Obama Says Christians as Guilty as Muslims: ‘People Committed Terrible Deeds in the Name of Christ’

ObamaWASHINGTON — During the National Prayer Breakfast held in Washington on Thursday, Barack Obama spoke against violence committed in the name of religion, and stated that Christians have been just as guilty as Muslims and other terror groups of this crime.

“It’s not unique to one group or one religion,” he said. “There is a tendency in us—a sinful tendency—that can pervert and distort our faith.”

“From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for their faith—profess to stand up for Islam—but are in fact betraying it,” Obama outlined. “We see sectarian war in Syria, the murder of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, religious war in the Central African Republic, a rising tide of anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Europe, so often perpetrated in the name of religion.”

But Obama stated that while America may look to other countries and religions as being shameful for committing violence in the name of their religion, he suggested that Christians had an oppressive and violent history themselves.

“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” he said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

Obama opined that no singular religion should think that they have the truth and others don’t.

“I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt, not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that God speaks only to us, and doesn’t speak to others, that God only cares about us and doesn’t care about others, that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth,” he said.

  • Connect with Christian News

Obama later quoted from various religious texts in an effort to demonstrate that all religions advocate for peace, and also praised the Dalai Lama, who was present at the event, as well as the Roman Catholic Pontiff Francis.

“[T]his is the loving message of His Holiness, Pope Francis,” he stated. “And like so many people around the world, I’ve been touched by his call to relieve suffering, and to show justice and mercy and compassion to the most vulnerable; to walk with the Lord and ask, ‘Who am I to judge?'”

“Each of us has a role in fulfilling our common, greater purpose—not merely to seek high position, but to plumb greater depths so that we may find the strength to love more fully,” Obama continued. “And this is perhaps our greatest challenge: to see our own reflection in each other; to be our brother’s keepers and sister’s keepers, and to keep faith with one another.”

But some expressed concern over the president’s remarks, especially his comments about Christianity.

“The president’s comments this morning at the prayer breakfast are the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime,” former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore (R) told reporters. “He has offended every believing Christian in the United States. This goes further to the point that Mr. Obama does not believe in America or the values we all share.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • new_york_loner

    I listened to the speech and I thought that the president told it like it is. Former VA Governor Gilmore’s reaction is way out of line.

    Obama did mention the Great Crusades and the Inquisition; both Catholic-sponsored events… American evangelicals blame the Catholic faith for those atrocities, not Christianity itself. Gilmore’s sudden defense of Catholicism is disingenuous.

    Obama should have mentioned the Salem witch hunts and trials; they were more recent and totally American Protestant atrocities.

    We should never forget that the Confederate soldiers and sailors believed that God was on their side, as they fought for the right to own African N e g r o slaves.

    • Gary

      Obama is totally unqualified to discuss Christianity. He knows too little about it. He apparently does not even know the Crusades and the Inquisition were done by Catholics, not by Christians.
      Few Confederate soldiers and sailors owned slaves. They were fighting for states rights of which slavery was just a part.

      • Michael Castner

        Sorry,still done in the name of jesus.Stop making excuses.

        • robertzaccour

          A Christian by definition is a follower of Christ. You could put kittens in the oven and they’re not gonna come out biscuits. If you’re not following Jesus you’re NOT a Christian.

          • Michael Castner

            The point that the president was making was that people commit atrocities In the name of religion.christian,catholic,muslim.do catholics have a different bible than christians?did you know that some christians in africa are still killing “witches”?did you know their christian leaders are saying condoms are bad,in an aids infested country?do you think we should judge all of christianity based on that?thats the point the president Was trying to make,but it went over the christians,and foxes heads.

          • DisqusBurner1983

            Do I need to call animal welfare on you? Please stop putting kittens in the oven…

        • Gary

          Lots of people try to justify their sins by claiming God has no problem with what they are doing.

      • theron

        The states rights argument is revisionist. Go read South Carolina’s articles of secession. Slavery/slaves is mentioned 19 times in a two page document. States rights, 0 times.

        Southern slave holders also knew that Jesus had discussed the nuances of slaveholding, and tacitly approved:

        Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

        Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

        In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.

        The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

        Now it’s your turn to tell me this was metaphor.

        • new_york_loner

          The CSA’s Constitution is clear… African N e g r o slavery was to be forever legal and any new territories added to the CSA would be slave states. The “African N e g r o ” language is the smoking cannon that proves that the South seceded from the union over the racially charged slavery issue.

          Here’s the link:
          http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

      • Lesley Rankin
      • Spoob

        Gary, how totally stupid. What a moronic thing to say, even for you. At the time of the Crusades, the Catholics WERE the Christians. I know how much you hate Catholics but in this case CATHOLIC = CHRISTIAN. This predates the Reformation by several hundred years.

        • Gary

          None of the apostles were catholics. Since Jesus was on earth, there have always been Christians who were not catholics. Now that you have been set straight, you have no excuse for your ignorance.

          • Spoob

            No, Gary. There was no fundamentalist Christians in those days. Either you were Catholic or Orthodox. You lose.

          • Gary

            Not true. There have been fundamentalist Christians(Bible believers) since Jesus was on earth. The Christians who lived in the time of Christ, and until the New Testament was written, all had the OT, and believed it.

          • Spoob

            Christian fundamentalism began in the late 19th- and early 20th-century among British and American Protestants. It has not existed since the time of Christ, it is very new. And of course it is very convenient for you to blame the Crusades on Catholics and say that YOUR breed of Christian was blameless for the whole thing, but you’re completely wrong, this isn’t even something that can be argued. It is simple historical fact.

          • Gary

            All Christian fundamentalism is, is believing the Bible and trying to live by what it says. Christians get their beliefs from the Bible. It did not all start in the 1800s. But I’m not surprised you don’t know that.

          • Spoob

            I’m not surprised you’re making things up. Yet again.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism

          • Gary

            I’m not making anything up. If you read the NT, you will find believers (Christians) were there. And there have been Christians around ever since.

          • Spoob

            As a fundamentalist, you have been taught to hate Catholics. That’s all this is about Gary. Demonize the Catholics when possible and defend fundamentalists when possible. You have thousands of years of history against you in this.

          • Gary

            Whatever.

          • Jeff Varney

            iHasta su nariz! Si no puedes soportar el calor, sal de la cocina!

          • Spoob

            What about just being honest?

          • Jeff Varney

            Always be honest, Spoob. The same goes for everyone of us here.

          • Julie

            They don’t think they are wrong.

            I went to Mass this am and prayed for them, especially when someone called me Satan for saying we enter into Christ when we are baptized…when we are born again…but this consciousnes of being Christian and growing in faith in Christ lasts a lifetime…so I was called Satan..>Jesus said those who endure to the end…the cross, dying to self…caring for Him in those who suffer, etc will be saved.

            And there is a line in a Psalm..God likes it when we are on trembling knees…very opposite posture of presumption.

          • Spoob

            Watch out for this place, there are some people that will rip you to shreds when you tell them you’re Catholic. One guy called Oboehner never wastes an opportunity to call me a “Marian” even though I’m not. He insists I worship statues even though I don’t and never have (like most Catholics).

          • Julie

            I feel so sorry for a young man who asked such provoking questions on Catholic Answers. He finally became Catholic. Later he came back so distressed his Protestant friends were accusing him of being a Mary worshipper, that he got to a point where he posted in huge huge print….you could not put in anything else…’I don’t worship Mary!’

            In the meantime those people refuse to hear what you truly believe and have no interest to study the Mass or its history.

            So I think there is something else going on in their souls…and they refuse to study history. I was at a seminary studying….and told the dr how people think the Roman Catholic Church was started by Constantine…a new spin out there…saw it as a new ‘discovery!’ on World Net Daily of which after that I left….The instructor was sipping coffee and when I brought up the issue…he spilled his coffee…’See the effect this has!’…’Anyone with any sense of history knows this is absolutely not true.’

            They cannot tell truth from false…and as I told them…then Christ should have left a bible there in the Temple in Jerusalem that stated all He did…reflecting the Gospels…and then leave. They cannot grasp there must be an authorized human interpretor…and you cannot depend on just one person…

            They find interpretation according to their passions and sense of righteousness…a family in law who holds similar beliefs about Catholics…and we do love her…said she cannot handle academic history…too heavy…and so..she follows Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyers…and my daughter in law finally told me her father in law who is protestant thinks this some of this is on the kooky side….

            I don’t know really where they are and only God knows….but they definitely have their way of looking at things….and us.

          • Spoob

            On this forum, I have been called “Mary Worshiper,” “Marian,” “idolator,” “apostate,” “Pope worshiper,” and others. All by people who don’t know me, don’t know anything about me at all except that I was raised Catholic.

            I’m sorry for your experiences. This forum isn’t for the faint of heart and yet I hope you will stay. The atheists here are much friendlier than the fundamentalists, which says a lot, I think.

            I’m glad you left World Net Daily, it’s bad news all around.

          • Julie

            They don’t realize they are gluttons for false judgments and information…those leaders of sects who are spin …the preacher men in suits.
            My mother, a former Baptist, was hounded by our neighbor to go her Baptist church. We were not supposed to go to them at all in those days…but out of charity for her, we went. I was about 8 or 9 then….and felt gulty going in there.

            Well I was shocked to see this big man in a business suit. There was an American flag up, like we did…but the whole room was empty…I mean devoid of anything of the sacred, of holiness. It was a secular room.

            Then he got up and started shouting and then really went on about Catholics going to hell. We got up at the end. But I really thought that place, compared to Pre Vatican II Mass…was of Satan and I was so freaked out about it, I could see why we were advised not to go to protestant services.

            Since then I learned about the different kind of Protestants and made many good relationships with those in public high school.

          • Julie

            He is particularly referring to American evangelism starting in the 1800’s along with the Mormons, the Slicks, the independent Baptists, the Jehovah Witnesses…the Seventh Day Adventists…who else is out there…that think the true Church of Christ was gone, disappeared…none of them can say when or what event…but that the Church is gone…and they are now the true Christians.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            The Slicks as in the people who run CARM?

          • Julie

            Well…Mr Slick is obviously well and alive…and yes, he is the one running CARM with alot of cherry picking of ancient documents…he does study the ECF, but selectively…that supports his convictions. I shared St. Justin Martyr’s descriptino of the Mass…and his moderator deleted it…showing the Mass today has the same spirit, tone, intent as the first Masses…He carries with him the same Restorationist mindset regarding the Catholic Church and cannot see it as a patriarch among the other ancient churches who co-existed with her…the Bereans are also in there and they acclaim they have the same pure intent as the ancient Bereans who had St. Paul’s esteem…but there is no trail, no documentation to support such a claim.

            It is too bad people cannot study the Early Church Fathers and see how pure their intent was to understand and comprehend the depth of Christ in Scripture…and likewise how one could easily come to false conclusions of certain text without the help of other members of the Church.

            Just about every ECF made errors…but they submitted their reflections to the Church for review…and together they would work it out….into comprehensive Christology that took time and constantly grows in depth and width.

            There can never be enough books out there to teach us about Our Lord…and all must never contradict our doctrine of Christ found and defined in the Catechism…that draws its doctrines from Sacred Scripture.

            People should go to forums.catholic.com…with an open mind…and people will not condemn or abuse them there or call them Satan because they cannot understand let alone accept the Catholic Church. People can answer their questions with much more depth than comments on threads like this.

          • Julie

            The American faction is the most extreme, least academically educated and most closed minded…they have had so much fear put into them about the Church and Catholics in general that they cannot even look up in the Catechism to find out what we truly believe.

            They get alot of this from these preacher men who come out of these ‘highly’ credentialed..’bible schools’.

            False understanding of the Bible first starts with the Catholic Church. Then it goes on to state we are making things up…when they are the ones using compromised bibles…they take fragments and fractures out of context all the time and when you show them another angle from other passages…like the fellow yesterday….they lose all their charity and call you Satan and so forth.

            Catholics have been listening to ‘the Bible’ at Mass for 2000 years…it has always been there. This is what is so darn annoying.. is just how much they are indoctrinated against ancient Christianity…refuse to learn what it really teaches and how it believes…and instead say crazy things all the time like…
            .
            Oh…you are Catholic??? Well I follow the bible.

            We, too.

          • Spoob

            Oh believe me, I know all about it. I think what led me to this site initially is that I wanted to make a bet that since it was an American based news source, it would likely have a strong anti-Catholic slant, and lo and behold it does.

            I don’t live in the US but I know American evangelists tend to be the loudest opponents of Catholicism, I’m not quite sure why that is though. Growing up Catholic I asked my mother one day what the difference was between us and the Protestants and she said “They believe what we do, they just do some things a little differently.” Thanks, mom. Contrast that with what the fundamentalists are likely teaching their children about Catholicism.

