‘Gay’ Activist’s Call for Churches to Be Forced to Take Homosexuality Off ‘Sin List’ Draws Concerns

Red Letters Born Again pdConcerns are arising among Christians and online commentators after a homosexual activist recently told a national publication that churches “must be made ‘to take homosexuality off the sin list.'”

Mitchell Gold is the founder of Faith in America, an organization that aims to “end the harm to LGBT youth and families from misguided religious teaching.” He served on the board of directors for the Human Rights Campaign for seven years, and was named on of the “Top 50 Most Powerful Gay People in America” in 2007 by Out Magazine.

In an article written by Frank Buni of the New York Times, Gold is quoted as stating that he believes churches ought to be forced to stop considering homosexual behavior as being sinful.

“Gold told me that church leaders must be made ‘to take homosexuality off the sin list,’ he wrote.

“His command is worthy—and warranted,” Buni commented. “All of us, no matter our religious traditions, should know better than to tell gay people that they’re an offense.”

The Times article centered on Indiana’s Religious Freedom Act and Buni’s assertion that Christian Americans should “jettison” their mindsets about homosexual behavior. He contended that the interpretation of biblical text about homosexuality is “subjective” and “debatable” and said that Christians disregard the “biases and blind spots of [the Bible’s] authors, cultures and eras.”

“So our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity,” Buni wrote. “Religion is going to be the final holdout and most stubborn refuge for homophobia.”

  • Connect with Christian News

But some have expressed dismay at Buni’s writing, as well as Gold’s suggestion that churches should be forced to “take homosexuality off the sin list.”

“Not ‘must be persuaded,’ but ‘must be made.’ Compelled. Forced. And not forced to change our behavior, but forced to change what we believe. Because you must approve,” wrote Rod Dreher of the American Conservative. “Can you imagine the outcry if the Times published a column saying that Jews or Muslims must be ‘made’ to quit believing a tenet of their religion? If socialists must be ‘made’ to disavow any of their political convictions? But not when the target is conservative Christians…”

“So now government should be dictating belief to churches and enforcing theological orthodoxy?” asked Thomas Williams PH.D. “Now politicians and courts will be telling Christians what they are allowed to consider as sinful? Isn’t this what America was founded to escape from?”

“People are already talking about forcing churches to perform same-sex weddings, whether they like it or not, or get out of the marriage business,” he continued. “[A]ttempts to force [Christians] to abandon their ethical standards and their principles reveal not open-mindedness or fairness, but intolerance, chauvinism and hate. These are the attitudes that have no place in America.”

Kevin Leininger of the News Sentinel made similar comments, stating that forcing Christians to change their beliefs runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

“Just as with debate over man-made global warming, the theology of homosexuality is no longer open for discussion, and anyone who suggests otherwise must be forcibly silenced, presumably by the government. How that could be consistent with the First Amendment, Bruni did not say,” he wrote.

“[Gold’s] call for censorship of the church—of God himself—is noteworthy not only for its brazenness but because it was so predictable,” Leininger continued. “As I have mentioned before, it can be considered a hate crime to accurately quote Scripture in some countries, and that free speech-chilling sentiment, clearly, exists here as well and will only grow bolder if it is not resisted.”

But he noted that Scripture puts all men on an equal playing field—and that all are under sin without the transforming power of Jesus Christ.

“When [Gold] talks about taking homosexuality off the sin list, he fails to understand (or at least acknowledge) that the Bible puts everybody on the sin list,” he said. “That’s why we need a Savior in the first place.”


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
  • Don Hamilton

    I agree with the Pope. He is a heretic. Rome has done to the Gospel, the same thing that liberals have done to the U.S. constitution.

    • BarkingDawg

      Good, I can feel your anger. I am defenseless. Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!

      • PoorKnightofChrist

        lol

    • weasel1886

      Made it better

      • Don Hamilton

        Better than the first century church?

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          Can you name one writer from the first century church whose writings have survived? Hint: google “patristic”

          • Don Hamilton

            If we can’t discern the historisity of the New Testament, not only is it stupid to be a Protestant, it is stupid to be Catholic. I am convinced in the accuracy of the New Testament, but my argument will not fit on a bumper sticker. I am willing to present my argument, if you are willing to spend the time. Thank you for your reply OneBread

          • PoorKnightofChrist

            (psst…too easy)

  • Aaron Marshall

    I agree. All you baby sprinkling collar wearing baptismal regeneration real presence pukaristic word of faith charismatic new age prosperity pimps and Jezebel hereticks are one with Rome.

    • StereoMan

      That’s a lot of hateful fundie buzzwords in one sentence…wow. Funny how you never see Catholics complaining about the tongue-speaking, rapture believing, snake-waving fundamaniacs.

    • WelderChick

      Hmmm, how long did it take you to come up with that one? A whole lot of time better spent reading your bible, my guess.

  • Jim Deferio

    It was much worse back at the time when the 47 translators worked on the King James Version of the Bible. They all subscribed to the Thirty Nine Articles of Anglicanism of 1604 which included belief in transubstantiatiion, Mary as Mother of God, and prayers for the dead. They were basically Roman Catholic in doctrine but not in jurisdiction. In jurisdiction they had the King of England as their head instead of the Pope of Rome.

    The KJV is very much a Roman Catholic Bible.

    Today we are much more free from the clutches of Rome.

    • Josey

      It is not a Roman Catholic Bible

      • Jim Deferio

        Not in the sense that it was produced by Anglicans but yes in the sense that it was produced by men who held to Roman Catholic doctrines and who used Erasmus’ (a Roman Catholic priest) faulty Greek text.

        I have a 1611 facsimile of the original 1611 and the translators cite “Saint Jerome” 21 times (by my count) and “Saint Augustine” 17 times (by my count).

        It also has a list of days honoring “saints” and various “holidays” and occultic drawings.

        The Apocrypha in the original 1611 has about 2,000 marginal notes cross-referencing it with other parts of the Bible.

        The KJV uses ecclesiastical language and words like “rule” and “rule over” when the Greek clearly means to “lead”. It also uses the word “feed” in Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5 when the word clearly means “to shepherd”. It uses “Bishop” in place of “oversee” and it uses “Deacon” in place of “servant” or “minister”.

        I was KJV only from 1973 to 1991. FREE AT LAST!

    • John_33

      These articles were incorporated into the 1604 English prayer book and are preserved in the Canadian Book of Common Prayer. They have never been officially adopted as a formal confession of faith in any province of the Anglican Communion, but they serve as a window onto the theological concerns of the reformed English church…

      XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.

      The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of he love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

      Transubstantiation (or the change of the sub- stance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

      The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

      The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

      http://www.anglican (dot) ca/about/beliefs/39-articles/

      • Jim Deferio

        What you have pasted is from 1801. The Anglicans have “evolved” since 1604.

        • John_33

          Here it is in a book that was printed in 1727.

          books (dot) google (dot) ca/books?id=R8QHAAAAQAAJ

          • Jim Deferio

            I hate DISQUS, lol. I can’t see the newer comments. I was also told that if i post a link to another site my comment would be deleted. In any case I’m using the original 1604 and the revisions of the 1500’s. This is what it says and is causing confusion:

            “6 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

            on a comparison of the two, the reactionary character of the King s Book is very clear. In many points a return to the old system of things is evident, as might be expected from a publication belonging to the later years of Henry s reign, when the Statute of the Six Articles (the ” whip with six strings “) was in force. The section exalting the Eucharist and Penance over the other sacraments is omitted. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is definitely maintained, although the word itself is avoided.
            1 The section on extreme unction is rewritten, and the celibacy of the clergy is enforced.”

            archive dot org/stream/thirtyninearticl01gibsuoft/thirtyninearticl01gibsuoft_djvu.txt

          • John_33

            I see what happened here. The txt page you cited is confusing, and that’s why it looks like it’s talking about the 39 Articles. Read the source in book format (link below) and start from the last paragraph on page 5. The source you cited is by Edgar Charles Sumner entitled, “The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England” which was published in 1896. The title of the book is in the upper-left hand of the page (a common theme), but the title is truncated to “The Thirty-Nine Articles” on each page. You accidentally cited page 6, and the book title, which is not what the paragraph is talking about. Instead it’s referencing “The Necessary Doctrine of Erudition for any Christian Man” from 1543 (page 5 and 6 clears this misconception up). Henry VIII was definitely ambivalent on such Catholic doctrines during his reign, but this was changed later.

            I know that this is an honest mistake on your part and that you mean no malice or deceit, but I sincerely urge you to ensure that you don’t fall on these kinds of issues. There are many who will lie because they hate God, so they will cast aspersions on the good things of God. The KJV is a fine English translation that can be trusted. Seek God with your whole heart soul and mind in such matters, and be careful with what others may say. Take care.

            (click on the page to turn to the next page)
            Archive (dot) org/stream/thirtyninearticl01gibsuoft#page/4/mode/2up

          • Jim Deferio

            Thanks. Agreed except for your statement that the KJV is a “fine translation”. Perhaps forty years ago it was but not now. Thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament have come to light since 1611 (Greek and other ancient language manuscripts) and much more is now known about koine Greek (especially the Granville Sharp Rule).

            The Dead Sea Scrolls, which were very instrumental in bringing me to believe OT prophecies concerning Jesus Christ and eventually becoming a Christian, correct some of the contradictions in the OT of the KJV.

            I’ll try that link you cited. Take Care.

          • John_33

            I don’t want to take this conversation into a translations dispute where neither of us benefit. All I will say is that after careful study and prayer, I believe that the KJV is the most accurate in the English and in the choice of manuscripts that it used (although I do not deny that more good English versions can come in the future). The Bible says that the Word of God is our sword. Let’s ensure that we’ve got a firm grasp on it so we can use it to its fullest extent. I know in my personal experience that whenever I’ve had to use it that it withstood the test.

            It was nice talking with you. Thanks for the polite conversation.

          • PoorKnightofChrist

            helpful hint…refresh screen often…

      • Jim Deferio

        Here it is from 1604.

        XXIX.

        De Cosna Domini.

        Ccena Domini non est tantum
        signum mutuse benevolentise Chris-
        tianorum inter sese, verum potius
        est Sacramentum nostrse per mortem
        Christi redemptionis. Atque adeo
        rite, digne et cum fide sumentibus,
        panis quern frangimus est communi-
        catio corporis Christi : Similiter
        poculum benedictionis est communi-
        catio sanguinis Christi.

        Panis et vini transubstantiatio in
        Eucharistia, ex sacris literis probari
        non potest, sed apertis Scripturse
        verbis adversatur et mnltarum
        superstitionum dedit occasionem.

        Quum naturae humanse veritas
        requirat, ut unius ejusdemque
        hominis corpus in multis locis simul
        esse non posset, sed in uno aliquo
        et definite loco esse oporteat,
        idcirco Christi corpus, in multis et

        XXIX.

        Of the Lordes Supper.

        The Supper of the Lorde is not
        onely a signe of the love that
        Christiens ought to have among
        theimselves one to another, but
        rather it is a sacrament of our re
        demption by Christes death, inso-
        mochethat to soche as rightlie, woor-
        thelie, and with faieth receive the
        same, the breade whiche we breake
        is a communion of the bodie of
        Christe. Likewise the Cuppe of
        blessing, is a communion of the
        bloude of Christe.

        Transubstanciation, or the
        chaunge of the substaunce of breade
        and wine into the substaunce of
        Christes bodie, and bloude cannot
        be proved by holie writte, but is
        repugnaunt to the plaine woordes
        of Scripture, and hath given occa-
        sione to many supersticions.

        Forasmoche as the trueth of
        mannes nature requireth, that the
        bodie of one, and theself same
        manne cannot be at one time in
        diuerse places, but must nedes be
        in some one certeine place : There –

        1 V. 1. inseruntur.

        84

        THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

        diversis locis, eodem tempore,
        prsesens esse non potest. Et
        quoniam, ut tradunt Sacrae literse,
        Christus in Ccelum fait sublatus et
        ibi usque ad finem seculi est per-
        mansurus, non debet quisquam
        fidelium carnis ejus et sanguinis
        Realem et Corporalem(utloquuntur)
        prasentiam in Eucharistia vel
        credere vel profiteri.

