot.
2. Not at all. I could compile a list of legitimate (or at least what I consider legitimate) criticisms of the RCC as long as my arm. That does not mean that...
a. ...those criticisms somehow make the Church less authoritative as the community of believers founded by Christ or...
b. ...that I would have LESS criticism of any of the denominations calling themselves 'Christian' but founded by sinful men rather than the sinless Christ.
Rather, I don't like to see ANY religious group, including my own, slandered by false witness such as you have given here. That is, as I keep saying, a direct violation of a commandment and any denom that engages in such slander has no right to call itself 'Christian'. You call yourself Presbyterian but true Presbyterians don't do that. Would you care to name your specific congregation? Or are you ashamed of it? I'm very proud of mine, St. Suitbertus in Ratingen, Germany. You'll find no slanderers there.
3. Prime examples of just what I'm talking about since no priest would ever make either such outrageous statement, and anyone who would suggest that either...
a. ...knows nothing about Catholicism or...
b. ...knows that such allegations are false but disseminates them anyway.
You seem to fit into both categories.
There is no question, however, that MOST clergymen of MOST denominations try to discourage mixed marriages for obvious reasons, at the same time knowing that such marriages are bound to take place. My own parents are a good example. My mother was Catholic, my father Congregationalist (known today as the United Church of Christ). The UCC is a fine church which preaches a 'social gospel', that is, that we serve God by serving our neighbors, especially those in need, but, like all the others, it was founded by heretics, so why would the children of such a marriage find it difficult to choose between truth and error? All that is required is that the history of both denoms be known. That is why I suggested you gain at some a BASIC knowledge of Catholicism before continuing this exchange, something you obviously have no interest in doing, being as you are more interested in allegation than truth.
It also takes a lot of money to run a parish and the stipend requested for Masses, which stays right there in the parish to pay bills, is quite reasonable (maybe $5 or $10 the last time I checked), nor do Mass intentions need to be for the dead, nor is any release from purgatory expressed or implied, nor have I ever heard of ANYONE who could not pay being refused. So you are batting 0 for 4 on this one.
Does your church collect money from its members? If not, how does the church continue to exist?
4. If you mean slander against Jesus Christ and His community, it certainly does go on and on, and as I keep saying, Christ Himself warns that slanderers will be held accountable for every false word. He also affirmed that the forces of hell would NEVER prevail against His Church. They certainly keep trying, though, and will no doubt continue as long as they have dupes like yourself doing their dirty work.
5. Instead of repeating slander, how about answering some of the questions and challenges I've posed? Saying you haven't time or that your computer's broken, then returning a couple of days later with more slander and no answers only proves your own moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
The worlds gonna end
4. If you mean slander against Jesus Christ and His community, it certainly does go on and on, and as I keep saying, Christ Himself warns that slanderers will be held accountable for every false word. He also affirmed that the forces of hell would NEVER prevail against His Church. They certainly keep trying, though, and will no doubt continue as long as they have dupes like yourself doing their dirty work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"This people do honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me".
"Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you".
They should hire you to spin for them, Bron!
d:-5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"This people do honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me".
"Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you".
They should hire you to spin for them, Bron!
d:-5
The worlds gonna end
So I can make my daughter happy by telling her she's allowed to have her belly-button pierced, and me happy by telling her not until 7th June???
The worlds gonna end
Tigerlily wrote: So I can make my daughter happy by telling her she's allowed to have her belly-button pierced, and me happy by telling her not until 7th June???If it were my daughter I would tell her not until the 32nd of June.
The worlds gonna end
downag wrote: "This people do honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me".
"Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you".
They should hire you to spin for them, Bron!..and He is talking there about His faithful, over a billion strong, or slanderers and heretics?
No answers, and so ashamed of your own church that you refuse to identify it.
Why am I not surprised?
"Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you".
They should hire you to spin for them, Bron!..and He is talking there about His faithful, over a billion strong, or slanderers and heretics?
No answers, and so ashamed of your own church that you refuse to identify it.
Why am I not surprised?
The worlds gonna end
I've been following this thread with great interest. Over the past 10-15 years or so I have come to blieve that one of the many tools that Satan uses to divide the faithful is the creation of so many "demoninations." Each one has degress of truth, each one deviates here and there. I am by no means an expert.