          • Julie

            Yes…the veil was finally opened….when I realized it is my own native English speaking people who believe and follow the spins…we have the most fractured Christianity in the world.

            If you go down any town…you will see many individual churches…people unable to come together in one church…there are about 34,000 derivatives of Protestantism here..all these bible schools so you can become a preacher man…and of course….these mostly are the ones who are anti Catholic.

            Stay away from CARM…it is toxic..Christians in general consider it the worst and most comprised…and the moderators and posters…make me think they live in remote parts of America…I can see them with their bibles…and finding out the latest anti Christ comment by P Francis…the statues…’you know what they did now!’…you go back and explain what was really said…no…they got it right, they got it all and by golly they are on the highway to heaven…and us poor creatures….we are going to the devil.

          • Spoob

            You are very correct about CARM, it is terrible. So is gotquestions. So is jesus-is-lord (it’s one of the worst). So is amazingfacts. so is answersingenesis. Most of them are anti-Catholic nightmares, web equivalents of Jack Chick tracts.

            Fundamentalists are not interested in asking you what you believe, they are interested in TELLING you. As if they would even know.

          • Julie

            That is where I need to draw the line…obviously they are not following the Holy Spirit…and you don’t want to be a dump for them to pile on their abuse.

          • DisqusBurner1983

            Erm, the Bible wasn’t written while Christ was alive. Nor for generations afterwards. Not sure what those OG Fundies were using for guidance then.

          • Julie

            St Peter said in his 2nd letter…to not follow private or personal interpretation but to follow the decrees he and the apostles laid down as they were witnesses to the Lord.
            Luther started the Sola Scriptura…and he never met the apostles…and it is a known fact he was highly scrupulous, someone with an unbalanced temperment and Calvin pointed out Luther’s theological discrepancies. Luther attempted to remove books of the bible but his followers got up set and refused him to do so..here the sheep leading the blind…

          • Julie

            no…and no bible then either.
            Christ did not walk away leaving bible books.

            There were scribes who assisted the apostles and letters were sent and read at Mass.

          • Julie

            Sorry…St. Ignatius of Antioch named the Church, Universal Christian Church…in Greek universal is wrote out as Catholic in 107 AD.

            And there was only one universal Church, no schism then between East and West.

            The only others besides the apostolic Christians…were the agnostics whose heresies were defeated by St. Irenaeus around 200 AD. He wrote the best and most thorough book on heresies 2000 years ago ,…and he was Catholic.

            It is almost funny how the anti Catholic sects say the Romanist Catholic Church was founded by Constantine in the 300’s…when the bishops with the help of Constantine help restore the Eastern Church…that evolved into the Byzantine Church…the Patriarch of Constantinople….

            The Church of Rome was founded by SS Peter and Paul..they died there under Emperor Nero a few years apart..and their martyrdom solidified them as founders.

            Peter was assisted by his son, Mark in establishing the Church there. although there were Jewish Christians already living there who had fled the Diaspora…and attended Mass in the church homes run by presbyters…this continued..but they all saw themselves as members of the Church of Rome.

            There was the Church of Jerusalem headed by James the Lesser. James the Greater went to Spain but he had to leave…but they still consider him as founder. Mark founded Alexandria, Peter Antioch as well as Rome.

            SS Peter and Paul went to Rome purely for the Ecclesia…the Church community….the Church of Constantinople was founded partly for the Church…but also for imperial reasons.

      • Magister_militum_praesentalis

        For all of the badass posturing when it comes to executing homosexuals and sticking it to the Muslims, it is very ironic to see you vilify the Crusades. It is the same binary thinking of most fundies on display: Catholic = BAD under all circumstances.

        • Julie

          So true….we are the evil anti christs…and the sects will use most of their energy to vilify and malign our faith into something we ourselves don’t believe in…and dig their heels in …

      • Julie

        Glad you pointed out Catholics are not Christians…there was no sola scriptura then or nor was there ever among the Israelites either.

    • Tyler Mitchell

      Actually…Confederate soliders fought because they were told their land…jobs..etc would be taken from them by the North.Most Confederate soilders did not own slaves….too poor to own slaves.But let’s not throw facts into a good rant.

      I’ve read a number of books on the Salem witch trails and it’s a much deeper story than what it seems.Too much to even get into here.

      The Crusades started off as something on the up and up but went bad…and fast because it became about power.

      The Inquistions are a major black mark on the catholic religion…millions of Christians and Jews were killed.

      The fact is….and it seems to have went over your head…none of those are reflections on the Christian faith…what you listed are acts of the evil side of human beings which plays out time and time again.There is only one Christian…that’s Yeshua…that is what the Christian faith is to be judged on.So the question is …do acts of muslim terror go against their so called holy book and faith?And the answer to that is a big fat…NO!

      • robertzaccour

        A Christian by definition is a follower of Christ. The people that did those terrible things are definitely not Christians. You can put kittens in the oven but they’re not gonna come out biscuits.

      • Michael Castner

        Excuses.

        • Jeff Varney

          It’s all in your head, Michael.

    • Candace

      Technically they fought fo states rights and state sovereignty. Slavery was being economically phased out. (I am personally against slavery.) My family line fought on Union side. But people overlook that Lincoln only sought abolition after the war started, strategic reason, to disrupt the economic power of the confederate forces. People who committed human atrocities in the name of Jesus aren’t behaving like Christians. People committing human atrocities in tje name of Mohammed seem to be doing so according to their scriptures … but I can’t read the karun to discern whether it really says what they say. I spoke with my Muslim brother in law on the matter nack when Iran hostage crisis occurred. He indicated that their book does say these things but asked me to believe that most Muslims dont want to follow the book the believe in. That they prefer to be accepted as peaceful toward Americans and Christians.

      I don’t think holding up sins that our Nation has successfully pulled itself out of is an excuse to look the other eay for current events. I think tje President is trying to soften the seriosness of it for some reason. He has a lot of hamd shaking to live up to.

      • theron

        Slavery was booming, slave importation was being phased out.

        • new_york_loner

          Yeah, they had a large breeding stock of relatively docile US-born slaves; no need to go through the expense and trouble of importing freshly enslaved Africans.

        • Candace

          No slavery was being phased out starting with the new territories. And slavery included white people too. No one ever talks about that. And Abraham Lincoln stated he believe blacks to be inferior to whites – and admitted he only freed the slaves of the Southern states as a military tactic. Northern slaves were allowed to remain slaves and also to serve AS slaves beside their masters. The threat was to economically and militarily hurt the southern economy which was faltering as it was. And I speak as a person who’s family fought on the Union side – NOT A CONFEDERATE. I dont support the confederate flag either although its legal by the 1st Amendment and they do have the right to display it. However I don’t believe any Government building has a right to display it on or beside the American flag. The south was in an economic downturn and was not capable of mechanizing and transitioning away from slavery. Tennent farmers and migrant workers were starting to become economically competitive with slavery, because slave holders had to upkeep all the expenses and needs of the slaves for life. Tennent farmers and migrant workers were self-sustaining. So slavery was being phased out. And personally I find it an abhorrent practice.

      • new_york_loner

        And precisely what was the State’s right” that the Confederates fought and died for? They did not go to war over unfair taxation, as Southern revisionists claim, the Confederates were a bunch of seditious, Christian, white terrorists… General Lee betrayed his oath, as a West point educated officer… he should have been hanged for treason… Jeff Davis too.

        • Candace

          I dont think that being a Christian makes you a confederate. Nor does being a Christian make you a terrorist – Nor does being a Christian make you white. Those are all racist and bigoted comments. Many Southerners fought on the unions side and many never owned any slaves. Some slaves were white – Northern revisionists never tell these facts. And furthermore Northern revisionists also hide the fact that slavery was in the north and northern slaves fought along side their Yankee masters in the war. My family fought on the Union side and never owned slaves. Northern revisionists never talk about the fact that THEY were the ones acquiring the slaves and selling them. The used them in tobacco and other large crop productions. And lets be honest just because there are Christians doesnt meant that every one who claims to be one actually is living a Christian life. People are corrupt because they are human people NOT because they are Christians. True Christians are actually against slavery. And many many white southerners and northerners were against slavery and were glad to see it end.

    • Spoob

      At the time of the Crusades, the Christians were the Catholics. They were one and the same, are you suggesting there was a separate breed of evangelical Christian at that time who did not participate in the Crusades who should be held blameless? Even gotquestions.org which is usually virulently anti-Catholic does not make this claim.

      • new_york_loner

        Spoob, let me clarify my view, I wrote, ” American evangelicals blame the Catholic faith for those atrocities, not Christianity itself.” I am not an American Evangelical Christian and the argument that Catholics, not Christians are responsible for those atrocities is spurious.

        • Spoob

          Yes, wasn’t accusing, just looking to clarify, although radical fundamentalists DO make this claim – such as Gary on this very page.

        • Magister_militum_praesentalis

          You did have a good point, though, in that fundies and evangelicals praise the Crusades when it comes to fighting Islam, somehow forgetting to associate them with Catholicism, and then throw everything else that they perceive to be “Catholic” under the bus.

      • Gary

        None of the apostles were catholics. Since Jesus was on earth, there have always been Christians who were not catholics. You are wrong, and now you know you are wrong, so you have no excuse.

        • Spoob

          No, Gary. Prior to the Protestant Reformation there were Catholics and Orthodox Christians. There was no master race of Christians as you are suggesting. This is very easily verified with practically any history book.

          • Gary

            Orthodox Christians were not catholics prior to the reformation? Is that what you mean?

          • Spoob

            No, prior to the Reformation if you were a Christian you were either Catholic or Orthodox. There were no fundies.

          • Gary

            All of the Christians, since the first ones, have always believed the Bible and lived by it (fundamentalist Christians). That is what a Christian is. They used the OT until the NT was written, and then they used both.

          • Spoob

            All right, well since you’re so fond of saying that Catholics are not Christians, when it’s pointed out that Christians were responsible for the Crusades, you say no, it was the Catholics. It’s very convenient for you when you want Christians to look good you exclude the Catholics, but when the Christians look bad you say “oh no, that wasn’t Christians, it was Catholics.” Well make up your mind. Are Catholics Christians or aren’t they?

          • Gary

            I don’t believe they are.

          • Spoob

            So prior to the reformation, there were no Christians then?

          • Gary

            As I told you, there have been Christians since Jesus Christ was on earth.

          • Spoob

            That’s right, and from the earliest times up to the Reformation they were called Catholics. Or Orthodox. There were no Baptists. There were no evangelicals. There were no fundies.

          • Gary

            What about John the Baptist? LOL. Well, you are going to believe what you want, and it really does not matter to me what you believe.

            By the way, John the Baptist was a fundamentalist. So was Jesus.

          • Spoob

            No, they were both Jews.

          • Gary

            Jewish fundamentalists.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            LOL!

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            This is J. M. Carroll’s “historical” line of reasoning and justification.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Do you even know what an Orthodox Christian is?

      • Pererin

        The problem here is all down to the whole argument of whether Peter was the original pope. Obviously catholics will say yes and protestants will say no. To say that all Christians where catholic or orthodox pre-reformation is simply skewed history. You only need a few Google searches to find this.

        • Spoob

          Well, prior to the Reformation, there were certainly no evangelicals or fundamentalists.

          • Pererin

            True, there we no evangelicals of today or fundamentals of today back then, however there were versions of them. Similarly, it’s also important to note that the Roman catholic church of Constantine is very different to the Roman catholic church of today, thankfully so too!

            Regarding proof, we only have to go to the Bible. From the beginning there was a church of Jerusalem, a church of Antioch, a church of Corinth and a church of Ephesus and these churches were not all under one administration and were not under the authority of a Roman church.
            After that there were Montanists, Precillianists, Paulicians, Bogomils, Albigenses, Waldenses etc. All were brutally persecuted by the Roman catholic church and of that list only the Waldenses survive today. There was also a church in India (church of Thomas), Arabia (Nestorian church), Egypt, China and in Ethiopia.

            So you see, it was not only the Roman catholic church and orthodox church, even if you believe that Peter was the first pope, you cannot make this claim. In my opinion, up until the reformation, the Roman catholic church had succeeded in wiping them out, although it was the Muslims who held down the Nestorian church just before the crusades. I’m sure you have heard the saying, history is written by the victors.

            In a similar fashion, gospel scrolls had been translated into over 100 different languages before the then-powerful Roman catholic church decided on Latin-only. The translated gospel scripts were quickly wiped out and did not return until the reformation.

          • Spoob

            Let’s look at and focus on the statement made by Gary. He had the nerve to say that the Crusades were a product of the Catholics (no argument) but that the Evangelicals should not be blamed because they did not take part. True again to a point – they didn’t take part because they did not exist at the time. What he’s doing is saying there WERE evangelicals like him at that time and they refused to take part in the war. If you have read any of Gary’s other comments here you will know that he hates Catholics and has also stated that he would like to see them executed.