        Sacramentum Eucharistiae ex
        institutione Christi non servabatur,
        circuraferebatur, elevabatur, nee
        adorabatur.

        fore the bodie of Christe cannot bee
        presente at one time in many, and
        diuerse places. And because (as
        holie Scripture doeth teache) Christe
        was taken vp into heauen, and there
        shall continue unto thende of the
        worlde, a faithful man ought not,
        either to beleue, or openlie to con-
        fesse the reall, and bodilie presence
        (as thei term it) of Christes fleshe
        and blonde, in the Sacramente of
        the Lordes Supper.

        The Sacramente of the Lordes
        Supper was not commaunded by
        Christes ordinaunce to be kepte,
        caried about, lifted up, nor wor
        shipped.

        • John_33

          Yes, other than spelling changes from the era, it is the same.

  • Josey

    I am not at all surprised by his comments, in order to have a one world religion he will continue spouting lies, time for the true wheat and fake tares to be separated.

    • StereoMan

      What lies? He’s a decent and compassionate man, and I’m not even Christian. You could learn something from him, he’s not a hater fundamentalist.

  • Lark62

    Time to grab some popcorn and enjoy the show.

    My semi mythical middle eastern man turned deity is better than your semi mythical middle eastern man turned deity.
    ‘Tis Not!
    ‘Tis So!
    ‘Tis Not!
    ‘Tis So!
    …….

  • Machiavellian

    “…Evangelicals or Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics or Apostolic …They are Christians.'”

    Yup, I agree. Different denominations but all are Christians.

    • Paul Hiett

      Do they all go to Heaven even though many of the teachings of various denominations go directly against each other?

      • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

        Stick around and find out. Read Pascal’s wager.

        • Paul Hiett

          I’m well aware of Pascal’s Wager. I wonder how many more here are though.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            We know in part, we see in part. A lesson lost on many. But it doesn’t make for very interesting flaming matches.

          • CNthruPC

            Yes, we “see thru a glass dimly.” However, His Word (or, as Peter phrases it, “His excellent promises”) is sufficient for all things pertaining to life and faith. “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” Notice: “complete” and “equipped for every good work.”

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            I’m not arrogant enough to attack someone else’s beliefs. I’m only here to defend mine from people who think they know scripture well enough to attack me for them. There is very little civility here shown toward Catholics who are sincere in their beliefs and who are already quite familiar with the biblical passages being lobbed at them. I can’t reason with people who won’t discuss my posts directly.

          • CNthruPC

            There’s a difference between “attacking” someone’s beliefs vs. attacking them. If someone matter of factly lays arguments on the table, not using any ad hominem, then it’s not bashing the person. Either the things his opponent believes hold up to scrutiny or they don’t.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            True, but it hardly ever happens on news comment boards, and especially if it involves fundamentalists commenting on Catholicism.

          • CNthruPC

            All that has to happen is sticking to the ISSUE, the TOPIC. If we are going to glean anything worthwhile from one another, we need to FOCUS on the TOPIC, and quit reading the other guy thru a lens: go by what he SAYS, not by all the millions of other comments you’ve read before.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            When you are ready to take off your fundie- and anti-Catholic-colored glasses, we will see if this ideal holds up.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            “All Scripture,” by the way, pretty much excludes the Epistles and Revelation. The reference is to the Law and The Prophets and possibly whatever Gospels were extant at the time (and it is likely none of them were in a written state at this time). It was written by Paul to Timothy. This Epistle cannot refer to itself as inspired.

          • CNthruPC

            Jesus: “The one who hears you hears Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me, and the one who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” In this statement, He’s already putting the divine stamp of His authority on whatever the Apostles will later say/write.

          • PoorKnightofChrist

            I noticed the words “may be”…

          • CNthruPC

            {Sigh} Check the Greek: it’s a result clause (it does not equate with “maybe” meaning “perhaps”). If it were the idea you’re trying to force on it, it would say “might,” not “may.”

          • PoorKnightofChrist

            whatever may make you happy…

          • CNthruPC

            Um, no: it’s not what “makes us happy” that counts; it’s TRUTH that we’re after here, no?

          • PoorKnightofChrist

            Apparently, I should have included a “smiley face” or “winky face” or some such other…it’s had to make a small jest in a text box…

            And I am absolutely for Truth, and that ‘Truth’ Absolute…TBTG (thanks be to God)

          • CNthruPC

            Pascal’s wager should not constitute the baseline for one’s faith. Rather, conviction about the truth of the Gospel and who Jesus is should cement the foundation of one’s faith. The wager is useful only in making clear to someone who does NOT believe, that in case the Gospel is true, it’s safer to believe in that than not. Or, as Paul puts it: “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins…If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.”

  • André JL DuBóis

    Catholics arent Christian

    • André JL DuBóis

      God is very serious on the Matter their must be a Transformation,
      there must be heart felt conviction there must be true repentance
      otherwise you are not a Christian… You need to repent and turn from
      your sins and confess them to God, not a Priest or a father or anyone
      but God and Jesus Christ alone, and you have to believe in the Son and
      accept Him as your Lord and Saviour without Christ as your Saviour you
      have no hope of the forgiveness of your sins, you have no hope to go to
      heaven, you have no hope to be with God, you will go to hell for your
      sinful ways, and rejecting the only one who can save you will not help
      you go to heaven either the bible is very clear, and the Bible is God’s
      word…. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The
      old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
      —2 Corinthians 5:17
      For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your
      own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one
      may boast.
      —Ephesians 2:8-9 because, if you confess with your
      mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him
      from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is
      justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the
      Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
      For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is
      Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone
      who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
      —Romans 10:9-13 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes…..
      —Romans
      1:16a “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that
      whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God
      did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order
      that the world might be saved through him.
      —John 3:16-17
      for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
      —Romans 3:23

      For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
      —Romans 6:23
      So
      please Repent and turn from your sins and trust in the Lord Jesus
      Christ today, he promises to come back and take you with Him if you
      truly believe in your heart and truly repent of your sins he will save
      you, for he cannot lie !
      Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
      —John 14:6 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
      —John 1:12

      John 3:16/ John 3:17/ Ephesians 2:8-9 / Romans 3:20

      • André JL DuBóis

        Catholics believe that working the Law saves their soul, and good works, Read Romans 3:20 and Ephesians 2:8-9

        • StereoMan

          No they don’t. They believe in a combination of works and grace through faith.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            You are spot on.This is, of course, a tired and easily refuted accusation, but here’s an analogy that may make clearer what Catholics actually believe.

            Let’s suppose my wife gives me a wonderful book as a gift. I am so grateful to have received it that I tell everyone about it. I praise my wife for caring about me so much that she was willing to make a personal
            sacrifice to obtain it for me. But I never actually read it. It sits unopened on the shelf in a place of honor. So ask yourself this: did I actually receive the gift she gave me?

            It’s much the same way with salvation. We don’t do good works to obtain salvation. We actively participate in our salvation by living the Gospel in our lives. We have three choices: do evil, do nothing, or do good. Which do you suppose the Lord would have us do?

          • Gene Schunek

            Thank you! This is exactly what I was taught in a little Southern Baptist Church.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            I think when we take the time to understand each other and not get tangled up in words that mean different things to different people we find that we have much more in common than we thought.

          • CNthruPC

            No offense to you personally, OBOB, but people like the Mormons and the Muslims believe, for example, that abortion on demand is wrong. So did the Brownshirt Boss (he only let Jewish women have them), for that matter, but I would hardly be inclined to join hands with Mormons, Muslims or the Mustached Tarantula Worshipper.

            And words mean EVERYthing (their definitions): when a Liberal talks about “the Gospel,” he doesn’t mean it the way the Bible does; when a Mormon says he, too, “believes in Jesus,” it’s not so, he’s talking about another Jesus, not the one that died on the Cross and is the 2nd person of the godhead. Peter warns about those who “secretly bring in destructive heresies,” which is done precisely by disemboweloing Biblical terms of their Biblical definition, much like a virus that invades a healthy cell, but still looks like the healthy cell on the outside.

            One drop of poison contaminating a bucket of pure glacier water makes the whole bucket impotable.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            None taken and a point well made. It’s a little hard to convey what I intended in such a short reply. I think that in order to have a useful dialog we first have to define precisely what we mean by each term, That’s the point I was trying to get at. Definition first, then discussion of a clearly defined subject. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. And rat poison is 99% food.

            That’s why I’m trying to get some of these thread over to the blog. I insist that people clearly define their terms before we get into discussions. My post on ground rules makes that clearer I hope. I really want to have these dialogs but this site is too much a free-for-all to get much serious debate going.

            thanks for your post on my site BTW.

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          If i gave my heart to the lord as a “Christian” (Prostestant Evangelical) and then became Roman Catholic, am I still saved?

          • Carol Richardson

            If you were truly saved and continued in his word you wouldn’t join the Catholic church becauses the church’s doctrine contradicts His Word.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Wow, such impeccable binary thinking. Doh!

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Sources please.

    • weasel1886

      “Always good to see Christians hating each other. ” Satan

      • Carol Richardson

        Jesus always called a spade a spade.

    • StereoMan

      They were among the EARLIEST Christians. Read a history book. Just because you hate them doesn’t give you the right to deny history.

      • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

        Never met an fundamentalist Protestant who was willing to discuss the patristic texts. Apparently they believe the Church went into suspended animation after the last Apostle died and it didn’t revive until Luther. They are, as a group, the most ahistorical people I have ever encountered. The fact that the Catholic Church decided which books went into the canon is of no interest to them.

        • StereoMan

          People study for years to be Catholic, Lutheran, others. But to be a born again requires nothing, no regard for history, no knowledge. Just read the words of the Sinner’s Prayer off the sheet like a good little parrot and you’re magically “saved”. I find it baffling.

          • CNthruPC

            “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved…” (Acts 16, Paul talking to the jailer)

          • Melancholy Man

            You said it yourself you just don’t see it. In your mind separate the words Lutheran and born-again. They are two completely different things. A person can be a Lutheran and not be saved. Or they can be a Lutheran and be saved. It takes years to pass the Lutheran Test. It only takes one simple act of faith to past the Jesus Test. Two separate things entirely. Although I seriously doubt you’ll ever get any Lutheran “officials” to recognize or admit to this fact. My sister passed the Lutheran Test at 16. But she didn’t become born-again or saved until she was in her 30’s. I got born-again or saved at 26 and I wasn’t anything. No church at all. Salvation is of Christ, not man-made denominations.

          • StereoMan

            It isn’t nearly as cut and dried as you’re making it out to be. First problem is that phrase “born again”. What does that mean to you? I’m guessing it’s got something to do with reciting the words of the Sinner’s Prayer or something similar to it, an outward giving of yourself to Jesus. And look at how you can tell you when it “happened”, when you were 26. That’s fine, if that’s how the evangelicals do it, but Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, and many others understand being “born again” completely differently. They don’t see it as something you can know during this lifetime, you have to die before you can know if you’ve been “saved’ by anyone.

            And to the denominations listed above, being born again refers to baptism. And this is another area you’re going to disagree, but it also has something to do with being baptized as an infant. I’m sure you’re outraged already at this idea that a baby can’t confess sins and therefore should not be baptized, but once again it comes down to a difference in doctrinal understanding. Catholics, etc. do not believe baptism is about ACTUAL sins, they believe it is about the stain of ORIGINAL sin. Which was all have. And the remission of original sin done during baptism is how Catholics, Lutherans, etc. are “born again” – through water and the word.

            You can disagree with that all you like, but the VAST MAJORITY of Christians understand being born again in this way.

            Catholics are not the “most wrong”. If anything they are the most deserving of respect since they have been Christians the longest. I would say the people who are the “most wrong” would be the newest denominations who have come up with their own version of Christianity all over again with a brand new set of rules.

          • Melancholy Man

            Atheists I have communicated with would disagree with you. They would say as Catholics have been around the longest and therefore have killed the most innocent people and therefore are the worst. Actually evil is the word they use but they apply that to all religions. Infants need no Baptism as Jesus said, “Suffer the little children and hinder them not to come unto me. For the kingdom of heaven is made as such as these. Verily verily I say unto you, unless you repent and become as one of these little ones you will in no wise enter therein.” As I understand and have personally experienced it the “born-again” or “saved” experience often happens in a blink of an eye the moment one truly repents of sin and accepts Jesus as personal Lord and Savior. For me no other persons were involved. I read a book and said “the sinners prayer.” But I wholeheartedly meant it. I was totally sincere in profession. I guess you could call it a confession.