To me, as a believer in Christ, I wish we could all focus more on the commonalities of our beliefs. The basics. . . like have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as you Lord and Savior? Is He the only begotten Son of God who died for the sins of the world? What about the Doctrine of Eternal Security? If you have given yourself to Him, you are His. He knows our hearts and He knows our intenetions. He is faithful and just to forgive ALL our sins.
This being said, where do both of you stand? It seems to be that you are both believers in Christ, that you both answered in the affirmative to the basic question of accecpting Christ. Jesus tells us to come to Him with the faith of a child. Children tend not to get lost in the details. I think you should both embrace eachother as fellow believers and the the Lord fix all the details for you in heaven.
To me, as a believer in Christ, I wish we could all focus more on the commonalities of our beliefs. The basics. . . like have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as you Lord and Savior? Is He the only begotten Son of God who died for the sins of the world? What about the Doctrine of Eternal Security? If you have given yourself to Him, you are His. He knows our hearts and He knows our intenetions. He is faithful and just to forgive ALL our sins.
This being said, where do both of you stand? It seems to be that you are both believers in Christ, that you both answered in the affirmative to the basic question of accecpting Christ. Jesus tells us to come to Him with the faith of a child. Children tend not to get lost in the details. I think you should both embrace eachother as fellow believers and the the Lord fix all the details for you in heaven.
The worlds gonna end
Samantha wrote: 1. I've been following this thread with great interest.
2. Over the past 10-15 years or so I have come to blieve that one of the many tools that Satan uses to divide the faithful is the creation of so many "denominations." Each one has degress of truth, each one deviates here and there. I am by no means an expert.
3. To me, as a believer in Christ, I wish we could all focus more on the commonalities of our beliefs. The basics. . . like have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as you Lord and Savior? Is He the only begotten Son of God who died for the sins of the world?
4. What about the Doctrine of Eternal Security?
5. If you have given yourself to Him, you are His. He knows our hearts and He knows our intenetions. He is faithful and just to forgive ALL our sins.
6. This being said, where do both of you stand?
7. It seems to be that you are both believers in Christ, that you both answered in the affirmative to the basic question of accecpting Christ. Jesus tells us to come to Him with the faith of a child. Children tend not to get lost in the details. I think you should both embrace eachother as fellow believers and the the Lord fix all the details for you in heaven.1. Hi, Sam. Welcome and thanks for your contribution. Before I respond, I would once more state that this part of the discussion really belongs elsewhere, since it has little to do with the end of the world.
2. Well, I am 65 years old, so I came to believe that long before you did. The divisions, however, must be laid squarely at the feet of the various so-called 'reformers', each of whom declared openly that he wanted nothing to do with the community of believers that Jesus Christ founded on Peter and the other Apostles. By contrast, the Catholic Church is basically the same today as in the earliest centuries of Christianity. This traditionalism is of the main reasons it's so attractive to so many Christians and far, far larger, at one billion plus believers, than any of the 'reformed' denominations.
3. Sam, I have no problem at all with anyone claiming to have 'accepted Christ as their Savior', that is, acknowledging His atoning sacrifice. In fact, I would freely make such a declaration myself. My problem, however, is with Christians who use that as a 'catch-phrase' for the erroneous doctrine of 'salvation by faith alone', which is contrary to Christ's entire ministry.
The essence is Christianity is not mouthing words but following Christ's teachings and the example of His life. One's conduct then speaks for itself, making such declarations unnecessary.
4. Never heard of it.
5. If that is what you mean by the 'Doctrine of Eternal Security', then I agree wholeheartedly. I've just never heard it called that before.
6. Well, I think I've stated that clearly during the last couple of screens on this thread. If you wish me to expand on anything I've said here, or answer any questions about my Church, I will gladly do so.
7. The basic difference between downag and myself is that I am interested in a balanced discussion while he is interested only in slandering Catholicism. You can see that for yourself by reviewing our recent set of exchanges. He has referred to himself as a Presbyterian but true Presbyterians do not do such things.
The various 'mainline' Protestant denominations all have much to recommend them, even though my study of the NT and of Church history convinces me that much of their theology is in error. But at the outer fringes of Christianity one encounters the 'never-never land' of the extremist sects and cults who, having NOTHING of their own to offer, rely on nonsense and slander, especially against Catholicism but also against mainline Protestantism. That is where I place down; indeed, he seems to be so ashamed of his particular church that he will not even identify it, nor will he respond to any of the questions, all very reasonable ones, that I have put to him. To the extent that he loves the Lord, good for him, but directly violating a commandment by bearing false witness against more than a billion of his fellow Christians is a very odd way to show one's love of God.