            This is simply someone trying to claim moral superiority for the branch of Christianity he has chosen.

  • Jack the Baptizer

    Kinda funny the trend of holding Christianity and even God himself accountable for the actions of every cult or weirdo that happens to say Jesus, whereas Muslims reenacting the lifestyle of Mohammed, in accordance with koranic text (without the addition of non-cannonical koranic commentary) are then said to have misunderstood Islam.

    Pro-tip:
    Actual Christianity is about believing in the deity and saving grace of Jesus. The safe source for these beliefs is the bible, which confirms it’s own authority. If you toss out a piece, you have to toss out the whole thing. If you then, responsibly hold Christians up to the standard of the bible, it becomes painfully clear who is Christian by definition and who has invented their own rules, completely off-book. By the time of the crusades, Catholicism had put humans between man and God. Unbiblical. Racism additionally is not condoned for Christians, and in fact is clearly condemned by the epistles.

    • Michael Castner

      Obama wasnt holding christianity responsible for anything.he was just pointing out that a whole religion shouldnt be judged by acts of aggression from people claiming to do them in the name of religion.

      • Jack the Baptizer

        Semantics. “committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.” It’s a false correlation at best. Violence in the “name of Christ” does not equate remotely to violence in the name of Mohammed. The key, which progs never want to admit exists, is context. Much easier to funnel violence and religion into superficial, generalized buckets without comparing the actions of violent people to their source doctrinal texts. No, killing for the cause of religion itself has no text to support it for a Christian. The koran however, and the actions of the prophet Mohammed offer plenty of situations and instruction to commit violence because of beliefs. One has to go outside the koran to commentary and cultural practice to find non-violent instruction to Muslims.

      • Tom Winegar

        What most American’s are waiting for is to hear the leader of the country clearly and unequivocally condemning Islamic Terrorism…..and he refuses to do that. He supports them and even offers recruitment fodder with his speeches. Leave it to the modern day Howdy-Doody puppet to daily prove who gets it and who doesn’t when his Democrat admirers swoon and gush in his defense. Karma would be everyone calling themselves Democrat having their heads cut off by their Jihadist friends……that would be justice. Talk about literally cutting one’s own throat.

        • Michael Castner

          He has condemned isis.you just want him to condemn islam.do we condemn christianity because of the kkk?or christians bombing abortion clinics?no.do you even know the difference between the words muslim and islam?

      • jmichael39

        strange how after 400 years of extreme and violent aggression against Christians in North Africa, the Middle East, Eastern and Southern Europe that the Crusades are still considered an act of aggression by Christians. Actually, I shouldn’t say, “still”…it wasn’t until around the 1800s that anyone in their right mind considered them aggression on the part of Christians.

        • Michael Castner

          Strange how people get upset for our president stating facts.

          • Pererin

            That’s the problem, though, they are not facts, they are a representation of his agenda. He’s pushing a message that is falsely warping history. Pretty much what most politicians do unfortunately. They care not for truth but for their twisted agenda.

          • Michael Castner

            His “agenda”was to not condemn all of islam.isis does not represent all of islam.the inquisition and crusades did happen,and yes,horrible things were done in the name of christ.I dont know why christians deny it.

          • Pererin

            Most Christians don’t have a problem with this. Most Christian will freely admit that evil people once used the name of Christ for evil purposes. As you say, nearly 500 years ago with the inquisition. However the annoyance here is that once again it is the Christian faith that is being trampled on, comparing it to ISIS and Islam. If Obama wanted a more accurate example he should be using the belief of Atheism. More recent examples of evil atheists abusing their beliefs are available than Christian examples. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Milosevic are all recent examples that Obama could have using in place or along side his statements. But the way he did it made it sound like he was saying you Christians are no better than Muslims with the current acts of terror, this is simply not true, he had to drag up a past of long long ago of human abuse of Jesus name, while nothing happens today. He should have at least brought up atheist examples if he were honest. It would probably have been more effective too.

        • Julie

          What that is is secular atheism at work in our schools.

          I was at Shoreline HIgh School in the early 1980’s…in a classroom and the teacher had a timeline showing the crusades and their evil and completing ignoring the Muslims….

          Same for our university students…set up….

    • Lesley Rankin
      • thelordlives2011

        Lesley, this is a good website on crusades. Everyone needs to read it.

    • Julie

      Unbiblical…..I just came off another one of the threads on this web site….

      The Catholic Church assembled the Bible…

      The CCC, Catholic Catechism states over 2800 plus doctrines on Christ and salvation…with footnotes to Scripture.

      The Mass is the fulfillment of the worship at the Temple…we focus on Christ and not man…like some ‘biblicals’ were indoctrinated to think.

      There are those like yourself who venture to Catholic Answers…begin to listen …and like the vast majority find out most said about Catholicism isn’t true…where did the misconceptions come from?…either from English and German nationalists in times following the Reformation and at war….or your American independent bible preachers who are not educated.

      The Church took 400 years to finally reach out to those suffering in Jerusalem and the Holy Land. The rogue Normans are the ones primarily blamed for atrocities.

      The first 300 years….persecution….but the transmission of the Holy Spirit….by
      100 AD, practically all books were selected by the Church for the Bible…so much for us not being biblical…the Liturgy was uniform throughout the entire Christian world, St. Justin the Martyr described how the Mass was said to the Emperor in 154 ad…this was posted on Mr Slick’s anti catholic web site…and it was deleted….the ecclesial authority was the episcopacy over concilliar and the foundation of the creed there … in 100 AD.

      It is St. Ignatius of Antioch who named the Church…Universal Christian Church…Katholik…Greek….in 107 AD.

      Many who finally get over their indoctrinated fears of Christ’s Church…noting its history resembles the salvation history of the Jews with plenty of faith, failure, difficulties, backsliding, restoration…open their minds to getting educated in early Church history…and leave their former inclinations…and enter into the Church…and many say they are ‘home’.

      I have no idea about Catholic inventions or Catholics putting things between people and God….this is a fabrication.

      Sorry.

      • Jack the Baptizer

        Thefirst gnostic splinters away from the gospel happened while the epistles where being written. Splinters have regularly branched off since then and each time it’s incompatible with Christ’s ministry. Barjesus, the Pelagians, Jehovah’s witnesses, and Mormon’s are all examples of splinters that deny Jesus’s exclusive divinity.

        Simply collecting the scriptures into an organized collection doesn’t make the early Roman church follower’s of Christ any more than finding king Tut’s tomb and categorizing the contents made Western explorers worshipers of Ra.

        Additionally, the official King James is a laughably opinionated transliteration of the Wescott Horton and Textis Receptis. Evenso, through His glory alone, the KJV doesn’t stray as much from the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic originals as even same year copies of Livy’s history of Rome.

        The things that come between people and God are the feckless traditions that largely came from 2nd and 3rd century pandering to pagan rituals in a misguided attempt to increase the size of the congregation, possibly to get more coins into the collection boxes. Coins whose journey should be exactly the opposite. Funny how many Catholic churches are still adorned with gold as people in the community struggle. Ever wonder what the justification for that is? To honor God in the exact same way Jesus didn’t. Weird huh?

        Ignatius actually claimed he was not a direct spiritual descendant of Peter, but named Evodius in between. Remember all the lengthy letters from Evodius explaining the importance of that moment? You don’t, because he either never wrote anything, or never existed. Pay no mind to the fact that Peter also never established his relationship to either one of them in his writings.

        And then we have Peter, why Peter right? Seems odd because he was kind of the schlub of the group. Couldn’t walk on the water, fell asleep on guard duty. Only one thing was note-worthy in a positive way, he clearly stated Jesus’s divinity. But because Jesus made a word-play on his name, now we have a pope and some guys that believe they can forgive sins. So yes, Catholics do essentially place their government in between man and God. About that play on words, in Greek, an article or preposition has a gender that tells you to what noun it refers. Go ahead and check out Mat16:18 in actual Greek. Then head to John 6:19 to have an understanding that a person is sometimes addressed or directly associated in identity to a claim they have just made.

        So we have Jesus, who we can clearly understand when he says noman shall enter the kingdom but through me, and then there’s the Catholic church who say “yes, but” and then make a string of very suspicious inferences. If Jesus intended to allow humans to have the ability to forgive sin (in other words, via the temple and atonement system he had just overthrown), why did he not describe this? It’s kind of important right? I get that he granted temporary powers to his apostles, but they’re temporary and for them alone. And if you’re going to argue that it was to be an ongoing system, then you’d have to explain why none of their other abilities are manifest in the Catholic government today.

        • Julie

          First…you have to remember we have it so good, we can follow any form of religion that pleases us and not experience any consequences…but the early Christians did…they could die for simply being Christian.

          Do you know anything of the hidden liturgies inside the catacombs of Rome…that has viable artifacts demonstrating expressions of their faith?

          Do you meet or have known others in your belief system that have to meet underground among the dead? I don’t think so. You have it so easy…

          And how would you believe if your neighbor or someone was watching you and then report you to authorities and then you are dead or imprisoned away from your loved ones?

          What kind of materials are you referencing…

          People primarily gathered in homes in Rome..Antioch and Alexandria had a single church to gather…Jerusalem suffered from the diaspora and many Jewish Christians had to flee as well. They migrated to other Christian churches…

          What about the ancient churches named in the Epistles…most were not of the Roman Church but resided in Asia Minor under the patriarch of Antioch.

          What kind of gold did they use in earliest churches…how do you know …as well as how do you know the early Christians had it so easy?

          What kind of sources are you inclined to read…are they usually based on construct opposing the Romanist Church???

          I do not know what kind of Scripture you are using when Christ gave Peter the power to loosen and bind..and to forgive sins…surely the apostles and down through apostolic succession cannot do magic and forgive sin. It is their office…

          just as Christ gave us the human face of God, His ministers of the Blood give us the face and forgiveness from the heart of Christ.

          There is alot more sin in the world than there was at the end of the time of the apostles..don’t you think???

          Our world is in so much need of Christ’s civilization of forgiveness.

          The Lord does not operate on linear time…like what happened when He instituted the administrative office of the Church. God is ever present…and He is not locking Himself in a box because

          God is LIFE.

          You are denying Pentecost and the apostles going out…your religion can set up its own governing but the apostles given authority by Christ…who acknowledged in Acts they knew they were chosen before they were born…certainly is affirming Christ died for all.

          None is operating in the Catholic ‘government’? We see 15 million converts a year….all the Congregations are operating…

          It will be Christ alone when it is time for His Church…He only instituted one….2000 years ago…and it comprised of 5 patriarchs…it is the Lord Who sustains the Church and gives it its power and calls out to all people to receive the Lord in all His fullness.

          I think your understanding of Who God Is…very different and outside Judeo Christianity………….

          • Jack the Baptizer

            You must be in sales. You’re constructing straw men and killing them and talking circles around my questions.

            If you’re talking about the hardship of facing death in order to justify collecting massive quantities of money, you’ve done nothing to satisfy the glaring conflict with the attitude of Christ. I do indeed have a friend who fled Pakistan and faced death to come here. What a slap in the face it would be to tell him his salvation was incomplete because he didn’t perform magic rituals with water or food, and trust in a human to grant him salvation instead of having faith in Christ alone and reading of God’s character in his word. It hasn’t really been that long since the Catholics attempted to deprive their congregation of the text of the scripture in a language they could read.

            I attended a Catholic church until I asked too many questions and was told I should trust humans to interpret scripture for me. Jesus told us all to have faith in him alone. That’s an irreconcilable conflict.

            Yes, I already agreed Jesus gave several important spiritual abilities to the 11. (Judas wasn’t replaced until they rolled dice for it.) And again if you claim humans can forgive sin, and not faith which Jesus declared, then you have to answer where the other gifts went.

          • Julie

            Sorry you don’t understand our faith…and there is indeed consistency of faith and scripture…

            You came across too doubting to lay people ….
            And you are projecting your man made interpretation on our faith…sorry we don’t believe like you think we do.

            Like the Vatican owns the Bank of America, etc. etc. etc….and you don’t realize how much individual parishes who don’t tithe what they can to surrounding communities and other churches in need.

            The Catholic Church gives more in aid to humanity than any other country, including America…

            You are already judging and assuming greed and selfishness..

            You do not want to know our history and how the CHurch was the instrument that humanized our world…hospitals, hospices, universities and schools…women and girls given a right to an education long before here in this country…

            You are only drawn to what you perceive as negative…you have nothing good to say…and your ideas don’t make sense either.

            If you followed the Holy Spirit and realized He is the one in the Church Who interprets Scripture…and would actually study the Word of God in our tradition…you wouldn’t…

            You do not believe in Church…solitary individuals don’t ….

          • Jack the Baptizer

            Again with the straw men. It’s because you’re struggling to box me into a category so you can shoot arrows at the chinks in an organized group theology instead of answer the glaring contradictions to scripture I already brought up.