            Look it up and you will see that 22% of Catholics profess as to having a supernatural “born-again” experience. But I believe a person can have their salvation experience so softly or gradually they do not actually perceive an experience. Those people are saved but answer no to the question of having a born-again “experience.” Although most evangelicals would probably disagree with me on that one. Baptists probably believe you have to be dunked in their tank of water and then come up immediately saved. Not so. No man nor denomination can limit the way God does his work. I don’t care what anyone says about that. Only spirit can enter heaven so you have to die physically first. But upon salvation, born-again or otherwise, each believer receives a portion of God’s Holy Spirit as a “seal unto salvation.” And at that point the Holy Spirit starts to teach and instruct us in the ways of righteousness and our purpose if any in this world. If we will listen.

            At 26 I was saved and no matter what I do or do not do after that for the rest of my life it makes no difference, I was and remain saved. Some call it Unconditional Eternal Security theology. Other than the blaspheme of the Holy Ghost sin, which I understand not. But I can not actually enter God’s Kingdom in the flesh, only after death in spirit. I guess that’s why our types often feel your types are trying to “earn” their way into heaven by “works.” Those faiths are teaching partial correctness and partial incorrectness of doctrine. Maybe by accident. Maybe on purpose to keep their people under their control and in their flock. Maybe their theologians just took things to far. I don’t really know enough about all that to intelligently comment on the subject. But the Bible is clear as crystal on the subject. No one can nor has to do anything to earn their way into heaven. It is the free gift of God…..so that no one can boast.

            I know it says somewhere that faith without works is dead. But I feel the author was not being literal, he was trying to make a point and encourage good works. Read on the rest of what he said and it makes more sense. I contend no one can lose their free gift of salvation due to physical nor spiritual inactivity. They will just have no reward in heaven and perhaps even get a scolding. But a true believer will almost always desire to do good works and usually plenty of them. This is the best of my understanding from 29 years of “walking with the Lord” which has not always been an easy walk by any means. It is my personal opinion that any faith or teachings to the contrary are in error. Sorry. But I make no claims of infallibility as does Catholic doctrine concerning the Pope.

          • StereoMan

            “They would say as Catholics have been around the longest and
            therefore have killed the most innocent people and therefore are the
            most wrong.”

            Is it really fair to say that about any denomination based on their
            longevity? I’d be wiling to bet you that if it was the Baptists who’d
            been around the longest they’d have been equally susceptible to
            political corruption.

            “Infants need no Baptism”

            You have your interpretation – yours is Believer’s Baptism. However,
            you are in the distinct minority of those who practice Baptism for
            remission of Original Sin. You think you’re right and they’re wrong.
            They think they’re right and you are wrong. The point is Christians
            believe differently on this matter and there are two valid
            interpretations.

            “I was and remain saved.”

            My feeling is that you are putting the cart before the horse. I think
            it’s a bad idea to put words in God’s mouth just because you made a
            statement of faith. God may feel otherwise. And even though I’m not
            Christian, I know the majority of Christians agree (because, again,
            Catholics alone represent the majority of Christians worldwide, and I
            agree with them on this.)

            “But the Bible is clear as crystal on the subject. No one can nor has
            to do anything to earn their way into heaven. It is the free gift of
            God…..so that no one can boast.”

            Catholics do not believe in buying their way into heaven with works.
            Catholics believe in a combination of good works and grace through
            faith. You are misrepresenting their beliefs.

          • Melancholy Man

            You are not even a Christian? Why do you indulge in such conversation in the first place? Are you considering joining the heavenly family of the one true God? You can baptize children and there is nothing wrong with that. But in adulthood it would be best if they were baptized again. If one believes that works is a “necessary” part of Salvation they have taken things too far. They have added to the free gift of God a requirement that God did not make. Salvation is not a COMBINATION either. It is one. The one we call Christ Jesus. If you add the “requirement” of good works you have null-and-voided the FREE GIFT of God clause and the FAITH ALONE in Christ Jesus clause. The key word here is…..”REQUIREMENT.” If Catholics or anybody else believes they are REQUIRED to do good works to get into heaven…..they are wrong and have gone too far and indeed are at least attempting to PARTIALLY EARN their way into heaven!

            You can NOT earn nor partially earn your way into heaven. JESUS 100% EARNED OUR WAY INTO HEAVEN FOR US. Even a partial earnings would allow for partial boastings. AND WHO SETS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT STANDARD OF GOOD WORKS NECESSARY TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN? THIS IS NOT SCRIPTURAL!!! THIS IS BOGUS AND OF MAN…NOT GOD!!! It is by faith and faith alone one is saved. If you add to it you may be in for a big surprise when you die. To us Protestants that is a degradation of the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. That is like laying our pitiful human deeds along side of the cross and the blood of Christ. As if somehow they were comparative in value. Remember his last words were, “IT IS FINISHED.” The REQUIREMENT of anything beyond FAITH in HIS FINISHED WORK ON THE CROSS is akin to blasphemy to us Protestants. But I do not speak as an official representative for the Protestants.

          • Melancholy Man

            I did not put the cart before the horse nor did I put words in God’s mouth. After my “sinners prayer confession” the Holy Spirit came to indwell inside me. One just knows. One can at times feel it’s presence. And at times the Holy Spirit uses our thoughts, feelings and dreams to communicate with us. On rare occasions He may even speak to us a few words we hear in our heads. These are not our own thoughts. On very rare occasions one may even hear the Spirit speak audibly that you can hear with your ears. But that seems to be very rare indeed. This is how the Holy Spirit makes known his presence, bears witness to us of the realness and security of our salvation and leads, guides, instructs and teaches us. We don’t need some clergyman to convince us of our salvation. We know it 100% sure from within ourselves.

            From the stories I have heard it can start out that way or it can grow over time. Mine grew over time and then one day BOOM! Now having said all that I will add this. I have seen many people, including family members, who were not so spiritually-minded or inclined. I am sure they were saved but they do not pursue a relationship with God through the Spirit. They just lived their completely normal lives like everyone else. Perhaps they were ignorant of these things. Some don’t believe in these things. Some are afraid of spiritual things or the supernatural. Some were just raised a certain way and follow that path all their lives. But just because a person seems spiritually un-alive does not mean they are spiritually dead. My mother had a quiet faith all her life and never understood nor believed in these things.

            This area causes a lot of friction and misunderstandings between the faiths. Many Evangelicals think if you are not spirit-filled and on-fire for God you are an unsaved hell-bound person. And I suppose many persons of other faiths are more like my mother and look upon the on-fire types as a little goofy, nutty or odd and don’t really know what to make of them. That doesn’t fit their personality. God won’t force anything upon us. And if you don’t believe God still talks to people he never talk to you. But if you believe and desire…..almost anything is possible…..Spiritually speaking. This all boils down to faith. Some people have a lot and some a little. Some Churches a lot and some a little. Some denominations a lot and some a little. All one needs to become a child of God is a tiny mustard seed worth of faith…..in Jesus.

          • Melancholy Man

            There is a brand new post by someone named “BornfromHeavenAbove” I feel you should read. It kind of supports my views by it is better written and give all the verses of scripture and where to find them in the Bible. It comes to a very negative conclusion concerning Catholics that I am not 100% sure I agree with. It is their first post too. This person knows their stuff. Don’t tell me later that I wrote it, although I kind of wish I did. At least I wish I could write that well. Half serious…..I have spent a lot of time replying to you so you better convert to our (Christ’s) side so I have something to show for all my efforts here.

    • StereoMan

      What are they then? Buddhists?

    • Lisa

      I agree with you!

      • StereoMan

        Oh, it’s a shame to agree with that statement, because it’s wrong.

        • Lisa

          Nope-it’s spot on!

          • StereoMan

            It’s a fundie lie.

          • Lisa

            Nope! The lie is that catholics are Christians. Catholics aren’t Christians because it’s a different gospel-it doesn’t match up with scripture.

          • StereoMan

            My dictionary says Catholics are Christians. Is my dictionary wrong?

            Also, are you not aware that the Catholic church canonized the very Bible?

          • Lisa

            Ya your dictionary is wrong if it says catholics are Christians. But I’m not surprised.

          • StereoMan

            So your dictionary must be wrong too, since EVERY dictionary will tell you Catholics are Christians. So do history books. So does practically every resource on earth, except Fundamentalist Christians. Guess you’re right and everyone else is wrong eh?

          • Lisa

            Well there is a liar who wants people to be deceived in order to stop them in being saved. He is also known as the ruler of this world. So ya I think the ruler of this world can tell a whole bunch of lies about God and His Son Jesus and steer people wrong. That’s why it’s good to ask God for discernment.

          • StereoMan

            I think what’s going on here is that you follow a different brand of Christianity that has taught you that some of the Catholic beliefs and practices are wrong. Fine, but it doesn’t affect the fact that Catholics are, and always have been, Christians. They might be Christians who do things differently than you do but they are still Christians. They follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

          • Lisa

            No. I’ve read my Bible and I take it seriously when it says that there is a deceiver out there trying to deceive me away from true faith in Jesus. Jesus tells us that false teachers and false prophets will come and to NOT follow those people and fall away from the faith. So I check everything by the word of God to make sure I don’t fall. Because the Bible tells us some will fall away from the faith!

            I will state again catholics are NOT Chrsitians.

          • StereoMan

            I choose to believe recorded history, the dictionary and common sense and will state again that Catholics are not only Christians but among the first ones.

          • Lisa

            You can say it, you can believe it but it doesn’t make it true.

          • Paul Hiett

            Kind of like every religious belief ever conceived.

          • StereoMan

            Yes it does. Your argument is not with me, it’s with Merriam-Webster. And about six million history books.

          • Lisa

            I don’t have an argument with merriam webster. They can define it that way but it’s not the truth.

          • StereoMan

            This is why fundamentalists are the worst Christians. You have a degree of hatred here that goes beyond being reasonable. The dictionary isn’t wrong. It’s indisputable. It doesn’t matter how much you hate Catholics, they are DEFINED as Christians whether anyone likes it or not.

          • Lisa

            Haha! I am not angry, nor do I hate catholics. That is also untrue. I simply don’t agree that catholics are Christians and wil not be persuaded otherwise. It’s not out of anger it’s because it’s not true.

          • Paul Hiett

            Lisa, do you know who the first pope was?

          • Lisa

            Should I care?

          • Paul Hiett

            Well, it might help you learn something about the origins of Catholicism.

          • Lisa

            I don’t care about the origins of a false religion.

          • Paul Hiett

            Without that origin, even the Christianity you believe in wouldn’t be here today.

          • Lisa

            Paul you are wrong and the amazing thing is as a non Christian you will try to tell me all about Christianity. That seems pretty strange to me.
            You are wrong because It all started when sin entered in the world and we became sinners. Sin is something you do, think or say that doesn’t please God. We all sin-the Bible says we all sin that there isn’t anyone who doesn’t sin. And there is a punishment for sin. That punishment is being thrown in the lake of fire where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. But God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son to take the punishment for our sins that whomever believes on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life!! That is the Good news that the Bible talks about.
            Christianity has nothing to do with religions but everything to do with salvation!!!

          • StereoMan

            What is surprising is that a non-Christian like Paul knows so much more about Christianity’s history than you do.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            If this doesn’t sum up the grand total of the ignorance of fundamentalists, I don’t know what does.

          • ThePhoenixRises

            “I don’t care about the origins of a false religion.”

            TRANSLATION: I don’t like to clutter my mind with the facts, they get in the way of a good hate.

          • Lisa

            Haha!

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Nervous laughter is a sure sign that the laugher knows they have been caught out.

          • Lisa

            Not nervous laughter. Your comment just made me laugh it was so untrue.

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Disingenuous, and an obvious lie on your part.

          • StereoMan

            You just haven’t got a clue, have you. That’s where your religion started and you’re too full of hate to see it.

          • StereoMan

            You might not be angry, but you have certainly been taught by someone who is. The problem here is that Catholics are Christians. It is a factual statement which cannot be logically disputed. You may as well be disagreeing with the fact that two plus two equals four.

          • Lisa

            I’m not angry. How do you know I was taught by anyone? You are still wrong about catholics.