I leave to you to decide which viewpoint has more credibility. As I have said throughout this discussion and similar ones, I am not trying to convert anyone, only to suggest that Christians seeking an affiliation study the history of the Church from a reliable source rather than listening to the false witness of its enemies.
2. Over the past 10-15 years or so I have come to blieve that one of the many tools that Satan uses to divide the faithful is the creation of so many "denominations." Each one has degress of truth, each one deviates here and there. I am by no means an expert.
3. To me, as a believer in Christ, I wish we could all focus more on the commonalities of our beliefs. The basics. . . like have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as you Lord and Savior? Is He the only begotten Son of God who died for the sins of the world?
4. What about the Doctrine of Eternal Security?
5. If you have given yourself to Him, you are His. He knows our hearts and He knows our intenetions. He is faithful and just to forgive ALL our sins.
6. This being said, where do both of you stand?
7. It seems to be that you are both believers in Christ, that you both answered in the affirmative to the basic question of accecpting Christ. Jesus tells us to come to Him with the faith of a child. Children tend not to get lost in the details. I think you should both embrace eachother as fellow believers and the the Lord fix all the details for you in heaven.1. Hi, Sam. Welcome and thanks for your contribution. Before I respond, I would once more state that this part of the discussion really belongs elsewhere, since it has little to do with the end of the world.
2. Well, I am 65 years old, so I came to believe that long before you did. The divisions, however, must be laid squarely at the feet of the various so-called 'reformers', each of whom declared openly that he wanted nothing to do with the community of believers that Jesus Christ founded on Peter and the other Apostles. By contrast, the Catholic Church is basically the same today as in the earliest centuries of Christianity. This traditionalism is of the main reasons it's so attractive to so many Christians and far, far larger, at one billion plus believers, than any of the 'reformed' denominations.
3. Sam, I have no problem at all with anyone claiming to have 'accepted Christ as their Savior', that is, acknowledging His atoning sacrifice. In fact, I would freely make such a declaration myself. My problem, however, is with Christians who use that as a 'catch-phrase' for the erroneous doctrine of 'salvation by faith alone', which is contrary to Christ's entire ministry.
The essence is Christianity is not mouthing words but following Christ's teachings and the example of His life. One's conduct then speaks for itself, making such declarations unnecessary.
4. Never heard of it.
5. If that is what you mean by the 'Doctrine of Eternal Security', then I agree wholeheartedly. I've just never heard it called that before.
6. Well, I think I've stated that clearly during the last couple of screens on this thread. If you wish me to expand on anything I've said here, or answer any questions about my Church, I will gladly do so.
7. The basic difference between downag and myself is that I am interested in a balanced discussion while he is interested only in slandering Catholicism. You can see that for yourself by reviewing our recent set of exchanges. He has referred to himself as a Presbyterian but true Presbyterians do not do such things.
The various 'mainline' Protestant denominations all have much to recommend them, even though my study of the NT and of Church history convinces me that much of their theology is in error. But at the outer fringes of Christianity one encounters the 'never-never land' of the extremist sects and cults who, having NOTHING of their own to offer, rely on nonsense and slander, especially against Catholicism but also against mainline Protestantism. That is where I place down; indeed, he seems to be so ashamed of his particular church that he will not even identify it, nor will he respond to any of the questions, all very reasonable ones, that I have put to him. To the extent that he loves the Lord, good for him, but directly violating a commandment by bearing false witness against more than a billion of his fellow Christians is a very odd way to show one's love of God.
I leave to you to decide which viewpoint has more credibility. As I have said throughout this discussion and similar ones, I am not trying to convert anyone, only to suggest that Christians seeking an affiliation study the history of the Church from a reliable source rather than listening to the false witness of its enemies.
The worlds gonna end
Good news everyone accourding to sources the world has not ended in canada and as far as I can tell not in the US either I am still serching for news that tells us the world is ending.:wah: 
:-6 :
:-6 :
The worlds gonna end
MOTime wrote: Good news everyone accourding to sources the world has not ended in canada and as far as I can tell not in the US either I am still serching for news that tells us the world is ending.:wah: :-6 :
thank goodness, cause I was fretting.
:-6 :thank goodness, cause I was fretting.
�You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.�
― Mae West
― Mae West