            Saying you are consistent with scripture and not answering my questions doesn’t make you consistent with scripture. I’ll make it really simple: you are part of an organization that claims human beings have the authority to forgive sin. Those human beings are not mentioned in the gospel which saved me, so the burden is on you to prove why those humans have Christ’s power.

            You did mention that apostles were given supernatural abilities once, absolutely, agree, but you fail to make the case that those men ever actually did that, or that they did so by instructing people to perform magic rituals with water and food.

            It’s funny you mention negativity. I bet the crooks in the market that were scourged by Jesus thought he was kinda negative.

            I do not in fact make assumptions about what works the Catholic church has done compared to the benefits they keep for themselves (including the stolen honor of calling someone a spiritual father, which Christ himself denounced). To assume that this is my bad math betrays your own thinking that bad works should be weighed against good works and arrive at a net good result. What a juvenile misunderstanding of grace that is.

          • Julie

            Likewise same remarks that only indicate a skeptic mind that cannot find anything to substantiate your claims.

            I attended seminars this past year on the roots of the papacy…likewise there have been 25 Protestant theologians who are obviously educated who affirmed the Church’s stand on St. Peter. There are over 180 references to Peter…and no he did not make a declaration of faith when appointed by Christ but rather an incarnate theophany through the Holy Spirit verifying publicly that he was capable through the Lord to head Christ’s Church…Pedra…Greek for a person named as a stone, solid…Cephus…Aramaic…signifying the same.

            I had also attended graduate level linguistics, speak a foreign language, have some exposure and communication in two African dialects..and know the nuances that exist.

            All you can refer to are some unknowns…and you don’t know what happened to them….or if they fell into gnosticism…because they were not part of the main body of followers who likewise abandoned Christ when He said they would find eternal life through the Eucharist.

            You have no documentary records, no archaeological, no sociological to verify anything…except the construct of isolated skepticism…akin to this Dr Ehrman…who brings up the same kind of issues that appear every so often in time…and end up nowhere.

            So if you really want to discuss instead of throwing incognizant little jabs…that have nothing to back them up except your own defiant and isolated position…then go to the Forum…where you will be encountered with respect and dialogue…if you can return the same…along with any docuementation that verifies your position.

            Threads such as these are very inadequate when discussing foundation and history of the Church, which can be as complex as life itself.

            As our theologian in residence said, Catholicism is all about context, context and context!

          • Jack the Baptizer

            lulz, projecting much? I joyfully search out the scriptures, and am pleased to find puzzles I can’t answer. Just as the Bereans were praised for going deeper without the assistance of some kind of central human leadership.

            I’ll literally spell it out for you. Petros, not Pedra, because context matters. It’s the masculine form. The following houtos, petra and ekklesia are all feminine because they are grouped, referring to each other, and not referring back to Petros.

            Your faith is in humans, not God. Humans set up an organization claiming to have the power to forgive sins, and you buy it because of the number of people, length of history, and appeal to consistency.

            But do you wonder why Jesus allowed preaching of his name by unknown persons not connected to himself or the disciples? You should. Pope Frank actually agreed about that interpretation, that Jesus intended them to continue in their ministry, completely unconnected from him in a social or organizational way.

            I know you got invested into this volley, and I’m sorry if that upsets you, but no, I won’t be going to that forum. I spent way too much time there trying to get people to actual give me answers in scripture rather than modern human commentary and a stack of inferences so high that Al Gore would blush.

          • Julie

            No…I am not at all upset….but I can see your anti Catholic bias..and yes, American Bereans hold such a position, very condemning of others and very self righteous…they have been around for so many years?…they are seeing themselves with the ancient Bereans…but they cannot find or prove any document showing they are actual descendents.
            I am afraid that you are not willing to go online to the Catholic Answers forums that can provide you plenty of answer

            So you are attaching yourself to questions and positions that do not accept Christ’s Church…and

            Do you think any Catholic explanation or document would even answer your questions? The type of questions you ask are the type that are circular…but do not seek answers….

          • Jack the Baptizer

            Projecting. I’ve asked questions you didn’t attempt to answer. That’s not circular, you just didn’t respond.

            I’ve never heard of an American Berean church, and that’s why I don’t bring up sect. Each human government is going to stray from the gospels.

            My beliefs, far more common than you think, (though you would say, where’s the website? or well I don’t know anyone like that) is too straight forward for you. The bible is sufficient for all teaching, rebuking, training. No human overrules God. So when the corporation in Rome makes claims in blatant opposition to Christ, and then claims the authority to do so based on misinterpreting one of the many play-on-words jokes that Jesus made, it’s razor thin.

            You trust humans to interpret that situation for you, and very strangely ignore the many, many humans that have rejected apostolic succession. Like it or not, you are choosing which humans to trust instead of searching out the scriptures for yourself. You have delegated the responsibility of having faith in God by using the judgement of others to dictate your belief for you. Your faith is thin, established only by proxy.

            Jesus will return, and reject those who have not done the will of God, not the will of some guys who claim spiritual connection to Peter. This is your soul. If it’s this important, don’t you trust that Jesus would have said something about it in Mat7:21? That was an incredibly clarifying moment. He even cites that the people he rejects will claim to have preached and done good works in his name. Oh gosh, how could we know what God’s will is if some guy in super expensive pajamas doesn’t tell me?! Well you have a book that a lifetime of study can’t fully unravel, so get to it. We are instructed to be perfect, and we can’t, and that’s what the sacrifice on the cross did. Not hail mary’s, not counting beads, not telling scandalous stories to an unmarried man. Jesus dying is what saved you and if you believe that, then “your faith has made you whole,” and notice that this is past tense. Upon believing, her sins were forgiven, and then Jesus tells her to go and sin no more. No good work saves her, but faith, and that true faith changes her life so that it was possible to stop her sin. And when she inevitably stumbles, she doesn’t visit a man in expensive pajamas, she reconciles that with God himself, because the curtain was torn and Jesus has instructed us to pray directly to God.

          • sam

            Scripture is profitable , not sufficient. You’re overreaching a tad. Faith and works saves. Faith alone does not.

          • Jack the Baptizer

            When did Jesus say that?

          • sam

            say what?

          • Jack the Baptizer

            I’m asking when Jesus said that faith alone doesn’t provide for salvation, but other human effort is required, but I ask that rhetorically, because Jesus never said this. What you’re probably thinking of is when James penned faith without works is dead, but what you should understand is the difference between “I’m no longer alive” and “I didn’t sleep last night, so I feel dead.” In the Wescott Horton manuscript, yes the transliteration of “Dead” is necros, which indeed sometimes means literal death, and sometimes means figurative death, but in the textus receptus manuscripts, the word is ergon, which means inactive. So how do we reconcile the difference? The idea James was conveying is that works are the way by which faith becomes evident and active, then there is no contradiction between the manuscripts, or between James and Jesus. My car is made correctly, it works. It makes the car no less correct if it doesn’t start, but by starting it, then it becomes evident to us that it works.

          • sam

            And I answer rhetorically: where does Jesus say faith alone?

          • Jack the Baptizer

            No, Jesus said by faith. You can’t prove a negative, so it’s impossible to prove it isn’t also by works, just like it isn’t possible to prove it isn’t also through dance. So because you have added to what Jesus said, you have the burden to prove your addition is reasonable.

          • sam

            “…because Jesus never said this”.
            Matthew 25:31-46 Christ separates the sheep from the goats on judgment day, the only questions that He asks the
            multitude re works: Did you feed the hungry, clothe the naked
            , give a drink to the thirsty, etc. If they answered “no” to these works , then Jesus said that they were going to hell. Nowhere does Jesus ask,
            “Did you accept me as your personal Lord and Savior?” Without
            works and faith- no salvation.
            Adding to what He said?

          • Jack the Baptizer

            He’s talking about sheeps and goats, so if we agree that you and I are human, not sheep or goats literally, then we have the framework right away that He isn’t speaking plainly but adding symbolism. The actions are the evidence of faith, and this is the basis for which James can later instruct the churches how to pick out false faith. When Jesus does speak directly and plainly to people whose sins He is forgiving, He tells them their faith has (past tense) saved them, before He tells them to sin no more and before that go and act according to the grace they received. Note also how He hasn’t yet died when He does these things, so there is interaction required before His crucifixion completes the work of atonement.

          • sam

            How are these metaphors having to do with Christ forgiving sins in this instance?

            Works are a cause, not just an effect, of our justification because good works achieve and increase our justification before God. Scripture never says anything about “saving faith.” Protestants cannot show us from the Scriptures that “works” qualify the “faith” into saving faith. Instead Scriptures teach that justification is achieved only when “faith and works” act together. Scripture puts no qualifier on faith. Scripture also never says that faith “leads to works.” Faith is faith and works are works (James 2:18). They
            are distinct (mind and action), and yet must act together in order to receive God’s unmerited gift of justification.
            James 1:22-25 The point of James is those with faith have that option of doing or not doing good works. We are not automatons. Free will plays a part. Just because we have faith, it does not automatically result is good works, lest we become forgetful
            hearers.
            When Christ instructs Peter to feed and tend His sheep, he was using symbolism here too. Obviously the sheep that need feeding and tending are who and by whom? Was He being direct or not? Peter and the apostles knew this already, as they also understood the role they would play in building His church. Christ had given this power, only God was capable of administering , and that was the power of forgiving people’s sins , to His apostles.

            Another example of not mixing metaphors: many disciples leaving Christ upon hearing that He wanted them to eat His flesh , drink His blood, which the many left because it was too difficult to accept. (Christ was VERY direct here). They had faith but apparently it was not the faith Christ was interested in. The works of eating and drinking of Himself was very direct yet there were those who left
            without getting any explanation from Christ whatsoever, to the point of questioning His own apostles.

          • Jack the Baptizer

            James 2:18 does nothing for your point. Works are the way we can potentially see someone’s faith. Otherwise we don’t have a clue to what’s in the heart. James is only telling the congregants to stop talking about their belief and start expressing it. He says he’ll show his faith by his works, but given his usual bluntness, he should have said, “But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you that both are needed for salvation. if he was going to make your point for you. So why didn’t he just say that?

            James 1:22-25 does not deal with salvation. It deals with blessings. Yes, I am blessed with benefits when I act out my faith, that is a separate benefit from salvation, which was received when I first had faith. Note how he says that one should look into the law and persevere! Not fulfill! A person cannot fulfill the law but we try even though the trying will never bring actual perfection! Christ’s sacrifice completes the law, not us, and when we have faith in this, we are saved, and when we act out this faith, we are yet further blessed.

            If Peter could forgive sins, is it odd that scripture gives no example of this? Is it more odd that he said “Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.” in Acts 8:22?

            Please explain what Jesus meant in Luke 7:36-50 “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” Just like I said, He tells her she has been saved, sōzō, then after the saving happens, her instruction for afterward is to poreuō, go, and do so in peace. And going in peace is even an attitude and not an instruction for behavior, but behavior follows it.

            The law cannot save, it was not intended to. We were instructed by Jesus to be perfect and obviously this is impossible. The law reveals the need for grace which saves. You can’t have one without the other, but there is never an instance where a person’s deeds save them. Before Jesus the sacrifices didn’t complete the law, God gave those instructions, then granted redemption despite the fact that slaughtering animals didn’t create human holiness. God forgave anyway as a gift that was not earned, but God gives it out of charity.

          • sam

            James 2:18 Good works must concur with faith to a man’s salvation by an increase in grace. V. 19. The devils also believe, and tremble. James compares faith without other virtues and good works, to the faith of devils: The meaning is, that such a faith in sinners is
            unprofitable to salvation, like that of devils, which is no more than a conviction from their knowledge of God; but faith which remains in sinners, is from a supernatural knowledge, together with a pious motion in their free will.
            Works are a result of the free will. Having faith in and of itself is fruitless without these works. It is dead faith. Even the demons have faith but cannot provide any good fruits. James writes that works are not a special gift, but a requirement of saving faith. This reaffirms the answer to the question of v. 14. You are still trying to trumpet the ‘faith alone’ aspect judging by your citing Luke 7:36-50 .

            Protestants often claim that James is focused upon “showing your faith is genuine,” as 2:18 appears to be saying rather than on “getting saved”. The protestant approach is incorrect:
            “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can ‘that’ faith save him?” The question James is asking is if faith ,by itself, will “save” the Christian, meaning the subject very much is getting saved, not proving you are already saved. Since James is talking to “brothers” in Christ, that means they are already
            believers (James 2:1), so this “save” must be in reference to future salvation rather than conversion . James is asking a question, which he is then going onto answer in v 2:15-26, so his answer (including v 24) must be of the same subject matter for it to be coherent and logically valid. Come judgment day, what will be the saving grace; faith or good works? Revelation 22:12; 1 Peter 1:17; Romans 2:6-7.Luke 3:9 ;John 5:29.