          • StereoMan

            Anyone who debates established facts is either very angry or very misinformed. Which are you, since you are fighting against facts and not opinions?

          • Lisa

            I’m not angry and I’m not misinformed. But it is interesting that you are trying to convince me that I’m the one who is somehow wrong here.

          • StereoMan

            You’re very welcome to explain how the dictionary, history books and conventional wisdom on the subject could possibly be wrong.

          • Lisa

            I already have. Have a good evening

          • StereoMan

            No you didn’t. Have a good evening.

          • John_33

            The Biblical definition of a Christian does not line up with Catholicism.

          • StereoMan

            Yes it does.

          • John_33

            Stating it does not make it so — as many have found out for themselves, Catholic doctrine is not biblical.

          • StereoMan

            Your problem is you’re expecting Catholics to be Bible-only Christians and they are not. They take their authority from the Bible, but also church teaching and sacred traditions, which YOU elected to throw away. On whose authority did you do that?

          • John_33

            On the contrary, who are Catholics to usurp the sole mediatorship of Jesus Christ? “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ.” ~ 1 Timothy 2:5

            The Catholic Church is an organization that came after the Bible. For it to be real, it needs to be substantiated by the Bible and through Christ’s words. It has not.

          • StereoMan

            They DON’T “usurp” the sole mediatorship of Jesus. You’ve been lied to.

            EVERY church organization came after the Bible.

          • John_33

            Every organization? Yes. Christ’s Church? That came while the Bible was being written. That’s the difference.

          • StereoMan

            Catholics would be included as “Christ’s church,” of course. Why would they not be? Are you just excluding the denominations you do not like?

          • John_33

            We just came full circle. As I said before, the Biblical definition of a Christian does not line up with Catholicism.

          • StereoMan

            You didn’t do anything of the sort. Explain why they are not. Explain who the guy on the crucifix is in every Catholic Church. Explain why the dictionary defines Catholics as Christians. Explain recorded history.

          • John_33

            Absolutely. Jesus gave the definition of a Christian:

            “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

            A person must continue in Jesus’ word to be His disciples. They cannot merely follow part of Jesus’ words or follow them once in a while, but they must continue in them. In other words, they aren’t Christ’s disciples if they continually disobey Christ’s word since they wouldn’t be continuing in them (other verses substantiate this to be true, and we know that there will be false Christians based on what Jesus said in Matthew 7:21).

            As for an example of Catholicism not continuing in Jesus’ word, look at the commandment that Jesus gave:

            “But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:” ~ Mark 10:42-43

            Has the Catholic Church historically lorded authority over Christians? For over 1,000 years? Obviously so and even longer – you even stated that they did in another comment to a different user here, but there’s more. What did Peter, the one that Catholicism teaches is the first pope, say about this subject?

            “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being examples to the flock.” ~ 1 Peter 5:1-3

            Peter also warns the elders (of which he identifies as one of them, and not as the pope) and tells them to not be lords over God’s heritage. Through history, we see that the Catholic Church has not only disobeyed this, but they have murdered dissenters who disagreed with their policies – definitely not the Christian example to the flock that Peter exhorted. So, Christ and Peter – the two that Catholicism claims authority from – have already condemned the Catholic Church for their evil deeds through the Word of God. Of course, there are many more examples of Catholic heresy that are warned about in the Bible, but I only used this one example to keep it short. The deeds of the Catholic Church are apparently wicked, and they demonstrate that they don’t follow the Bible. God’s Church is not a man-made organization. It’s a spiritual body of believers that is united through God’s Spirit.

            As for why Catholics use the crucifix, it’s an outward show of piety. Like the Pharisees of old, Catholicism is big on the pomp and ceremony that Jesus condemned. God addressed this one already in the Bible: outward displays are meaningless since He looks on the heart. Also, God never commanded crucifixes to be made, nor are they part of real Christianity. You will never read about Peter wearing a big crucifix or wearing long ecclesiastical robes chanting in Latin. That’s not Christianity.

            As for the dictionary definition, that’s simple. Some dictionaries may decide to choose the ‘safe’ route and call Catholics Christian since the organization has over a billion members who believe this to be true. Dictionaries aren’t used to confront religious falsehoods. Their position may be religiously sensitive, but it’s not Biblically true. God is interested in the heart, not what the dictionary says.

          • StereoMan

            “Has the Catholic Church historically lorded authority over Christians? For over 1,000 years?” No argument. That was largely at a time when there was only one Christian church and it was a ruling body. But what then is the difference between that and people like Pat Robertson, Jack Chick, Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, and any other fundamentalist you want to name? You are willing to call THOSE charlatans Christians, but tell the pope that he’s NOT a Christian?

            “they have murdered dissenters”

            And so have many evangelicals. Again, you are content to give them the title of “Christian” yet deny it to Catholics. Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Phoenix, Arizona has called for the execution of homosexuals and you are fine with HIM being called a Christian? I am sensing some SERIOUS hypocrisy here.

            The crucifix as “an outward show of piety”

            This one’s rich. You fundamentalists with your megachurches, the huge show you put on, more pomp and circumstance than the Vatican could manage in a year. This is hypocritical in the extreme. And once again, the fundies are Christians but the Catholics, who historically have been around hundreds and hundreds of years longer, are not.

            The dictionary is not going the “safe route” by calling Catholics Christians. It’s using the correct word to call them what they are. About time you did, as well.

          • John_33

            You are discussing two different points. They need to be separated.

            First, the conduct of the Catholic Church: We both agree that the Catholic Church has disobeyed Jesus’ commandment for over 1,000 years – and by extension – it has disobeyed Peter as well. Jesus taught His disciples to see if people were righteous based on their fruit (their actions). Good men don’t produce bad fruit. Bad men don’t produce good fruit. If we consistently see bad fruit, then we know that the tree is bad. We both know that Catholicism has produced bad fruit in disobeying Jesus’ command not to lord authority over Christians. Since Jesus promised that all who abide in Him will produce good fruit, we can accurately say according to the Bible that Catholicism cannot be real Christianity. Please note that fundamentalism is not mentioned anywhere in this since it has nothing to do with this. Whether others are Christian or not has no bearing on the fact that Catholicism has consistently produced bad fruit and therefore cannot be Christian. Now that Catholicism is excluded based on the Biblical definition, we can examine fundamentalism.

            Second, regarding fundamentalism: it’s not comparable to the Catholic Church. Catholicism is an organization that has a structure and a hierarchy. Fundamentalism is a concept that spans across multiple denominations and doesn’t contain any hierarchy or leaders. Some are right and some aren’t. That’s why it’s imperative that we go back to the Bible. How do we determine who is a Christian and who isn’t?

            Being a Christian is not determined based on whether one identifies with a certain creed or believes in certain doctrines but whether they follow Jesus in the Spirit that He intended them to. Again, the Bible gives clear definitions so Christians can determine who is really a Christian and who isn’t, and it goes back to Jesus’ definition. Are we continuing in His word and obeying His commandments? Have we been born again as Jesus declared is necessary? Is there evidence that good fruit is being produced in our lives as is required of us? These questions are for everyone who claims to be a Christian. Christianity goes far beyond a church building and doctrine. Real Christians, according to the Bible, will produce good fruit by obeying God in all that they know and in learning what God continues to teach them.

            “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.” ~ 1 John 2:3-6

          • StereoMan

            “We both agree that the Catholic Church has disobeyed Jesus’ commandment for over 1,000 years”

            No, I don’t agree with that. You are putting words in my mouth. I said that historically the fact that the church was a ruling body serves as a reminder as to why we should not mix church and state because it is a recipe for corrpution.

            “We both know that Catholicism has produced bad fruit in disobeying Jesus’ command not to lord authority over Christians.”

            No, we both don’t know that. Again, please don’t put words in my mouth. The Christian church as a single body did horrible things when it was in a position of power.

            “Since Jesus promised that all who abide in Him will produce good fruit, we can accurately say according to the Bible that Catholicism cannot be real Christianity.”

            That is not where a definition of what is or is not a Christian comes from. In these situations, reach for the dictionary on your shelf. Here’s what we get: “A person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ.” That’s it. Nothing about fruit. Nothing about the Sinner’s Prayer. Nothing about oh my God but they worship Mary and statues and the pope. See?

            “Now that Catholicism is excluded based on the Biblical definition, we can examine fundamentalism.”

            It has only been excluded based on your opinion. Not on facts.

            “That’s why it’s imperative that we go back to the Bible. How do we determine who is a Christian and who isn’t?”

            By reading the commonly understood definition of “Christian” from the dictionary. The Bible is only going to generate more interpretations and opinions.

            “Being a Christian is not determined based on whether one identifies with a certain creed or believes in certain doctrines but whether they follow Jesus in the Spirit that He intended them to.”

            No. Once again, let’s return to the dictionary:

            “A person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ.”

            No flowery language, no following of spirits. That means that you have to share the definition with others you probably dislike just as strongly, like the LDS and Jehovah’s Witnesses. They follow the teachings of Christ. You might not LIKE the way they follow them, you might thing they are interpreting them incorrectly. But you can’t change their definition.

            “Again, the Bible gives clear definitions so Christians can determine who is really a Christian and who isn’t, and it goes back to Jesus’ definition.”

            Jesus didn’t define anything. He gave teachings and said many things, but none of them, no matter how good the teachings might have been, defined conclusively what a Christian is. The ONLY way to accurately say you are a Christian is to take the entire canon of what Jesus said and follow that the best you can.

            “A person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ.”

            “Are we continuing in His word and obeying His commandments?”

            That is a matter of interpretation.

            “Have we been born again as Jesus declared is necessary?”

            Also a matter of interpretation. If you read the words of the Sinner’s Prayer off a sheet of paper, are you born again? Or are you simply born again when you are baptized as an infant? Or as an adult? You see the problem now? No one can agree.

            “Is there evidence that good fruit is being produced in our lives as is required of us?”

            Is bombing an abortion clinic a sign of good fruit or bad fruit? Again, it depends on who you talk to. I think it’s a sick, barbaric act, but there are people who’d tell me that they’re warriors for the souls of the unborn.

            “Real Christians, according to the Bible, will produce good fruit by obeying God in all that they know and in learning what God continues to teach them.”

            Yes, and with over 40,000 denominations who can’t agree about those teachings, it becomes clearer and clearer that what YOU are calling a “Real Christian” is merely the No True Scotsman fallacy. You are deeming people Christian who follow YOUR interpretation of it, and saying those who disagree with you are not. That is the crux of this matter.

          • John_33

            No, I don’t agree with that. You are putting words in my mouth. I said that historically the fact that the church was a ruling body serves as a reminder as to why we should not mix church and state because it is a recipe for corrpution.

            I’m sorry. Please show me where I put words in your mouth. You quoted me saying the following:

            “Has the Catholic Church historically lorded authority over Christians? For over 1,000 years?”

            And you replied back with “No argument.” I assumed that you agreed with what you quoted since you did not disagree with it. Do you not agree that the Catholic Church lorded authority over other Christians for over 1,000 years? If I put words in your mouth, then I apologize.

            No, we both don’t know that. Again, please don’t put words in my mouth. The Christian church as a single body did horrible things when it was in a position of power.

            If it did horrible things, then it produced bad fruit. (I respectfully but wholeheartedly disagree that the Catholic Church was the only “Christian” group when they committed such evil deeds. There were minority groups that were not Catholic.)

            That is not where a definition of what is or is not a Christian comes from. In these situations, reach for the dictionary on your shelf. Here’s what we get: “A person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ.” That’s it. Nothing about fruit. Nothing about the Sinner’s Prayer. Nothing about oh my God but they worship Mary and statues and the pope. See?

            Ah, but the Bible says that believing is worthless if you don’t obey. When it comes to Christianity, the Bible handles the definition far better since it is the authoritative Word for Christians. The Bible says that the devils believe that Jesus is Christ and they even tremble at it, but they don’t obey and therefore obviously aren’t saved. Are they Christians according to the definition? Of course not. I don’t blame the dictionary, but it doesn’t fully address what a Christian is. Christianity came from the Bible, so we should return to the source to figure out what a Christian is.

            It has only been excluded based on your opinion. Not on facts.

            I paraphrased Scripture verses to make my response shorter. You already agreed that the Catholic Church has done wrong. If you are trying to argue that the Catholic Church has done wrong AND is still Biblically Christian, then you need to prove that their evil actions were somehow endorsed or blessed in the Bible. This cannot be done since the Bible condemns them for lording their authority over Christians (many times even to death).

            By reading the commonly understood definition of “Christian” from the dictionary. The Bible is only going to generate more interpretations and opinions.

            The dictionary only gives definitions based on the cultural understanding of the words. Here’s an example. Go back 8 years and look at the definition of “marriage” in the dictionary. Most won’t include same-sex marriage in the list. Now look at it today. It’s changed drastically. Is that an objective fact or is that a sign of the culture? Go to many places around the world and you will see that same-sex marriage has not been adopted as it has in the West – the change in the definition reflects the change in Western culture. In fact, if we both lived in 17th century England, I suppose that the dictionary definition of a “Christian” would be very different!

            In contrast, the Bible is the authoritative, sacred text for Christians that does not change regardless of the time. It governs how Christians are to act in all aspects of their lives until Christ returns, and it defines what a Christian is. You may disagree with that, but it doesn’t change the fact that the source of Christianity is the place that we ought to examine for a definition. Otherwise, the definition of a Christian will change depending on the culture and the latest dictionary.

            No. Once again, let’s return to the dictionary:

            “A person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ.”

            No flowery language, no following of spirits. That means that you have to share the definition with others you probably dislike just as strongly, like the LDS and Jehovah’s Witnesses. They follow the teachings of Christ. You might not LIKE the way they follow them, you might thing they are interpreting them incorrectly. But you can’t change their definition.

            The Bible gives a more complete definition:

            “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” ~ 1 John 5:1-5

            “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” ~ James 2:17-20

            “And being made perfect, [Jesus] became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;” ~ Hebrews 5:9

            He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. ~ 1 John 2:4

            These verses are crucial to determining who is a Christian. The dictionary you cited did not cover these, but they are just as important.

            Jesus didn’t define anything. He gave teachings and said many things, but none of them, no matter how good the teachings might have been, defined conclusively what a Christian is.

            He did define it. He explained who His disciples were: those who continue in His word. So the definition of a disciple of Jesus (a Christian) is “one who continues in Jesus’ word.” That’s the proper definition of a Christian, and it encompasses everything a Christian is ever to be or do.

            The ONLY way to accurately say you are a Christian is to take the entire canon of what Jesus said and follow that the best you can.

            YES! You got it! The only accurate way to claim to be a Christian is to follow the entire canon of what Jesus said, but He didn’t say to “follow that the best you can.” He said that you “must be born again,” and this is a necessary distinction since it’s impossible to obey Jesus unless we are born again. The difference between the two is the difference between night and day.

            The opposite of what you said is also true. If someone refuses to obey the entire canon of what Jesus said, then they can’t be a Christian.

            “A person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ.”

            “Are we continuing in His word and obeying His commandments?”

            That is a matter of interpretation.

            I quoted verses above that answer this. It literally says, “And hereby we do know that we know him [Jesus], if we keep his commandments” and “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” The Bible commands Christians to obey His commandments and says that this is how we know if we know God. Those who claim that they know Him and disobey are not real Christians – it’s so easy that even a child can tell the difference.

            “Have we been born again as Jesus declared is necessary?”

            Also a matter of interpretation. If you read the words of the Sinner’s Prayer off a sheet of paper, are you born again? Or are you simply born again when you are baptized as an infant? Or as an adult? You see the problem now? No one can agree.

            The Bible doesn’t say that the interpretation is up to us. It says to “rightly divid[e] the word of truth.” The Bible is clear what being born again is. Jesus mandated it in John 3:3: “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” How are we born again? John 1:12 says that “as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:”

            That’s all there is to it: “receive Him.” “Believe on His name.” “Continue in His word.” That’s how a man is born again.

            The sinner’s prayer doesn’t save you – it’s not even recorded in the Bible. Salvation is not achieved through any works of ours, whether it’s reading a prayer on a piece of paper or by being baptized. Salvation is an act of God. The Bible says that we are transformed into new creatures when we are saved. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” ~ 2 Cor 5:17

            It even says that those who are saved are passed from death to life – and it’s true. That’s how drastic being born again is. It’s not an interpretative experience. It’s the difference between life and death. You are either born again or you aren’t. How do you tell? 1 John 5:1-5 and the rest of the Bible has the answer.

            Is bombing an abortion clinic a sign of good fruit or bad fruit? Again, it depends on who you talk to. I think it’s a sick, barbaric act, but there are people who’d tell me that they’re warriors for the souls of the unborn.

            No I don’t agree with bombing abortion clinics, just as I don’t believe that it was right for abolitionists to murder slave owners to free slaves (those who did this weren’t Christians). I do believe that it was good when Christians illegally (according to the man-made law) helped slaves flee though, and I think that it’s good today when Christians try to change society peacefully for the better.

            Yes, and with over 40,000 denominations who can’t agree about those teachings, it becomes clearer and clearer that what YOU are calling a “Real Christian” is merely the No True Scotsman fallacy. You are deeming people Christian who follow YOUR interpretation of it, and saying those who disagree with you are not. That is the crux of this matter.

            No, you misunderstood what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. It’s only a fallacy when the definition is made up and changed to suit the person’s whims. I have done no such thing since I have cited scripture to define what a Christian is and stayed true to the definition.

            It’s not exactly fair to blame Christians for every single “Christian” denomination there is. Are Christians responsible for the LDS or Jim Jones? I don’t think so. Other denominations are created because of sin, which is never right. Some denominations are known simply from the region they were in. I don’t know if those really ought to count as separate denominations since Christians in China may be under a different denomination than Christians in Germany even though they agree on practically everything, but I digress. The Bible warns not to get caught up in denominations, and that’s good enough for me. Personally, I think the Catholics have it backwards since they focus on the denominations when the Bible says not to. If there’s one thing that Christians ought to identify with, it’s Christ.

          • StereoMan

            “I’m sorry. Please show me where I put words in your mouth.”

            Right here: Where I was prepared to agree with you is when you said
            “Has the Catholic Church historically lorded authority over Christians? For over 1,000 years?” Then you said in your next message, “We both agree that the Catholic Church has disobeyed Jesus’ commandment for over 1,000 years.” Those are two very different statements, and you are using it to single out the Catholics when in fact there was one united church body at that time.

            “the Bible handles the definition far better since it is the authoritative Word for Christians.”

            In the real world as we know it there are more than just Christians living here, and we need common definitions if we’re to communicate effectively with each other. And that includes definitions of Christians themselves. Hence the dictionary.

            “If you are trying to argue that the Catholic Church has done wrong AND is still Biblically Christian, then you need to prove that their evil
            actions were somehow endorsed or blessed in the Bible.”

            No I don’t have to do that, unless you are prepared to defend the evil actions done by fundamentalist Christians. I would argue far more “bad fruit” has come from fundamentalists than from Catholics regarding issues of hate in recent years than anyone else. And I can present many exhibits for your consideration, including fundamentalist Christian pastors calling for the execution of homosexuals. “Good fruit” indeed.

            “(Marriage has) changed drastically. Is that an objective fact or is that a sign of the culture?”

            If that’s how you want to look at it, then you have to also look at the previous definitions of marriage which included polygamy, women forced to marry their rapists, etc.

            “The Bible gives a more complete definition”

            Not one of the passages you posted claimed to be a definition of a Christian. For it to be a definition proper, the word “Christian” should at least be invoked. It wasn’t.

            “So the definition of a disciple of Jesus (a Christian) is “one who continues in Jesus’ word.”

            No, sorry. That parenthesis there was all yours. A Christian is not defined anywhere in the Bible. Nor, in fact, is the word “Bible” in the Bible.

            “He said that you “must be born again,” and this is a necessary
            distinction since it’s impossible to obey Jesus unless we are born again.”

            He said you must do a lot of things, but you’re singling out that paragraph and trying to make it part of a definition of being a Christian. You aren’t being honest. And as I mentioned before, being “born again” means different things to different Christians.

          • John_33

            Right here: Where I was prepared to agree with you is when you said

            “Has the Catholic Church historically lorded authority over Christians? For over 1,000 years?” Then you said in your next message, “We both agree that the Catholic Church has disobeyed Jesus’ commandment for over 1,000 years.” Those are two very different statements, and you are using it to single out the Catholics when in fact there was one united church body at that time.

            I don’t see a difference. If the Catholic Church lorded authority (as you agreed), and Jesus commanded His disciples not to (as the text says), then the Catholic Church is guilty of violating Jesus’ commandment. Even if the Catholics did it along with everyone else, then they would still be guilty, but, there wasn’t one united church body at that time. That’s a Catholic myth.

            In the real world as we know it there are more than just Christians living here, and we need common definitions if we’re to communicate effectively with each other. And that includes definitions of Christians themselves. Hence the dictionary.

            We do need common definitions if we are to communicate effectively. The problem is that we both disagree with each other’s definition. That’s why you think that Catholics are Christians and I don’t. Quite honestly, we won’t get any further in this conversation unless our definitions change. I’m not changing mine.

            No I don’t have to do that, unless you are prepared to defend the evil actions done by fundamentalist Christians. I would argue far more “bad fruit” has come from fundamentalists than from Catholics regarding issues of hate in recent years than anyone else. And I can present many exhibits for your consideration, including fundamentalist Christian pastors calling for the execution of homosexuals. “Good fruit” indeed.

            I don’t have to defend anyone since Christianity does not depend on the conduct of others. Catholicism is different. The actions of the pope matter. The actions of the clergy matter. If they decide to murder and pillage (I’m not being facetious – some have), then it calls Catholicism into question. In contrast, if “fundamentalists” decide to murder and pillage; it doesn’t call Christianity into question. It condemns them since they violated the commandments of the Bible.

            You mentioned Steven Anderson twice as an example of a fundamentalist. I don’t endorse his words or actions since he doesn’t obey the Bible and therefore isn’t a Christian. I think you are confused. “Fundamentalists” don’t see each other as “one of us.” All I see is someone who claims that they are Christian. Anyone who claims to be a Christian needs to be examined to see if they really are one.

            But this is beside the point. You asked me to explain why Catholics are not Christians. I was doing that before you decided to add fundamentalists into the conversation. I can answer this, but it has no bearing on the original question.

            If that’s how you want to look at it, then you have to also look at the previous definitions of marriage which included polygamy, women forced to marry their rapists, etc.

            You completely missed my point. I demonstrated that dictionary definitions have changed and will continue to change in the future depending on the region, culture, and dictionary that you use. The Bible gives a definition for a Christian that is 2000 years old and has yet to change.

            Also, the Bible doesn’t say that women are to marry their rapists. That’s an error in the NIV. The Hebrew and most other English translations translate it properly.

            Not one of the passages you posted claimed to be a definition of a Christian. For it to be a definition proper, the word “Christian” should at least be invoked. It wasn’t.

            Those verses added necessary parts that your definition did not include. Where does the dictionary include the fact that a Christian must keep God’s commandments? It doesn’t. That’s why the complete definition of a Christian is “one who continues in Jesus’ word.”

            “So the definition of a disciple of Jesus (a Christian) is “one who continues in Jesus’ word.”

            No, sorry. That parenthesis there was all yours. A Christian is not defined anywhere in the Bible. Nor, in fact, is the word “Bible” in the Bible.

            You are debating this point since you don’t know the Bible. Verse below:

            “And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” ~ Acts 11:26b

            See? The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. It’s right there. Jesus’ disciples are now called Christians (you already knew that). The Bible needs to be taken as a whole to get a clear picture of who a Christian is and what he does.

            He said you must do a lot of things, but you’re singling out that paragraph and trying to make it part of a definition of being a Christian. You aren’t being honest. And as I mentioned before, being “born again” means different things to different Christians.

            If Jesus said it was necessary, then it’s necessary. If people can’t agree on what He meant, then they better find out since He said that nobody will enter the kingdom of heaven without being born again. Thankfully, we aren’t left to ourselves to figure out what Jesus meant. God teaches men what He meant in His Word. Many have found the truth, and many more will.

          • StereoMan

            “I don’t see a difference”.