            Do our works mean anything? According to Jesus they do (Matthew 25:31-46). The people rewarded and punished are done so by their
            actions. And our thoughts (Matthew 15:18-20) and words (James 3:6-12) are accountable as well. These verses are just as much part of the Bible as Romans 10:8-13 and John 3:3-5. Like I said before, works are not just an effect but a cause, and a cause towards our salvation. . Faith without charity is dead, and charity cannot exist without good works. He who bears the fruits of Christian piety, shows that he has the root, which is faith; but the root is
            dead, when it affords no produce. Works are to faith what the soul is to the body.

            James 1:22-25 It is more than just blessings. The ultimate goal of Our Lord is the salvation of souls. We have to DO our part. Be doers,
            not hearers. Early church fathers have attested to this aspect of faith and works as well. Justin Martyr, Clement , Barnabas et al.

            “Please explain what Jesus meant in Luke 7:36-50 “ Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
            This woman had many sins forgiven her,
            because she has loved much. Therefore she was justified not so much through her faith, as her charity: still she had faith, or she would not have come to Jesus, to be delivered from her sins. It was therefore her faith, working by
            charity, that justified her . If she had not that faith, which protestants affirm to be necessary for their justification, namely a belief that they are already justified, and that their sins are forgiven, for it was to obtain the remission of her sins that she performed so many offices of charity, washing his feet with her tears, et al. But it may be asked, why then does Christ attribute her salvation to her faith? The answer namely is that faith is the beginning of salvation; for it was her faith that brought her to Christ: for had not the woman believed in him, she never would have come to him to obtain the remission of her sins.

          • Jack the Baptizer

            First, you don’t want to bring “church fathers” into this. Jesus was very clear that we should call no man father, and doing so is disrespectful to our spiritual father, God. The fact that these early believers had a certain understanding of scripture 3 or 4 generations away from the apostles is not impressive. Barjesus the sorcerer walked among first churches and brought false teaching well before any of the humans you mentioned!

            James in chapter 2 says dikaioō over and over. That’s not salvation, that’s justification or making more righteous. We already know that the deeds of our fallible hands don’t make us righteous enough to save us. We can’t fulfill the law! No man is without sin! Even when James says faith can be teleioō, or completed by the works, it is still not the law that’s being completed! We need Jesus! The law shows us our need for Christ!

            I think if James asked you why the chicken crossed the road you’d give him a neurological analysis of the motivations of chickens and their decision making process. Of course demons cannot experience salvation. Jesus told us He came for us, not for demons. The offer was never on the table for them to make an attempt at. It’s hyperbole to add gravitas to his point.

            You keep talking about judgement day as well as James 1, when I’ve already explained that letting humans know what the sign of faith is still doesn’t put that cart before the horse. A correlation is not a cause, a rectangle is not necessarily a square.

            The parable of the prodigal son also explains this entire discussion very well.

            I’ll give you that there’s a relationship, but the very important difference is in who is capable of saving you. If you say God alone has the power to save, and trusting Him gives you the strength to do things that are righteous (though not capable of saving your soul), then that would be consistent. If you say God can’t save you unless you then agree to use your human power to do some things, I think you’re going to have to say “yes, but” to a lot of scripture we can start getting into. And if we have to go down this road, we’ll need to examine the 3 words for love and when Jesus and the disciples use them. EG: He doesn’t adore us, He gives us undeserved charity.

            I’m glad you brought up the other verses because I think you have a problem here. If you believe an equal part faith in Christ, plus some stuff that you, Sam, do with your fallible human effort are both causing God to forgive you, then you have to explain why in all the instances of explanations of faith were the works are left out. You have to be prepared to tell me that Jesus and the apostles gave us some bad or incomplete explanations that you have to tack onto.

          • sam

            “call no man father”. Ah I see . You’re one of those. There is a certain unreasonableness with your type. Been down too many rabbit holes with the likes of you. It would take tons of time.
            See ya.

          • Jack the Baptizer

            I’m sorry that you’re tired of looking up counter-points to the observations I’ve given you. I sincerely hope that you continue in the Word for yourself, and not let other humans (like me) dissuade you from seeking understanding from it.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            There it is. The classic “call no man father” rejoinder. What a cop out.

          • Jack the Baptizer

            Is it ironic to label an argument as a cop-out and then provide no rebuttal?

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            No, because first of all, you would not accept or admit a rebuttal if it was given, and secondly, the “call no man father” rejoinder is used so much by SDA and HR types against Catholics that rebuttals of all sorts are easy enough to find.

          • Jack the Baptizer

            I dunno man, justifying extra effort on my part shouldn’t make your statement less ironic.

          • sam

            Which is easier, to cure the sick or forgive sins? Christ gave the power to forgive sins to the apostles as well as cure the sick. Peter cured someone just by his shadow. If Peter was able to cure, why couldn’t he forgive sins? Show me where Peter and the apostles could not forgive sins?

            John 20: 21-23: In his very first Resurrection appearance our Lord gives this awesome power to his Apostles with the words: “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are
            retained.” How could they forgive sins if they were not confessed – orally.
            They could not. This authority comes through the gift of the Holy Spirit which precedes it.
            He told Peter (Mt. 16: 19) and then the other apostles (Mt. 18:18) “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This includes sins.

            James 5: 14-17: “Is any among you sick? … Therefore confess your sins to one another …” Notice the command does not say confess your sins straight to God. Notice also who they are to go to the “elders” (bishops or priests -Acts 14: 23; 15: 2).
            Christ told the apostles to follow his example: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21). Just as the apostles were to carry Christ’s message to the whole world, so they were to carry his forgiveness: “…whatever you bind on earth … whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18). This power was understood as coming from God: “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18). Indeed, confirms Paul, “So we are ambassadors for Christ” (2 Cor. 5:20).

            Jesus breathes on His apostles in the upper room. The only other time God breathed on man was when He created him and breathed life into his body. Gen 2:7. When God breathes on man, a transformation takes place. Here, the apostles were transformed into “other Christs,” filled with the Holy Spirit and endowed with Jesus’ divine authority to forgive sins. Thus, Matthew writes that God gave the authority to forgive sins “to MEN.” Matt. 9:8.

            The apostles were given the gift of rendering judgment on the sincerity of the penitent, and binding the penitent to works of penance in order for him to be forgiven of his sin. If, in the apostles’ judgment, the penitent was not sincere, or should be required to perform acts of penance in reparation for his sins, the apostles could retain the sin (withhold forgiveness) until their conditions were satisfied. While such authority is reserved to God alone, Christ shared this authority with the apostles.

            The power to retain sin is extremely important because it gives priests the authority, not only to forgive sin, but to remove the temporal punishments due to sin.This is part of the priests’ binding authority (retaining sin and imposing penance) and loosing authority (forgiving sin and removing punishment due to sin).
            Jesus’ gift of authority described in John 20:22-23 only makes sense if the penitent orally confesses the sins to the apostles. The apostles were not given the gift of mind reading, and, even if they were, forgiveness of sin would still depend on the sinner’s desire to be forgiven If oral confession were not required, the way that Jesus granted the gift to the apostles would not make any sense.

          • Jack the Baptizer

            Okay cool, which priest can I visit to have my wife’s diabetes cured?

          • Julie

            Then you more than the millions upon millions of Catholics who have survived your take on the Scriptures…and you assume you know more than linguists and the 25 Protestants who affirmed the Church’s stand on Peter…you don’t understand the context of the event….you should go back…but I admit yours are hard to follow and quite unique to you.

          • Jack the Baptizer

            Do I trust God more than millions of humans? Yep. It’s almost like someone said narrow is the path and few are they who will find salvation. It’s almost like Jesus said when he comes back that many will say Lord Lord, but he will reject them. Around every corner you ask me to trust a human or group of humans, yet Jesus said it’s by faith that we’re redeemed. Name one instance where a human came up with their own idea of what people should do to honor him, different from God’s direct instruction, and it was praised by God. Just one.

          • Julie

            Then why did Christ entrust His church to men?…He didn’t entrust His Church to the Bible sitting out there in cyberspace.

            You don’t realize it, but you were asked to leave that RCIA group. You were in there only to dismantle and they knew it, bud.

            And you are cowardly because you don’t identify your association.

            You are thinking you are God using the Living Word of God that brings us Truth and Light and Life into a thing that condemns Christ’s church.

            Go back to your isolation…coward and condemner. You need to seek Christ instead of tearing down Christians.

          • Jack the Baptizer

            “He didn’t entrust His Church to the Bible sitting out there in cyberspace?!” The written word of God is holy. Are you saying your church has precedence over the written word of God?! I must then conclude that we worship different gods because I believe in God’s character because of what He gave in His written word. If you derive what you know of God’s character from what a man tells you about God’s written word, then we are talking about two different beings and there’s no more to say.

            Dismantle an “RCIA group?” I heard the gospel and believed. Then men told me differently from the gospel, so I asked them to justify their demands. As is written in the letters, Christ alone is head of his church. Authority has not been delegated downward to humans through priests as it was during the old testament. That system is what Jesus Himself dismantled. (Except in the eyes of those who lust for that authority, or the deceived who hold them up.)

            The curtain was torn, the sacrifices now stopped because the ultimate sacrifice was made. No need to make superficial gestures of atonement, sins have been covered. No more asking priests to make us do something to deserve it, we could never deserve it, Christ paid it all.

            I’m cowardly for not clinging to doctrinal diatribes of sect-iness? I wonder if you would additionally say coward to my friend who fled Pakistan because he heard the gospel and believed. He didn’t require a membership card to Vatican Inc. in order for the holy spirit to transform him through faith.

            Of course I do not claim to be God. What silliness. You knew when you typed it that it was hyperbolic. I am a son of God redeemed by faith. I understand the temptation to go with the crowd and trust humans that declare themselves to be heirs of Christ. But it’s as false as the first claim of lineage from Christ, Barjesus (which means, wrongly, son of Jesus). And he was condemned for it by the apostles.

            Jesus made a whip and scourged the ones who attempted making an industry out of the church. He debated and humiliated Pharisees who, claiming to worship God, practiced the traditions of men instead of God’s will. And who was praised by Jesus as always doing God’s will? His cousin John, who lived in isolation, apart from the organized church, preaching to the arrogant that they should repent. You tell me to seek Christ?

            Read that last paragraph again please, because I think you’re going to miss this. Arguing with you *is* emulating Christ.

          • Julie

            You are projecting again…your comments seek no answers….and you were inadvertantly affecting the education of the people in there who come sincerely to find out about the Catholic faith…not your problems with it.

            You are not truly focusing on Christ. If you were, you would have no need to crash an RCIA group with your issues…

            You are into gnostic type materials.

            You are the one projecting your perception..by the comments you have made.

            You are not sincere in finding out what Catholics truly believe. If you want to, get a Catholic Catechism and start with the Prologue.

            Every book, every part, sentence…down to single words are actually connected as a whole…because the Word of God is speaking through human authors…

            You accuse Catholics of following men…well you must be doing so by making human authors say something they did not intend…

            You are not in the Holy Spirit to come to such anti Catholic conclusions.

            Again you are to love the Lord with your whole heart, soul, and mind…and if you have space left where you want to promote yourself against Catholics….you are loosing out in how much there is to living in the Spirit by the power and presence of Christ.

            God bless…I will keep you in my prayers…

          • Jack the Baptizer

            It’s actually super easy to interpret the bible for yourself. Children can do it, and literally do in my church. All you have to understand is that God does not contradict himself, so when our culture-tainted brain sees an apparent contradiction, we just look again.

            Example: God claims to see everything, and yet scripture says that Adam hid from God. How could Adam hide from God if God sees all? During my talk about this, I stood behind a curtain and asked the kids what I was doing. “Hiding!” they shouted. True, I said, I’m hiding but can you see me? “Yeah!!” Well there you go, from Adam’s perspective, he was hiding, but the bible does not say he was successful at hiding. See? A child can do it.

            This is where the Bereans come in. You utterly missed the point of my reference to the Bereans. You should have gone to the Word instead googling up some American group that stole their name. Luke praises the Bereans for questioning what Paul told them and comparing it to scripture, not trusting what he alone had said, but comparing it to what God said. Paul and Luke’s writings are both in your bible, Julie. Why do you even have that thing if you’re not going to read it? Luke is trying to tell you not to do what you’re doing.

            No, I am not even remotely alone in my theology and practice, though that’s hilarious that you might think so. God intended the relationship we have with our spiritual siblings as a way to keep us each from getting off-base. Christians are told to minister one to another, not one to everyone else. Did you know the elders were originally chosen by the congregation, not assigned by the guy with a slightly bigger goofy hat?

            Here, for this one, I’ll analogize your point for you:

            “Again, Jesus, you are to love the Lord with your whole heart, soul, and mind…and if you have space left where you want to promote yourself against Pharisees, you are loosing out…” Hmm.