            The difference is enormous. First of all, it’s odd that you don’t want to call Catholics Christians, yet all you say when you refer to this period of the church’s history is “The Catholic church.” Funny how they become Christians when it’s convenient for you to pin something unsavory on them. But getting back to the point, the church was a ruling body, so politically they may have been doing some things that Jesus wouldn’t have approved of but in terms of church teachings no one can make that claim.

            “There wasn’t one united church body at that time. That’s a Catholic myth.”

            No, it is a verified historical fact. There were no separate little bands of evangelicals reading the sinner’s prayer in private locations who were being burned to death when the Catholics discovered them. There was one church. And it if WERE a myth, it wouldn’t be a “Catholic myth” – the Catholics would have nothing to gain from it. Once again, your issue isn’t with the Catholics, it’s with history.

            “The problem is that we both disagree with each other’s definition. That’s why you think that Catholics are Christians and I don’t.”

            But it doesn’t matter what YOUR definition is. The established definition used by everyone including the dictionary is that Catholics are Christians. It isn’t something you get to change. It’s verified by historical facts. This is why our conversation is going nowhere – it would be like if you were talking about the air we breathed being a liquid, and the dictionary and science tell us it is a gas. If you walked around in your daily routine in your life calling it a liquid you’d be confusing all the people around you who go by what the dictionary says. It’s not one of those things people get to HAVE an opinion about. It’s fact. And you don’t like it. Well, this is why fundamentalists are seen as operating a little bit outside of reality, when they make crazy statements like that. It’s probably why so many people here use the word “gaystapo” – the word doesn’t exist but they figure if they use it enough it will make its way into the dictionary. But things don’t work that way, hatred is hatred.

            “Christianity does not depend on the conduct of others. Catholicism is different. The actions of the pope matter. The actions of the clergy matter.”

            Catholicism in this case is no different than any other Christian denomination (of which Catholicism is one). You are happy to question the actions of a pope but you’re giving a free pass to fundamentalist pastors who are church leaders, no different than the pope, who create their own rules and do questionable things. Using your rules, where the Bible is all that matters, where’s your Sinner’s Prayer in the Bible? Where are altar calls? And those are just the common ones. With over 40,000 denominations and everyone doing things differently, you’ve got a LOT more uniformity in the Catholic church since it’s the biggest denomination, than you do in these fly-by-night “non-denominational” churches who are making up their own rules. So you aren’t being fair if you point at popes who do this or that “leading people away from Christianity” when you don’t also look at the lesser (in terms of size) leaders doing exactly the same thing.

            ” I don’t endorse his words or actions since he doesn’t obey the Bible and therefore isn’t a Christian.”

            Bingo – that’s No True Scotsman. You don’t like what he does and don’t feel he follows the Bible – your criteria alone – therefore he’s not a Christian. I’ve seen this man speak and while I think he’s vile, he will tell you that everything he says is backed up by the Bible, including murdering homosexuals. He said, citing Leviticus 18:22, “It was right there in the Bible all along … It’s curable right there… if you executed the homos like God recommends, you wouldn’t have all this AIDS running rampant.” That is why we need a common definition and why the dictionary must provide it, so that it can be used by anyone, not just Christians but atheists, Muslims, etc.

            “The Bible gives a definition for a Christian that is 2000 years old and has yet to change.”

            Another good reason why you cannot use the Bible for definitions such as these, because marriage predates the Bible. You and I both know that armed with only a Bible each, we can “prove” that this or that person isn’t a Christian, but it’s vague and subject to heavy personal interpretation. We don’t have these problems when we use the dictionary.

            “Where does the dictionary include the fact that a Christian must keep God’s commandments? It doesn’t.”

            Because that is not one of the components of the definition of what a Christian is. If you included all the commandments you were supposed to follow using that criteria, you’d have a definition several hundred pages long. And again, it would be subject to interpretation because I might argue that by doing X I am keeping God’s commandments, but you might say that I must also do Y in order to be TRULY keeping God’s commandments.

            “That’s why the complete definition of a Christian is “one who continues in Jesus’ word.”

            That is not the definition of a Christian. That is your opinion of what you must do to be a Christian but it is not definitive in any way.

            “See? The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. It’s right there.”

            Your point being? The group of Methodists in that church on the corner of the street were called Christians in 1945 when the church was built. What’s the difference? What are you trying to say, that we must be descendants of the people in Antioch to call ourselves Christians?

            “Thankfully, we aren’t left to ourselves to figure out what Jesus meant. God teaches men what He meant in His Word.”

            And that’s why we have over 40,000 denominations of Christians, each saying they are right and everyone else is wrong, because they alone know what was meant. It’s ridiculous; it’s a house of cards.

          • John_33

            politically they may have been doing some things that Jesus wouldn’t have approved of but in terms of church teachings no one can make that claim.

            Like the inclusion of a pope? The doctrine of Papal Supremacy? The presence of priests? Prayers for the dead? Absolution and indulgences? Adoration of Mary as Co-Redemptrix? Transubstantiation? Purgatory? The celibacy of the priests? You said it yourself: Catholics don’t use the Bible alone. They added church tradition, which was exactly what Jesus sharply condemned the Pharisees for. Catholicism is poison, and their politics reflected this. Remember what Jesus said: men don’t gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles. Corrupt people produce corrupt fruit and good people produce good fruit. If Jesus would condemn them for their politics, then He would most certainly condemn them for their religion.

            No, it is a verified historical fact. There were no separate little bands of evangelicals reading the sinner’s prayer in private locations who were being burned to death when the Catholics discovered them. There was one church. And it if WERE a myth, it wouldn’t be a “Catholic myth” – the Catholics would have nothing to gain from it. Once again, your issue isn’t with the Catholics, it’s with history.

            The Waldesians, the Huguenots, the Henricians, the Lollards, and many others were around, and yes, Catholics were busy burning many Christians –Mary I of England is a good example. Catholics were pretty busy declaring one sect or another as heretics during their reign.

            It’s a myth that there was only one Christian body – there were tons of sects including heretics and real Christians since the beginning of Christianity. Even the Bible records fake Christians leaving the apostles to go elsewhere. Jesus warned that there would be fake Christians among the real ones. Jude warned that fake Christians were already entering the churches. Paul warned real Christian leaders to be on guard since fake Christians existed and that they would eventually take over some of the leadership positions. That’s exactly what we see in history. Many cults and false doctrines erupted soon after Christianity grew in Europe – including Catholicism. History is a lot more complicated than you believe on this subject.

            But it doesn’t matter what YOUR definition is.

            The established definition used by everyone including the dictionary is that Catholics are Christians.

            I don’t use it. Millions of Protestants and others who don’t believe that Catholics are Christians because the Bible excludes them also don’t use it. You have yet to explain why your definition is valid. I already explained and demonstrated the significance of the Bible in this matter.

            This is beside the point since you changed your definition of a Christian partway through this conversation:

            In these situations, reach for the dictionary on your shelf. Here’s what we get: “A person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ.”

            The ONLY way to accurately say you are a Christian is to take the entire canon of what Jesus said and follow that the best you can.

            So which is it? Is a Christian “a person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ” according to the dictionary definition you chose or “one who takes the entire canon of what Jesus said and follows that the best they can?”

            It isn’t something you get to change. It’s verified by historical facts.

            First, I already demonstrated that the definition changes depending on the time, region, and the choice of dictionary. For example, take a look at the definition of a Christian in Easton’s Bible Dictionary. Is it wrong? It’s a dictionary after all…

            Second, no it’s not verified by historical facts. I encourage you to look through history to learn the truth. Catholics changed Christian doctrine to suit their own preferences. They are not Christian and never were. They are among the ones that the Bible warns us about.

            This is why our conversation is going nowhere – it would be like if you were talking about the air we breathed being a liquid, and the dictionary and science tell us it is a gas. If you walked around in your daily routine in your life calling it a liquid you’d be confusing all the people around you who go by what the dictionary says. It’s not one of those things people get to HAVE an opinion about. It’s fact.

            I gave you a valid 2,000 year old definition from the Founder of Christianity Himself that will never change. That beats your dictionary.

            Well, this is why fundamentalists are seen as operating a little bit outside of reality, when they make crazy statements like that. It’s probably why so many people here use the word “gaystapo” – the word doesn’t exist but they figure if they use it enough it will make its way into the dictionary. But things don’t work that way, hatred is hatred.

            Red herring and a straw man. Please stay on topic.

            Catholicism in this case is no different than any other Christian denomination (of which Catholicism is one). You are happy to question the actions of a pope but you’re giving a free pass to fundamentalist pastors who are church leaders, no different than the pope, who create their own rules and do questionable things.

            How did I give a free pass? I just said that one of the people you mentioned isn’t a Christian and used my definition to demonstrate it. You are arguing against things that I never even did.

            And no, church leaders today are not like the pope. Catholicism is an organization. As an organization, it has historically taught that they are the one, true church and that all other churches are anathema. Christianity does not teach this. The Catholic Church even taught at one point that everyone needed to submit to the pope to be saved. They also taught that the pope is the Head of the Church and responsible for the souls of all Christians. That’s blasphemy and heresy. The Bible condemns this doctrine.

            Using your rules, where the Bible is all that matters, where’s your Sinner’s Prayer in the Bible? Where are altar calls? And those are just the common ones.

            Where are my altar calls and Sinner’s Prayers? I don’t have any…again, you are arguing against a stereotype.

            With over 40,000 denominations and everyone doing things differently, you’ve got a LOT more uniformity in the Catholic church since it’s the biggest denomination, than you do in these fly-by-night “non-denominational” churches who are making up their own rules. So you aren’t being fair if you point at popes who do this or that “leading people away from Christianity” when you don’t also look at the lesser (in terms of size) leaders doing exactly the same thing.

            It all comes down to who is the Head of the Church. Are Christians to follow the pope or are they to follow God? The Bible makes it clear that there is no pope and that we are to follow God directly. Real Christianity is accountable to the Bible and the rule of Christ, and to church authority as long as the church abides by the Bible. If a church starts creating rules against the Bible, then it’s heretical. It doesn’t matter if it’s Catholicism or any other sect. If they refuse to continue in Jesus’ word, then it’s heresy.

            Bingo – that’s No True Scotsman. You don’t like what he does and don’t feel he follows the Bible – your criteria alone – therefore he’s not a Christian. I’ve seen this man speak and while I think he’s vile, he will tell you that everything he says is backed up by the Bible, including murdering homosexuals. He said, citing Leviticus 18:22, “It was right there in the Bible all along … It’s curable right there… if you executed the homos like God recommends, you wouldn’t have all this AIDS running rampant.” That is why we need a common definition and why the dictionary must provide it, so that it can be used by anyone, not just Christians but atheists, Muslims, etc.

            So when you condemn him, it’s logical and perfect, but when I do, then you claim that I am somehow guilty of committing a fallacy? You aren’t even being logical anymore – probably because you don’t even know what the fallacy is. As I already said, he’s not a Christian since he doesn’t follow the Bible.

            Another good reason why you cannot use the Bible for definitions such as these, because marriage predates the Bible.

            Actually, if you believe the Bible, then you know when the first marriage occurred.

            You and I both know that armed with only a Bible each, we can “prove” that this or that person isn’t a Christian, but it’s vague and subject to heavy personal interpretation. We don’t have these problems when we use the dictionary.

            No, the Bible is perfect to explain these kinds of matters. The Biblical definition not only transcends time and place, but it’s absolutely and perfectly accurate. Why would I give up what I know to be true? In contrast, the dictionary definition you cited is not perfect as I demonstrated with verses in the Bible.

            Because that is not one of the components of the definition of what a Christian is. If you included all the commandments you were supposed to follow using that criteria, you’d have a definition several hundred pages long. And again, it would be subject to interpretation because I might argue that by doing X I am keeping God’s commandments, but you might say that I must also do Y in order to be TRULY keeping God’s commandments.

            I already demonstrated that obedience to the commandments is a necessary part of being a Christian. Even you admitted it. Again, “one who continues in Jesus’ word” is perfect since it includes belief and obedience. Jesus knew what He was doing when He said it. I’ll take His word over the dictionary for what it means to be a Christian.

            That is not the definition of a Christian. That is your opinion of what you must do to be a Christian but it is not definitive in any way.

            It’s in the text. Just read it. Jesus said that those who believe on Him are His disciples if they continue in His word. The word “If” means that the following is a conditional clause. If those who believe continue in His word, then they are His disciples. Jesus explained that belief is not enough. They had to continue in His word.

            “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” ~ John 8:31-32

            Your point being? The group of Methodists in that church on the corner of the street were called Christians in 1945 when the church was built. What’s the difference? What are you trying to say, that we must be descendants of the people in Antioch to call ourselves Christians?

            The Bible explains that the word “Christian” is merely another name for the disciples; therefore, everything that Jesus said for His disciples is true for Christians since it’s a synonym. If you look at Easton’s Bible Dictionary definition, then you will see this explained there too. Hence, my parenthesis and definition was valid.

            And that’s why we have over 40,000 denominations of Christians, each saying they are right and everyone else is wrong, because they alone know what was meant. It’s ridiculous; it’s a house of cards.

            That number has no bearing on whether truth is found in Christianity or isn’t. There could be 1 billion denominations, and it would not change that fact. It’s a Catholic myth that each denomination thinks that everyone else is wrong. I know of Baptists, Calvinists, Armenians, Reformed Baptists, Brethren, etc. and many others who are solid Christians who know the Lord and the Bible. They also see others as Christians as well. That’s the beauty of real Christianity. The bonds that Christians have transcend denominations. It doesn’t matter what we are called on earth since we are united spiritually. Christ’s Church is not a physical organization; it’s a spiritual body.

            Finding the truth would be hopeless if we were left to find it on our own, but we aren’t left to figure it out. God has promised to preserve His Church throughout the centuries no matter how large or small it gets, and He has faithfully done it. That’s why there are millions today who obey God and follow His word.

            “Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” ~ 2 Timothy 2:19

          • StereoMan

            “Like the inclusion of a pope? The doctrine of Papal Supremacy? The
            presence of priests? Prayers for the dead? Absolution and indulgences?
            Adoration of Mary as Co-Redemptrix? Transubstantiation? Purgatory?”

            Exactly like those things, and it’s interesting to me that you have no
            problem accepting 100% the things that are in the Bible, but if
            anything comes to you by any other means, you simply reject it. And
            I’d like to know why, since if you’re going to complain that this
            stuff is all “man made”, how is it any more man made than the Bible
            itself? If you’re going to say that teachings and traditions can be
            changed – so can the Bible, which is why we have so many translations
            and again, it’s a source of constant discussion and argument over
            which is the best one to use.

            “which was exactly what Jesus sharply condemned the Pharisees for.”

            These are the teachings OF Jesus. Why would He rebuke people for
            using his own teachings?

            “If Jesus would condemn them for their politics, then He would most
            certainly condemn them for their religion.”

            It’s HIS religion. The religion aspect of it was fine. It was only
            when it was combined with politics that it got corrupt – and this is
            why we don’t mix religion and politics. This is exactly why we don’t
            let crazed murderous fundamentalist pastors pass laws that would allow
            the execution of homosexuals. It’s VERY strange you don’t know this.

            “Catholics were busy burning many Christians –Mary I of England is a
            good example. Catholics were pretty busy declaring one sect or another
            as heretics during their reign.”

            Again, very interesting that you call them Catholics now and not
            Christians, which is what history books will say. They become
            Catholics out of convenience to you when you want to put them in a bad
            light,

            “It’s a myth that there was only one Christian body – there were tons
            of sects including heretics and real Christians since the beginning of
            Christianity.”

            I can see there’s no way you’re going to accept what I’m telling you
            on faith so I’m going to recommend a very straightforward, unbiased
            Christian website to confirm what I’m telling you:

            http://www.religioustolerance. org/chr_cru1.htm

            Note, too, that Wikipedia’s entry on the Crusades mentions only
            Catholics (Christians), and no other subdivisions of Christians. That
            didn’t happen until the Reformation.

            “Jesus warned that there would be fake Christians among the real ones.”

            And so you assume that means the Catholics.

            “Jude warned that fake Christians were already entering the churches.”

            And so you assume that means the Catholics.

            “Many cults and false doctrines erupted soon after Christianity grew
            in Europe – including Catholicism.”

            I get that you are strongly anti-Catholic, but let’s try to leave the
            name calling out of this discussion. Catholicism is not a cult. For
            one thing, it’s been around far too long to be considered a cult, it
            has far too many members to be called a cult, and most people
            recognize it as the predominant Christian denomination.

            “History is a lot more complicated than you believe on this subject.”

            Possibly, but there’s no subdividing the Christians in this case.
            From the Religioustolerance article: “The result of centuries of
            conflict among followers of the three main Abrahamic religions
            (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) was a “deep mutual hatred” and
            mistrust among the three faiths. Memories of these genocides still
            influence relationships among Jews, Christians and Muslims to the
            present time.”

            “I don’t use it. Millions of Protestants and others who don’t believe
            that Catholics are Christians because the Bible excludes them also
            don’t use it.”

            False. Every single Protestant denomination I have ever encountered
            apart from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, SDA, SOME Baptists and MOST
            fundamentalist Christians acknowledge that Catholics are Christians,
            and that’s because to not do so would mean basically stating that the
            Protestant Reformation never took place, which of course it did.

            “You have yet to explain why your definition is valid. I already
            explained and demonstrated the significance of the Bible in this
            matter.”

            I did – I have the best source possible in the dictionary (and there
            is not a single dictionary out there that will deny that Catholics are
            Christians). I have recorded history. What else do I need? You have
            shown only that you know how to cherry-pick your Bible to find verses
            that in your OPINION state what a Christian is. The problem is that
            if everyone calling themselves Christian did what you did, there’d be
            millions of definitions of what a Christian is. (No coincidence then
            that we have over 40,000 Christian denominations). We need a common
            definition acceptable to all, and the dictionary has provided that.
            You elect not to follow that, which to me is like electing not to
            believe in the air we breathe. It’s not up for debate or dispute.

            “This is beside the point since you changed your definition of a
            Christian partway through this conversation”

            I did no such thing. The definition of a Christian is simply a person
            who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ. My other statement,
            “The only way to accurately say you are a Christian is to take the
            entire canon of what Jesus said and follow that the best you can” was
            hyperbole to show the impossibility of what YOU are trying to do with
            your cherry picking. It would be quite impossible to do the latter,
            which is the point of what I was saying. And no two Christians would
            ever agree anyway.

            “For example, take a look at the definition of a Christian in Easton’s
            Bible Dictionary. Is it wrong?”

            It goes a little bit beyond a basic definition, but at its core it
            says the same thing. A follower of Christ. More interesting to me is
            that there’s no definition in there for Catholic.

            “I encourage you to look through history to learn the truth. Catholics
            changed Christian doctrine to suit their own preferences. They are not
            Christian and never were.”

            If you’d like to present something factual, please do. Everything
            you’re saying sounds like it came out of a Jack Chick tract, and those
            things are so ludicrous they’re considered hate speech in many places
            and not even ALLOWED in certain countries. Canada, for example. I am
            going to caution you though, the only people I’ve ever seen who make
            the kind of accusations you’re making have been extremely right-wing
            hate websites. Not a single one of them will point to a respected
            history text.

            “I gave you a valid 2,000 year old definition from the Founder of
            Christianity Himself that will never change. That beats your
            dictionary.”

            In fact, you didn’t. You cherry picked a few passages from the Bible
            that support your personal idea of what a Christian is. That doesn’t
            beat the Bible because you will never find another Christian who
            agrees with you. Some will want to add other passages, delete the
            ones you chose that they feel are not quite right, etc. And even if
            you do find several Christians who agree with you, what have you got?
            A definition that is common to a few Christians but is not going to be
            acceptable to atheists, jews, agnostics, Muslims, etc.

            Red herring and a straw man. Please stay on topic.

            Not a red herring and very much on topic. This is hate, at its core –
            that is precisely what this all boils down to.

            “Catholicism is an organization. As an organization, it has
            historically taught that they are the one, true church and that all
            other churches are anathema.”

            No argument from me. However, you can (and should) say the same thing
            about ALL Christian churches. They are ALL organizations, they ALL
            have rules, they ALL have hierarchies. They ALL have human leaders
            (like the Pope, but on a smaller scale). It is completely fallacious
            to say otherwise. Don’t even START to play the “one true faith” game
            – I’ve yet to see a denomination that DIDN’T do that.

            “The Catholic Church even taught at one point that everyone needed to
            submit to the pope to be saved. They also taught that the pope is the
            Head of the Church and responsible for the souls of all Christians.
            That’s blasphemy and heresy. ”

            Not surprising, there have been good and bad popes all through
            history. I’m sure the Catholics of today would agree.

            “Where are my altar calls and Sinner’s Prayers? I don’t have
            any…again, you are arguing against a stereotype.”

            I think you’ll find there is something some fundamentalists use called
            The Sinner’s Prayer, it is recited in order to be “saved” and yet
            there is no Sinner’s Prayer in the Bible. So again the point is if
            you want to attack Catholics for unbiblical things, you can’t give a
            free pass to the others.

            “Are Christians to follow the pope or are they to follow God?”

            If they are Catholic, they are to follow the Pope since he is their
            church leader, just as many people follow Pat Robertson and other
            televangelists. And, they are by extension following God because
            that’s what your leader of choice (pope, Robertson, etc.) is
            instructing. It’s ludicrous to suggest the Pope would knowingly tell
            people to do things contrary to God. Even if you don’t like what he
            says, I mean, come on. As far as HE is concerned, he’s bringing
            people to God.

            “The Bible makes it clear that there is no pope”

            No it doesn’t. It doesn’t mention a pope.

            “So when you condemn him, it’s logical and perfect, but when I do,
            then you claim that I am somehow guilty of committing a fallacy? You
            aren’t even being logical anymore – probably because you don’t even
            know what the fallacy is. As I already said, he’s not a Christian
            since he doesn’t follow the Bible.”

            I’m really not sure what part of this you are not understanding. This
            is No True Scotsman because this man calls himself a Christian and
            insists and gives examples about how he follows the Bible (even citing
            chapter and verse). And you are saying he’s not a Christian because
            he doesn’t follow the Bible – even though he just demonstrated that to
            him, at least, he DOES follow the Bible. He would probably tell you
            exactly the same thing, that you’re not a Christian because you don’t
            follow the Bible. And you’d get upset and angry at that statement,
            understandably, because you think you DO. But not the way he does.
            That is the crux of No True Scotsman right there, it comes down to
            opinions and not facts and definitions.

            “Actually, if you believe the Bible, then you know when the first
            marriage occurred.”

            Belief in the Bible is unnecessary to know that marriages predate the
            Bible, making your statement demonstrably wrong.

            “In contrast, the dictionary definition you cited is not perfect as I
            demonstrated with verses in the Bible.”

            I can enter a debate in a public arena and use the dictionary
            definition of what a Christian is and would be found to be correct.
            You would be found to be cherry picking verses you like to define your
            Christianity.

            “I already demonstrated that obedience to the commandments is a
            necessary part of being a Christian.”

            A necessary part of being a Christian, perhaps, but not important to
            its definition.

            “It’s in the text. Just read it.”

            I did. I don’t dispute that it’s there. What I do dispute is that it
            is important to the definition of what a Christian is.

            “There could be 1 billion denominations, and it would not change the
            fact that the Bible is true.”

            All denominations agree it’s true. The problem is that no two
            denominations can agree on what it says.

            “It’s a Catholic myth that each denomination thinks that everyone else
            is wrong.”

            That’s not a Catholic “myth” at all. First of all, it’s not a myth,
            it’s true. Secondly, you’re far more likely to hear that statement
            from atheists as a means of mocking Christianity. You’d have a lot
            more Christians in the world if you weren’t all so busy attacking each
            other, as you do with Catholics. People would respect you more if you
            had a united vision.

          • John_33

            Exactly like those things, and it’s interesting to me that you have no problem accepting 100% the things that are in the Bible, but if anything comes to you by any other means, you simply reject it. And I’d like to know why, since if you’re going to complain that this

            stuff is all “man made”, how is it any more man made than the Bible itself? If you’re going to say that teachings and traditions can be changed – so can the Bible, which is why we have so many translations and again, it’s a source of constant discussion and argument over which is the best one to use.