            Jesus said believe and be saved, but someone else told you to dab water on your forehead, eat stuff, and listen to them read the bible for you, and spiritually call them, (a human being) “father,” after Jesus literally said not to do that. So you made a choice, you believed the person who said stuff that was different than what Jesus said and now you’re happy being stuck with that because you enjoy the fellowship and the security of letting someone else decide for you what God says. You have a whole organization to keep you from feeling confused by what you read. I get confused sometimes, and like Proverbs says I seek wise council, and then my brothers sometimes have to admonish me, and I them, as we should to keep an open and honest, spiritually healthy relationship.

            You delegate that whole process. And some day you will personally be held to account. You will stand before God. You don’t get to stand behind all those other guys.

            No wonder you’re frustrated. You don’t have any answers. All you can do is point and tell me some guy with a stiff collar has the answer. Guess what, I talked with some other guys who have stiff collars, and then some guys in expensive pajamas, and they don’t have the answers either. Why do you think the reformers risked their lives to take hold of the original manuscripts and bring God’s word to language that everyone could read? I bet you don’t do mass in Latin. Do you know why you don’t?

            Too much Julie, too much. I plan to publish our conversation to my congregation, and I really couldn’t have scripted it better. I might end it with your last post, with you actually telling me that I seek no answers, after providing me with no answers except a plea to trust humans who can’t explain why they contradict God’s word.

          • Julie

            Sorry…about the Bereans…but it is obvious where you stand with your condescending remarks….quite revealing that you are not full of Christ like you presume you are in your one dimensional take on Scripture.

            Again…spend more time to have Him fill you with His Holy Spirit…you have a long ways to go because there are many who are devout Protestants that don’t go around trying to smear Catholics…

            And if you are some preacher leader then tell me why you wanted to go into a Catholic inquiry class.

            You were asked to leave….you are associated with a small band line minded people who find their righteous in putting other people down…not truly focused on the Lord.

            I prayed for you in my night prayers and will continue to do so….

            Smearing others of the same Lord…it is something Muslims and agnostics see and it backfires back on you. I am serious because I am in my late 60s…and we are talking about the need to address sectarian bible believers…and the damage it does…all sorts of accusations and ignorance and malice…

            You can attempt to moderate yourself…and then go down and same smears a few lines down.

            Go back and study your bible more.

          • Jack the Baptizer

            Yes, I have a very tough stance on heresy, and I don’t mince my words or reduce them with manipulative nicety. For perspective, I’m not nearly as tough on heresy as Jesus was since I have never made a whip and thrashed things to show my indignation. By starting this discussion, you have placed yourself in the position of the Pharisees. You instruct others in a view that has been tacked on to the gospel, just like the mormons, pelagians, muslims, many other groups that look at the gospel story and say “yes, but…” So if you are wondering why you receive harsh language, first consider that you are making yourself a teacher, and if you teach wrongly, you are held more accountable for the spiritual consequences of that.

            I’m very curious about your terminology when you say you believe that I have been “smearing” and “condescending.” I’ve told you that you trust what men tell you about God, than what God has told you, and you will be held to account for your own beliefs, and that men who wear funny hats don’t deserve spiritual honor from us, and that you’re wrong for believing so. If you feel attacked by that then the attack is from God, because He has said he will hold you to account, and he never told you to let someone else speak for Him. If my humorous terms for Catholic silliness offends you then you choose to be offended. God has no need of you to be offended on His behalf. If you believe men in funny hats speak for God, then it’s up to them to avenge themselves for my disrespect, and is not for you to mind at all.

            I didn’t take a class, I was recruited into a group when I was very young, at the urging of my father’s family, who are devout Roman corporationists. I was actually not asked to leave. I graduated the class and did not participate in the final ceremony because it bothered my conscience so. You might be shocked to learn how differently these classes operate depending on region.

            I then recently had some discussions about Catholicism online, and eventually heard from priests and a bishop (you know, expensive pajamas). It was far better research than I thought I’d be able to get before speaking to our church about sola scriptura. We had excellent discussions that day.

            I am one of several pastors in our community. The fathers of households are given authority over their family by God. When the letters talk about wives being subject to their husbands, the word is the literal term for military subordination, as a troop reports to their commander. So the fathers in our community lead from this authority the way by which Jesus led, since that’s our example: “The man is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church,” and what did Jesus do for the church? He died for her, so we lead sacrificially, not taking honor or offerings for ourselves. We refuse any payment, in the example of the apostle Paul (who kept his day-job as a tent-maker), so that no motive is questioned in our sincere searching of the scriptures and passionate care for our flock. After each message we have open discussion, to allow people to air their concerns and not let doubts fester, which is also described in scripture.

            Like I said before, no I do not lean on my own understanding. I have faith that God speaks plainly from His Word because of His desire for us to know Him, not to know Him by proxy of leaders that got together to decide for us who God is. He loves *you.* And that love isn’t given on the condition that you come to Him through someone other than Christ, as God intended, because Christ was God also.

          • Julie

            You are following man’s interpretation…not the Lord’s….you make reference to the Blessed Mother….and you assume every priest is rich wearing expensive pajamas…wonder how you were even able to do that. Now funny hats…and what else?

            You have never experienced the Word Made Flesh…through Mary…your reference to her was very lacking of any respect or reverence towards her.

            You should keep the focus on yourself and grow in the Lord because you are extremely quick to condemn the priesthood based on your most minimal exposure. I have worked closely with the clergy, have known how frugal they leave…shame on you.

            It is the same English speaking slander and calumnies…what you do to them..you do to Christ.

            You should check out the grandiose mansions of the TV Evangelists…

            Does Obama own the White House…or Congress own their building…or the Supreme Court their chambers? Same with the Church…..it is not owned by clerics…it is shared and part of all of us…and our life is in Christ. The Church belongs to the Lord.

            Sorry…you are indeed condescending. Your Christianity still is not ID…and the Lord did not call us to Anonymous…He called us friends and friends are not anonymous to one another.

          • Jack the Baptizer

            When did I mention Mary? She’s just a human like us who needed Christ’s forgiveness just like we do. I condemn the priesthood because of their heresy, as my Lord did to the heretics of His day.

            Funny: “what you do to them..you do to Christ” Jesus actually did mention Himself in metaphor to a class of people, but it wasn’t pope Frank and crew, who will never have to balance a checkbook, it was the people they manipulate.

            You’ve seen pictures of Vatican city right? It’s the very example of grandiose human arrogance and wastefulness. Just like when Jesus road into town on a warhorse laden with gold… oh wait. Who cares who owns it, tear it down and make a bunch of hospitals or something. What a waste to pamper some guys who do for money what everyone I know does for free.

            Last part’s mush, no idea what you mean. It sounds like you’re making my previous point for me, yes, the holy spirit comes to each of us personally, and it’s mistrusting God to believe someone else should tell you what He says. Yes, we do need fellowship that keeps us in check but it’s equal, otherwise nobody keeps the guys at the top in check using the exact same tools the holy spirit uses for the rest of us. Then you say but the leadership is chosen to reign in Jesus place, and I say no their not because they can’t do miracles, so why do we think they can’t forgive sins which was a miracle granted one time to the apostles, but not everything else they could do. See, been here before, because you provide no answers.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Jack the Baptizer: “When did I mention Mary? She’s just a human like us who needed Christ’s forgiveness just like we do.”

            How and from what source did Jesus derive his human flesh and human nature?

          • Jack the Baptizer

            I know right? I was so mad when my wife worked really hard to make our son and he came out imperfect. God made His son exactly how He wanted Him to be, and didn’t require anything but obedience from all parties involved.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            You did not answer the question.

          • Jack the Baptizer

            Did. “God made His son exactly how He wanted Him to be, and didn’t require anything but obedience from all parties involved.”

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            No, you are being purposefully obtuse in answering because you must know that in answering specifically you will reveal something rather telling about your orthodoxy on this issue.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Jack the Baptizer: “If you feel attacked by that then the attack is from God, because He has said he will hold you to account, and he never told you to let someone else speak for Him.”

            This is a common fundamentalist tactic. When a person criticizes or provides opposition to what the fundamentalist says, then they reply with “it is not me you disagree with but with God/Jesus/Bible.”

            It is usually coupled with a similar rhetorical canard that tells the ones opposing that they “do not have ears to hear/eyes to see” because they disagree.

          • Jack the Baptizer

            Applying a label and categorizing my statement doesn’t invalidate it. Do you disagree that all will appear before God to account for their time in this life? I’ll give you 2 points for canard, hilarious word.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            It does if the description is accurate. Why are you asking me the question about accountability?

          • Jack the Baptizer

            Because God will meet you and see your faith. If you delegate your faith through a human, this is an avoidance of accountability.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            So now you stoop to dissing my username? I know you probably thought you were striking rhetorical gold with that one, but, once again, I am not Roman Catholic, and my username does not refer to the Catholic Magisterium. Try again.

          • ELAINE MARZANO

            you are beautiful. God said keep up the good work. I am here if you need me.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Thanks.

          • sam

            Imagine the pressure on him as he guides his ‘flock’, as he has heaped a certain amount of authority over them, for he is a “Pastor in a 1st-century-emulating, all-member-participating, Christ-alone-has-authority church” from the description found in his profile.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            I am wondering if you pass your particular interpretation, which appears to be from the Radical Reformation and Neocalvinist tradition, as “what the Bible plainly says,” and your church buys into it.

          • Jack the Baptizer

            Our community is knit to other communities, and we share very regularly our concerns about scriptural contradiction. We take it very seriously. God does not contradict Himself. Catholics have the luxury of not worrying about that because any contradiction is simply an update. Some humans get together and draft a patch to what God has said. Pay no mind to the fact that the old and new testament both warned against making additions. Additionally pay no mind to the fact that wild swings of stance have occurred in the Catholic perspective. Why don’t you still do mass in Latin? Or should the question be why did you for centuries speak in a language the congregation couldn’t understand?

            Did you read up on the whole conversation yet? I already covered this.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Jack the Baptizer : “Catholics have the luxury of not worrying about that because any contradiction is simply an update. “

            That doesn’t make any sense. Was it supposed to be a pithy turn of phrase?

          • Jack the Baptizer

            No, this is a comfort not intended to be afforded to believers. Each of us has a personal connection with the holy spirit, personal salvation, and personal responsibility for our faith. The fact that Catholics delegate the responsibility for their faith is a slap in God’s face who reaches out to you personally, only to watch you look at another human. As your doctrine changes, you see it as making improvements, but it’s a change nonetheless, and since God does not contradict Himself, by definition it’s not from God.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Jack the Baptizer: “Additionally pay no mind to the fact that wild swings of stance have occurred in the Catholic perspective.”

            This is a sweeping generalization. What do you mean by “wild swings of stance?”

          • Jack the Baptizer

            Correct. Sweeping generalizations are not tools to prove a point but references to a fact at high level to avoid having to wade through details. Because the details are numerous. I would be highly entertained if you would make a case that there have been no significant changes to doctrine, (granted that significant is a subjective, comparative term). I’ll start you with a softball: divorce.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            No, that is a copout that tries to provide a flimsy defense for what amounts to “tl;dr,” even though my response was not long or overly-complicated.

            As for divorce, from what standpoint are you asking me to make a case since I have already told you that I am not Roman Catholic?

          • Jack the Baptizer

            I generalized the changes in the Roman Catholic doctrine. So if this is not a doctrine you subscribe to, then I’m not sure why this is a discussion. You should join me in pointing out the inconsistencies in the doctrine you don’t subscribe to.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            It depends on the issue. So far I have not been able to distinguish what you have said from the average Neocalvinist rhetorician.

            I disagree with ahistorical perspectives and anti-Catholic bigotry that those types and other radical Protestants express, too.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Jack the Baptizer: “Why don’t you still do mass in Latin? Or should the question be why did you for centuries speak in a language the congregation couldn’t understand?”

            I do not do mass in Latin because I am not Roman Catholic. Despite this, I can read both Latin and Greek.

            The question about the vernacular is loaded because it fails to take into account the issues of interpretation as well as they massive amount of death and destruction that the original good intention of translating texts caused.

          • Jack the Baptizer

            You defeat your own point in that the mass was not given in the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic of the manuscripts.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            I bet that this is a boilerplate reply that you keep handy in case a Catholic is duped by your initial question. It is misapplied here for two reasons: A.) I am not Roman Catholic and do not hear mass in Latin; B.) the liturgy I DO hear is in Greek, which IS the original language that they were composed in and the written medium through which the Gospel was transmitted.

          • Jack the Baptizer

            I applaud you for not being fooled by the Roman claims of exclusive spiritual inheritance. So whose claims of exclusive spiritual inheritance have you instead been fooled by?

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            That is a loaded question. “Have you stopped beating your wife lately?”

          • Jack the Baptizer

            From my perspective, I’m correct that you are fooled by any doctrine that requires faith in God, only by proxy of faith in human beings who believe they can forgive sin. So my statement is accurate subjectively, and since there’s no such thing as perfect objectivity, we would only be splitting hairs. If you prefer a question from your perspective: to what doctrine do you subscribe?

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            I believe in God and only God has the ability to forgive sin. Therefore, your statement is inaccurate both subjectively and objectively. What particular doctrine are you asking me about?

          • Jack the Baptizer

            When you first jumped in, I was telling someone that God would personally hold them accountable for their faith, as in, there is no forgiveness that can be granted by another human being. So I’m not understanding what the problem is here.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Jack the Baptizer: “As is written in the letters, Christ alone is head of his church. Authority has not been delegated downward to humans through priests as it was during the old testament. That system is what Jesus Himself dismantled.”

            Are you sure that Jesus said that himself being the head of his church means that he dismantled all delegation and priesthood? That sounds more like Huldrych Zwingli.

          • Jack the Baptizer

            He also didn’t say injecting yourself with heroine makes you holy. But if it did, would it be reasonable to expect it to be mentioned with the weight and clarity of His many other statements about holiness? This is the human soul we’re talking about. If God let us know our expectations only by highly suspect, vague inference to a system He earlier denounced and ridiculed, I would say that is inconsistent, and God is not inconsistent.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            You did not address the specifics of my reply.

          • Jack the Baptizer

            I did, in the only way possible. I can’t prove a negative, so the burden of proof lies with you to claim that an addition to what’s written is a linear conclusion, or has some kind of justifiable basis. Either way, it’s your responsibility to tie back to the gospels, since that is God’s intended communication to us.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            It is not a negative since I asked if you were sure that Jesus DID SAY that. What you said sounds more like it came from the Radical Reformation of Zwingli than it does from Christ.

          • Julie

            You are trusting your own way of looking at things…this came to mind:…www.calledtocommunion.com…August 2009..Catholics are Ecclesial Deists…sorry, Our Lord was truly God and Man …infinitely great…to entrust His Church to His apostles…and not a stand alone bible…the Bible is not your puppet in your hand to make it say what you want by your limited mind…

          • Julie

            You need to go to forums.catholic.com…bring up your issues…that is where you discuss…not bits and pieces…the parish you went into should have directed you some place else…because just by your comments and what you were bringing up….you were playing games..no matter what…you would invalidate.

            Try this on Catholic Answers…we have highly educated people there…abuse is not allowed…if you are civil and can maintain dialogue…you are welcome.

        • Julie

          Sorry…regarding Peter…he was probably the most inept…but it is through Christ that we witness how the weak are made strong..theirs not of themselves but of Christ.

          Peter already demonstrated faith…he got out the boat to walk on water…even if he panicked and began to sink…and various other times…

          He and the apostles did not abandon Christ when everyone else did after Christ gave precursor to Himself becoming the Word Made Flesh. Peter replied where could they go as they already had faith and knew only Christ could give them eternal life.

          Peter thus already demonstrated faith in the Lord.

          But in context of Christ appointing him to be the visible head of Christ’s Church…and subsequently this concrete, tangible Church, not one invisible, intangible..subjective/relativist church which is run by men, and thought by men…that only leads to division and contention and dissension…Christ Himself at that moment chose Peter and named him Peter…the personal name …not the name of an inanimate object.

          Peter then responded…and this now revealing the Holy Spirit had anointed him through Christ’s chosen head.

          Moments later, then Satan enters Peter and Christ says Peter now thinks like men…of Satan…

          man made churches…all fragmenting, taking a piece of Scripture here or phrase there outside the union of the Holy Spirit that leads to pride and gradual decrease of true faith….

          Peter then denied Christ 3 times and ran from Him…Peter hiding with the apostles until Christ comes to them on Resurrection Sunday…on the Road to Emmaus Christ comes they don’t recognize Him…and discussing Scripture He exclaims, ‘You still don’t understand’…then they come together and break bread…and then He disappears…but now they understand…the Word Made Flesh in the Breaking of the Bread…certainly not the operation of 12 men but the foundation of the new covenant of the Blood of Christ…

          They continue to hide and then on Pentecost…the beginning of the Church for all peoples and all time…fill the apostles, Mary, and 160 other followers who then come out…and the life of the Church begins reaching many peoples and tongues.

          The apostles chose successors and bishops and presbyters and priests and deacons…and they did not all quit when the apostles died.

          Why would they? What happened then did the Church die?

          BTW…have you read anything of St. Irenaeus…and the Book on Heresies..quite thorough…around 200 AD…

          You are bypassing alot… the Word of God is complete and whole and that is how we are to approach the Word…not for opposition or any other means…but to give each one of us Life….Eternal Life…not a momentary fix……….

          • Jack the Baptizer

            By AD 200 you’re already getting into repetitions of history in regard to heresy that already took place and was answered in the letters. The Roman Catholic government wasn’t even the first heretical split from Christianity.

            That’s an interesting diatribe about Peter, but the gospels are thick ice. Stack inferences all you like, but each step away from Christ is more assumptions and thinner ice. He told us he is the way, not he and then a guy, and another guy, and another guy. Each time he forgave sin he declared the means through which the sin was forgiven was faith. Not enough hail Mary’s, etc. Why, when the apostles told Jesus of men unknown to them preaching Jesus name did he say to let them be? If the true church must all be unified under some organization, why would he be okay with that?

            The gospels tell of Jesus and salvation comes through faith by the grace of God. So to then read some other stuff and follow some traditions that alter that fact doesn’t jibe. Where’s the bridge? Why, if the gospels have brought me to faith and the renewing of my spirit would I then look elsewhere? The curtain was torn, the temple and sacrifices no longer necessary, but at some point during the pandering to the masses they were brought back in the form of physical deeds. Jesus tore up a market, brought humility to the priests, declared himself the one path to salvation. Was this all so that men could rule over other men and build a government sitting on piles of cash, doling out forgiveness at a price, erstwhile being regularly caught in vicious sin? It’s just another priesthood, no different from the Pharisees. If their wisdom was holy, why do they disagree, overrule one another? Jesus alone is the head of his church. The Old Testament and gospel story are sufficient. The letters are a bonus, and traditions of men irrelevant, (and spoken out against in various places in scripture btw).

            I still have no answer from you about Mat16:18, or why only the miracle of forgiving sins claimed by the Catholic government and not the many other miracles performed by the apostles.

          • Julie

            I doubt that…no matter what…no matter how academic…you will refute…and you don’t declare what the true church is either.

            When a person comes to Christ…He says those who are saved are those who endure to the end..you cannot make some kind of proclamation…and still be inclined to sin.

            That is why we have sacraments..

            I don’t understand what you mean about Hail Mary…or unknown people…and thinner ice..

            What is your denomination and let’s see how it compares…there were only the gnostics..and those who watched and were considered unknown…but there is an accountability we all hold as to the standard of Christ and Church which is considered authentic and draws all of us as Church…

            Again…your post indicates someone who has possibly seen the ‘ Trail of Blood’ to verify sects of yours…but the trail ends going back to the 1500’s, I believe…

            You have to take into account the entire gospel of Christ, not a few lines that make you think you are saved by calling on Him…there is so much to being a Christian….why spend your time turning over every little piece of anti Church, anti Catholic material to justify where you are?…

            It is best folks like yourself seek the Lord with all your heart soul and mind and not spend your time invalidating with little evidence.

            So what religion are you really and what kind of denomination are you in and how many people are in it…or is it part of the unknowns???

            Sounds like you are into Restorationist thinking..nothing happening until God arrived in America 150 years ago.

          • Julie

            You are still not identifying your sect.

    • David Richards

      Jack, I hope you don’t mind a minor grammatical correction. You wrote, “The safe source for these beliefs is the bible, which confirms it’s own authority.” “It’s” is a contraction for “it is” or “it has”. The possessive pronoun you intended is “its”, without the apostrophe. Blessings in Christ.

  • Badkey

    As Guilty as Muslims? No.

    ‘People Committed Terrible Deeds in the Name of Christ’ — ABSOLUTELY.

  • Fundisi

    There is a difference that Barak “Hussein” Obama should be made aware of:

    For Christians, in the words and life of Christ, indeed throughout the New Testament there is no scriptural warrant at all for violence against anyone, certainly none for forced conversions. Thus anyone using the name of Jesus to defend violence are not people converted to Christ and are not truly Christians.

    On the other hand, the Qur’an and the other falsely-called holy books of Islam are filled with calls for thefts, rapes, torture and murders in the name of their moon god – Allah and thus such terrorism is at the heart of Islam and such Muslims are considered good Muslim, while those Muslims not so engaging in forced conversions are bad Muslims.

  • 68Truthseeker1

    4-Star Admiral Slams Obama: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrated All Of Our National Security Agencies
    http://newzvids.com/4-star-admiral-slams-obama-muslim-brot…/
    Former CIA Agent: Obama Administration Supporting Islamic Jihadists Worldwide
    http://newzvids.com/former-cia-agent-obama-administration-…/

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Obama is wrong and he is saying all these things while butchering babies(abortion) and supporting abnormal sexual immorality in the land.

    Mankind abuses everything including religions, but religions limited mankind’s
    uncontrollable evils time to time. Christianity is the only true
    evidential religion that provides truth, salvation, sacrificial
    compassion, sanity, charity, literacy, civility, liberty and equality. All other religions create innocent victims because liberty and equality are strictly Judeo-Christian concept. All nations were modernized and made literate and civil by being contacted and educated by the Christendom. Christians alone, without others interfering,
    created the nations that all others want to study or immigrate and
    prosper. Atheists and secularists are the worst killers and corrupters.

    • Truthhurts24

      AMEN!

    • DisqusBurner1983

      Which Christians have it right though? I mean, there are so many denominations…

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Most denominations. They are all over the world, saving, feeding, healing, educating, helping, and rescuing. Where the Christian Church is, there is light.

      • Julie

        That is those who uphold the sanctity of the human being made in God’s image…and see the Lord in all human beings…the unborn, elderly…secular atheist…and worst of all, Catholics.

      • Vincent Behill

        those who are born again, filled with the Spirit, and letting God lead their lives. there is a group in most Churches but not all Lead. It’s a personal relationship with God. and a humble life Many denominations have left the faith and don’t give the message of Christ anymore, but many have stayed in the faith and are lead by God and what he has taught them in their daily walk and the word of God. These are the Churches filled with love ,and waiting for the Lord

  • Brandi Avery

    Copy and paste this on ALL muslim stories! Flood them with the truth!
    This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish The burning of the jordanian pilot was a Muslim
    The Tel Aviv bus attack:was a Muslim
    The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
    The beheading of two Japanese hostages was a Muslim
    The Paris and Australia shooting was a Muslim
    The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
    The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
    The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
    The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
    The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
    The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
    The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
    The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
    The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
    The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
    The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
    The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
    The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Musiims
    The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
    The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
    The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
    The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
    The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
    The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
    The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
    The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
    The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
    The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims’
    Philippines – Moro Islamic Liberation Front guerrillas were involved in the killing of 49 Special Action Force
    Think of it:

    Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
    Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
    Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
    Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
    Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
    Confusians living with Baha’is = No Problem
    Baha’is living with Jews = No Problem
    Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
    Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
    Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
    Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
    Hindus living with Baha’is = No Problem
    Baha’is living with Christians = No Problem
    Christians living with Jews = No Problem
    Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
    Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
    Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
    Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
    Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem

    Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
    Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
    Muslims living with Christians = Problem
    Muslims living with Jews = Problem
    Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
    Muslims living with Baha’is = Problem
    Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
    Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
    MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM

    **********SO THIS LEAD TO *****************
    They’re not happy in Gaza
    They’re not happy in Egypt
    They’re not happy in Libya
    They’re not happy in Morocco
    They’re not happy in Iran
    They’re not happy in Iraq
    They’re not happy in Yemen
    They’re not happy in Afghanistan
    They’re not happy in Pakistan
    They’re not happy in Syria
    They’re not happy in Lebanon
    They’re not happy in Nigeria
    They’re not happy in Kenya
    They’re not happy in Sudan

    ******** So, where are they happy? **********
    They’re happy in Australia
    They’re happy in England
    They’re happy in Belgium
    They’re happy in France
    They’re happy in Italy
    They’re happy in Germany
    They’re happy in Sweden
    They’re happy in the USA & Canada
    They’re happy in Norway & India
    They’re
    happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do they
    blame? Not Islam… Not their leadership… Not themselves… THEY BLAME
    THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!! And they want to change the countries
    they’re happy in, to be like the countries they came from where they
    were unhappy and finally they will be get hammered
    !!!!

    Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    ISIS: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    AND A LOT MORE!!!!!!!
    I am sure with these SAVAGES there will be more to come
    Think about THIS…. .
    Can a good Muslim be a good American or Canadian?

    This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia
    for 20 years. The following is his reply:

    Theologically – no. … Because his allegiance is to Allah.

    Religiously – no.. . .. Because no other religion is accepted by His
    Allah except Islam … (Quran, 2:256) (Koran)

    scripturally – no. .. .. Because his allegiance is to the five
    Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

    Geographically – no .. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which
    he turns in prayer five times a day..

    Socially – no. . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to
    make friends with Christians or Jews …

    Politically – no… Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders),
    who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.

    Domestically – no. .. . Because he is instructed to marry four Women
    and beat his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34 )

    Intellectually – no… Because he cannot accept the American
    Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes
    the Bible to be corrupt.

    Philosophically – no. . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran does not
    allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist.
    Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

    Spiritually – no… Because when we declare ‘one nation under God,’
    The Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred
    to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran’s 99
    excellent names.

    Therefore, after much study and deliberation….perhaps we should be
    very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot
    be both ‘good’ Muslims and good Americans/Canadians. Call it what you
    wish, it’s still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand
    this, the better it will be for our countries and our future.
    The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.

    Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within.
    SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.

    THE Armed Forces WANT THIS EMAIL TO ROLL ALL OVER THE U.S. & CANADA .
    Please don’t delete this until you send it on.

    • tyler

      I am a non believer and not a fan of any religion, but your post is hateful. Look at yourself in the mirror. I hope your God sees that you’re being a total jerk

      • Jeff Varney

        You want to see a hateful jerk, Tyler? Look in the mirror and see for yourself.

    • Corinna Dellinger

      Well sad as it is…. it’s true…..

    • Jaded

      You forgot the word “extremists” behind each use of “Muslims”! Without the inclusion of this qualifying word you could come up with a comparable list of atrocities for Christians, for instance all the activities of the KKK, a Christian group!

      • jmichael39

        the problem is, Jaded, THEY don’t call themselves “extremists”, do they. That’s OUR label for them. That’s us trying to separate them from those who don’t actively engage in these acts. But tell us, how many Muslim leaders, short of Egypt’s Sisi and the Jordanian king, have said a word to condemn these acts? What has CAIR said? Anything?

    • Julie

      Thanks….and if people will also realize…there are only 1.5 moderate Muslims out of 4 billion.

      On the other hand…I believe the atrocities of ISIS…because of the Internet…are having an effect on Muslims every where…because…they know these are following the Koran to the Max…and to the xtreme…considering their sadism.

      A Catholic bishop leaving Mosul stated the stats…and he says the West will find out the truth who these ‘moderates’ really are….

  • robertzaccour

    The people that did those terrible things are NOT Christians. A Christian by definition is a follower of Christ. If you’re not following Christ, you’re not a Christian.

    • theron

      And this is exactly what Muslims are saying.

      • robertzaccour
        • Jim King

          Yes, it is from Satan, but so are almost all religions, including most of so called Chistian sects. Satan uses religion as just one of his tools in his rebellion against God’s rightful sovereignty. What better way to get people to do ‘wrong’ than to convince them that they are doing ‘Right’.

      • jmichael39

        Actually that’s too true a statement. I do a lot of reading and watching of news…I have hardly heard a peep out of ‘other Muslims’ condemning this. It wasn’t until this Jordanian pilot was burned alive that any Muslim nation did much of anything to try to stop ISIS.

    • Badkey

      Ah, the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

      I’m surprised it took you so long.

      • Fundisi

        That is false!

      • John_33

        No True Scotsman fallacy is only valid if the definition of a Christian changes. It’s not valid if there is a clear definition. Jesus gave the definition of a Christian in John 8:31:

        “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;” ~ John 8:31

        Those who continue in Jesus’ words are His disciples; therefore, those who disobey Jesus cannot claim to be Christians, and if they do, then they are liars because it contradicts Jesus’ definition of a Christian.

    • Gary

      Some people either don’t believe there is such a thing as a Christian, or they believe everyone who claims to be a Christian is a real one. You can see some of their comments to your post below.

    • Michael Castner

      Sorry,yes they were.You see,the bible can be interpreted in many different ways to suit ones agenda,just like the qur’an.thats why nobody should base their worldview on any of them.im sure most muslims would say isis is not an islamic organization.Just like you saying the kkk is not christian.

      • robertzaccour

        You can put chickens in an oven but they’re not gonna be biscuits. Just like I could say I’m a handsome… Actually some people would agree with me 😛 Point is, most people that profess to be Christians are really not. Most people that go to church are not Christians. If you’re referring to what a Christian really is, then it’s a person that follows Jesus with their lives, not someone that just goes to a church building or prays when they’re sick. And there’s a difference between interpreting and twisting to suit one’s own sinful desires. As for the KKK, they’re defintely not Christ-like (Christian).

        • Michael Castner

          I understand what you are saying,and that is my point.just replace the words kkk with isis,and christian with muslim.

      • Jim King

        People can SAY that they are anything that pops into their head, but that doesn’t make it the truth. Going to church doesn’t make a person a Christian anyore than standing in a garage makes them a car.
        Almost all religion in the world today is false religion, including most of Christendom.
        http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/worship-that-god-approves/

  • new_york_loner

    For those white supremacists who are still holding the torch for Jeff Davis, General Lee and the Confederate States of America, let my invite you to read the Confederate Constitution here:
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

    Use your Edit function to find the following words: “slaves”, “slavery” & “African N e g r o slavery”, ( no need to put spaces between the letters in the “N-word” when searching that site.)

    Poor Southern white boys were fighting for the right to own African N e g r o slaves, even though they could not afford to buy slaves themselves… they were fighting to preserve the institution of white supremacy… that’s the ugly truth… the Southern Cause was never legitimate.

    The CSA believed that God was on their side too… it’s all there, read their infamous Constitution.

  • Karleen Zimmer

    It is interesting to note that while he insists that “terrible things have been done in the name of Christ” specifically mentioning the Crusades…he does not mention How the Crusades came about or Why…..

    The truth about the Crusades:

    The first Crusade began in 1095 after centuries of
    church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians…

    460 years after the first Christian city was overrun
    by Muslim armies

    457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim
    armies

    453 years after Muslims first plundered Italy

    427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the
    Christian capital of Constantinople

    380 years after France was first attacked by Muslim
    armies

    249 years after the capital of the Catholic world,
    Rome itself, was sacked by a Muslim army

    By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies
    had conquered two thirds of the Christian World.

    Yet….He wants to say that these atrocities were done in the Name of Jesus….they were done in Defense of the Muslim’s attempt to convert the world….sound familiar? The same thing is happening today. Convert or Die they say…They will take over the world they say. Kill All Infidels they say.

    Were the Crusades brutal? Absolutely Yes, sadly the political system inserted itself and there were those who had become blinded by their greed for power…But, what an absolutely poor representation of the facts.

    That doesn’t surprise me though…after all I just heard him say in an interview right before the super bowl that he is the first president since George Washington to brew beer in the White House….funny…George Washington never lived in the White House…In fact, Washington wasn’t even the capitol then…New York was the temporary capitol.

    Do Not trust this man’s interpretation of History…He obviously has no clue…after all…He thinks he has visited almost all of America’s 57 states…remember?

  • Lesley Rankin
  • Be Heard

    Four hundred years ago the crusades happened… That is when everyone in the whole world had to profess Christianity or die. It was a state mandated religion. Something the framers of he Constitution purposefully did away with to protect the world from such injustice… Just because you call yourself a Christian does not mean you fit the Biblical description of a Christ follower… right Mr. President? ISIS is evil and needs to be dealt with, Islam in America needs to be dealt with as there is only one law of the land. It is not sharia and American law- it is only the American law…

    • DisqusBurner1983

      Wait… so are you FOR state-mandated religion or AGAINST it?

  • William Tyndale

    An outrageous comment to be certain, but hardly surprising. What would you expect from the Commander-in-Chief of the anti-Christian bigoted movement in this country?

  • new_york_loner

    Christ commanded his followers to love their enemies. I did not see any evidence of that on this Christian site. No turning of the other cheek here… no forgiving of one’s enemies… no hint of pacifism…lots of revenge and hate here… not much love.

  • Truthhurts24

    This man is hell bent on destroying Christianity in America and he is definitely working for his father Satan this speech really confirmed it. Ever since he has been in office he has attacked Christianity the Constitution and all decency which has made America a blessed nation. Its only a matter of time now that this satanic dictator will bring out the fema trucks to get rid of Christians his enemies.

    • new_york_loner

      Sir, do you believe that the CIA is putting behavior altering substances into the contrails left by jetliners?

  • new_york_loner

    Obama was ill-advised to include a dubious moral equivalency argument in his address at the National Prayer Breakfast. What ISIS is doing today is absolutely indefensible; but Obama’s references to centuries-old Christian atrocities, as some sort of moral counterweight to Islamic terror, came off as a defense of Jihadism today… a major screw up, in my view.

  • David Everett La

    This person clearly has no idea of history and or the Catholic church !!! Christians hmmm lets see feeding the homless -clothing the homeless helping widows and orphans and the sick When nobody else wants them ….sending aid to disaster ridden country’s going all over the world to teach and help people to learn … Oh and not to mention most schools and major universitys were the result of spiritual revivival – You sir MR president are gravely mistaken- Guilty ….yes we are all sinners … but being wicked thats not the Christian ball park and you are holding a Ball and glove !

    • DisqusBurner1983

      Yo, heads up. The Muslims did that too.

  • Gary

    “Islam isn’t so bad.” – B. Hussein Obama

  • N.K.David

    The question should be, is he wrong or right? This is the reason an unborn child exclaim and asked, ” Why must the persecuted become the persecutor?” The truth is that people fail to learn from their own pain and sufferring. That was the dark age in human histroy when all knowledge was suppressed. We want to religiously follow our faith while we ignore the most important law, “The Golden Rule.” That is why we lack peace.

  • Geoffrey Mwangama

    In some point if you read between the lines Obama was making some sense,yes we should be proud of our beliefs,our religions but we should also respect other religions/believers. Extremism is hijacking our identities,we must all stand tall together condemn extremism in our beliefs.
    The problem Islam religion is facing now is because the Muslim powerhouse and the world Muslim leaders knowingly or unknowingly let Islam to be taken hostage by extremists(murderers,terrorists) who use wrongly Islam and quran to justify their brutality and evil.

    • Gary

      If your religion is false, you should be ashamed of it.

      • Jim King

        That applies to almost all religion, including most of professed Christianity.

  • Nick Wride

    He’s right. Christian history is littered with the corpses of millions of innocent human beings, slaughtered in the name of Christ and the Church. Want to talk about beheadings? King Charlemagne ordered the beheading of 4,500 Saxons in one morning for refusing the forced conversion to Christianity. Christians invented and used some of the horrific and agonizing torture devices ever known to Man and they used them on fellow Christians, as well as non-believers. The Crusades, the Inquisitions, the conquest of the Americas, slavery, lynching, more recently, the murder of doctors, nurses, receptionists and off duty cops in clinic bombings, innocent men, women and children at Oklahoma City, the Olympic Park bombing. No religion has clean hands.

  • Evangelina Vigilantee

    Those who follow Jesus love their enemies.
    Those who follow mohammed kill their friends.
    That is what each religion’s text dictates to do.
    Expect the war on Christianity to grow as well as the promotion of the one world religion.

  • Jim King

    It would be more accurate to say that man has committed atrocities in the name of ‘Religion’. Babylon the Great symbolizes ALL the false religion in the world and they are ALL bloodguilty.
    Revelation 17.
    http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/revelation/17/#v66017005
    What/Who is ‘Babylon the Great’??
    http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/identifying-babylon-the-great/#?insight%5Bsearch_id%5D=234d875d-dead-4063-8bbc-d2df758d339c&insight%5Bsearch_result_index%5D=0

    • Magister_militum_praesentalis

      Directing people to a Jehovah’s Witness propaganda site is not doing them any favors.

      • Jim King

        Calling it propaganda is a poor cop-out. If you have better or equal information, show it.
        For the person who believes the Bible, the scriptures are cited & anyone can, and should, look them up to see for themselves if that is what is actually written.

  • Peter Leh

    Can someone run down the history of the Southern Baptists for me? Thanks

    • Magister_militum_praesentalis

      Why are you asking for that? The shortest answer is to tell you what not to do, which is derive your history of the Southern Baptists from J. M. Carroll’s The Trail of Blood.

      • Peter Leh

        We can start with the apology of the SBC in 1996 (not 1896…1996) for its role in the oppression of blacks and work our way back, or start with the formation on the SBC in 1846 breaking away from the baptist to continue the biblical right of enslaving blacks and for forward.

        never heard of Carroll book. I may need to look it up to see how false it might be. 🙂