            The Bible isn’t man-made. It was written down by men as God moved them to write, but it was given by the inspiration of God, not of man. Jesus made it clear that the Bible is greater than the traditions of men in Mark 7:9-13. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that it’s far more important than anyone can possibly know. This is especially true since the Word was made flesh and died for our sins.

            These are the teachings OF Jesus. Why would He rebuke people for

            using his own teachings?

            No, He didn’t teach any of these things. The Catholic Church created their own doctrine over the course of hundreds of years. If it was Jesus’ doctrine, then it should have been practiced since the beginning, but we don’t read of Peter being a celibate pope, nor do we read of him chanting in long robes with incense, nor do we read of him celebrating Mass. Jesus hated it when the Pharisees placed their own traditions over God’s ways. That’s why He condemned them for it.

            It’s HIS religion. The religion aspect of it was fine. It was only when it was combined with politics that it got corrupt – and this is why we don’t mix religion and politics. This is exactly why we don’t let crazed murderous fundamentalist pastors pass laws that would allow the execution of homosexuals. It’s VERY strange you don’t know this.

            Examine the saints in the Bible who were positions of political power. God was able to bless David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Josiah, Asa, Daniel, Joseph and many others when they correctly served Him while in government. Why couldn’t Catholics have the same witness that they pleased God in government? Because they weren’t right. The Bible addresses this. If we can’t be faithful in small things, then we won’t be faithful in important things. If Catholics can’t be righteous in government, then how can they be righteous in religious matters? It’s impossible. That’s why Jesus told people to judge men’s actions by their fruit. Their fruit demonstrates that their religion is corrupt.

            Again, very interesting that you call them Catholics now and not Christians, which is what history books will say. They become Catholics out of convenience to you when you want to put them in a bad light,

            I don’t know of any history book that defines Mary as a Christian only. Mary I identified herself as a Catholic – a very ardent one. Her half-brother who preceded her, Edward VI, was a strong Protestant. She restored Catholicism to England in 1553 and reigned for six years as she tried to force England to accept Catholicism. This is well-known. Some Catholics today even admit that she murdered non-Catholics for as little as reading a New Testament in English.

            I can see there’s no way you’re going to accept what I’m telling you on faith so I’m going to recommend a very straightforward, unbiased Christian website to confirm what I’m telling you:

            http://www.religioustolerance. org/chr_cru1.htm

            Thank you for the link, but all it refers to that is relevant in this discussion is the schism that took place between the Western and Eastern Roman denominations (Catholics and Orthodox) in 11th century. What it doesn’t talk about is that the schism slowly took place over the course of hundreds of years as the Roman Empire (East and West) grew apart. Also, there were many other Christian sects prior to the schism.

            By the way, the website is not an “unbiased Christian website” – it describes itself as follows:

            “We are a multi-faith group. As of late-2012, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters, such as belief in a supreme being, the nature of God, interpretation of the Bible and other holy texts, whether life after death exists, what form the afterlife may take, etc.”

            At least be honest with your descriptions.

            Note, too, that Wikipedia’s entry on the Crusades mentions only

            Catholics (Christians), and no other subdivisions of Christians. That

            didn’t happen until the Reformation.

            Actually, it mentions that the Crusaders (meaning Catholics) reneged on their promise and murdered Orthodox Christians as they plundered Byzantine land. There were subdivisions on what a Christian was back then.

            And so you assume that means the Catholics.

            No, it includes them.

            I get that you are strongly anti-Catholic, but let’s try to leave the name calling out of this discussion. Catholicism is not a cult. For one thing, it’s been around far too long to be considered a cult, it has far too many members to be called a cult, and most people recognize it as the predominant Christian denomination.

            I didn’t mean it as name-calling. A cult can be defined as “a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.” Catholicism could have 99% of the world’s population as members, yet it would still be a cult since it is a false religion. It teaches doctrine that is in opposition to the Bible.

            Possibly, but there’s no subdividing the Christians in this case. From the Religioustolerance article: “The result of centuries of conflict among followers of the three main Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) was a “deep mutual hatred” and mistrust among the three faiths. Memories of these genocides still influence relationships among Jews, Christians and Muslims to the present time.”

            Religioustolerance is not a historical or academic website. As such, it makes too many sweeping statements to be accurate. There have been many different movements vying for control even within Catholicism. Check out the Free Spirit movement, Paulicians, Donatists, Novatians, etc. If you examine the history, then you will see that Catholicism (as we see it today) was a slow process. Many changes were contentious and not everyone followed them.

            False. Every single Protestant denomination I have ever encountered

            apart from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, SDA, SOME Baptists and MOST

            fundamentalist Christians acknowledge that Catholics are Christians,

            and that’s because to not do so would mean basically stating that the

            Protestant Reformation never took place, which of course it did.

            I didn’t say anything wrong. Millions of Protestants do not believe that Catholics are Christian. This was the entire point behind the Protestant Reformation. Look at how the Westminster Confession of 1646 referred to Catholicism and the Pope. I don’t know where you have gotten your history from, but there was huge division, and there still is.

            I think you’ll find there is something some fundamentalists use called The Sinner’s Prayer, it is recited in order to be “saved” and yet there is no Sinner’s Prayer in the Bible. So again the point is if you want to attack Catholics for unbiblical things, you can’t give a free pass to the others.

            I didn’t give a free pass to anyone. The Sinner’s Prayer has been abused by many and is not found in the Bible as you noted.

            I did no such thing. The definition of a Christian is simply a person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ. My other statement, “The only way to accurately say you are a Christian is to take the entire canon of what Jesus said and follow that the best you can” was hyperbole to show the impossibility of what YOU are trying to do with your cherry picking. It would be quite impossible to do the latter, which is the point of what I was saying. And no two Christians would ever agree anyway.

            You were more accurate in your other definition. God calls for our obedience. The entire Bible makes that clear that it’s necessary. Those who don’t obey God’s commandments cannot be real Christians.

            It goes a little bit beyond a basic definition, but at its core it says the same thing. A follower of Christ. More interesting to me is that there’s no definition in there for Catholic.

            Yes, and that’s my point. Christians are disciples of Jesus, and it goes back to what Jesus said: those who believe on Him would be His disciples if they continued in His word.

            The word Catholic is not there because it’s a Bible dictionary. You also won’t find the word rapture or Protestant in there either.

            If you’d like to present something factual, please do. Everything you’re saying sounds like it came out of a Jack Chick tract, and those things are so ludicrous they’re considered hate speech in many places and not even ALLOWED in certain countries. Canada, for example. I am going to caution you though, the only people I’ve ever seen who make the kind of accusations you’re making have been extremely right-wing hate websites. Not a single one of them will point to a respected history text.

            You have an incorrect image of Catholicism and those who oppose it. Look at the Reformation and see what Protestants wrote about the Catholic Church (and at what Catholics wrote about the Protestants). Look at how the Huguenots were massacred and how Jan Hus was murdered for merely having different beliefs. Look at how the Lollards were treated. Look at how the Pope ordered a Catholic revolt against Elizabeth I in the 16th century. Where was the love, peace, joy, gentleness, kindness, longsuffering, temperance, patience, etc. that is promised in the Bible to those who follow God? Where was the wisdom from God that the Bible promises is first pure, then peaceable? History proves that Catholicism did not produce good fruit.

            No argument from me. However, you can (and should) say the same thing about ALL Christian churches. They are ALL organizations, they ALL have rules, they ALL have hierarchies. They ALL have human leaders (like the Pope, but on a smaller scale). It is completely fallacious to say otherwise. Don’t even START to play the “one true faith” game – I’ve yet to see a denomination that DIDN’T do that.

            But Christianity is not tied to a church. A Christian’s faith is in Christ alone, and he doesn’t need to worry about denominations. If Baptists are wrong, then Christians in the church will just go elsewhere. Catholicism is different. If the Pope is wrong, then Catholics are still bound to the Catholic Church since their faith is tied to the Catholic Church. In fact, the Catholic Church is part of a Catholic’s salvation – they can’t even leave and obtain salvation elsewhere once they have joined the Catholic Church – according to Catholic doctrine. The Bible makes it clear that salvation is through Christ alone and not through any man-made institution. Salvation is not tied to the Baptists or to the Brethren or Calvinists or Armenians, or Catholics etc. It’s tied to Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

            Not surprising, there have been good and bad popes all through history. I’m sure the Catholics of today would agree.

            I know that Catholics believe this way, but it ruins the claims of apostolic succession.

            I think you’ll find there is something some fundamentalists use called The Sinner’s Prayer, it is recited in order to be “saved” and yet there is no Sinner’s Prayer in the Bible. So again the point is if you want to attack Catholics for unbiblical things, you can’t give a free pass to the others.

            Some Christians have come out and condemned the Sinner’s Prayer saying that reading a piece of paper is not enough to obtain salvation. Paul Washer is a good example of this.

            If they are Catholic, they are to follow the Pope since he is their church leader, just as many people follow Pat Robertson and other televangelists. And, they are by extension following God because that’s what your leader of choice (pope, Robertson, etc.) is instructing. It’s ludicrous to suggest the Pope would knowingly tell people to do things contrary to God. Even if you don’t like what he says, I mean, come on. As far as HE is concerned, he’s bringing people to God.

            Nobody is to follow Pat Robertson, or the Pope, or anybody else in these matters. The Bible says to work out your own salvation in fear and trembling. Nobody else can do that for you. The Bible makes it clear that God alone is our spiritual Leader, and this is the difference between Christianity and Catholicism. Yes, God has placed elders in positions of power, but their authority is only vested by God as long as they obey His Word and don’t try to usurp it. If they deviate from the Bible and are guilty of heresy, then Christians must choose to obey God over that leader.

            No it doesn’t. It doesn’t mention a pope.

            That’s correct. It doesn’t talk about a pope and it makes it clear that we have direct access to God; therefore, there can’t be a pope. It’s an invention of which Jesus did not approve. We have one mediator to God – the man Christ Jesus.

            I’m really not sure what part of this you are not understanding. This is No True Scotsman because this man calls himself a Christian and insists and gives examples about how he follows the Bible (even citing chapter and verse). And you are saying he’s not a Christian because he doesn’t follow the Bible – even though he just demonstrated that to him, at least, he DOES follow the Bible. He would probably tell you exactly the same thing, that you’re not a Christian because you don’t follow the Bible. And you’d get upset and angry at that statement, understandably, because you think you DO. But not the way he does. That is the crux of No True Scotsman right there, it comes down to opinions and not facts and definitions.

            No, this is not a No True Scotsman fallacy. Remember the example of the Scotsman with the porridge? It was a fallacy because a Scotsman can indeed put sugar in his porridge. It would be a fallacy on my part if I arbitrarily condemned him (for example: he cannot be a Christian because he wears blue). That’s wrong because Christians can wear blue, but people cannot be Christian if they flagrantly disobey the Bible. It’s correct for me to say such a thing. Again, we are disagreeing over the definition. You are objecting to me using the Bible, which is not a No True Scotsman fallacy.

            I can enter a debate in a public arena and use the dictionary definition of what a Christian is and would be found to be correct. You would be found to be cherry picking verses you like to define your Christianity.

            Definitions are an important part of debating. Your opponent does not need to accept your definition. Here’s a website that explains this:

            www (dot) simpleliberty (dot) org/main/define_your_terms.htm

            “I already demonstrated that obedience to the commandments is a necessary part of being a Christian.”

            A necessary part of being a Christian, perhaps, but not important to its definition.

            That’s not logical. If a necessary part of being a Christian is following the commandments, then it’s necessary to include it in the definition. If all X need Y to be X, then the definition of X must include Y. If disobedience to the commandments means that a person is not a Christian, then obedience to the commandments needs to be part of the definition.

            This has gone on for days, and I see that we still aren’t making any progress. I will politely end it here since this has gone far enough.

            That’s not a Catholic “myth” at all. First of all, it’s not a myth, it’s true. Secondly, you’re far more likely to hear that statement from atheists as a means of mocking Christianity. You’d have a lot more Christians in the world if you weren’t all so busy attacking each other, as you do with Catholics. People would respect you more if you had a united vision.

            This may surprise you, but the goal is not to gain more Christians. The goal is to serve and honor God with our whole heart, soul, and mind. He’s worthy to be served. That means not compromising with the world and fake Christianity. If I’m to unite with anyone, it’s with Christ. I would rather do that alone than unite with all the fake Christians in the world.

          • StereoMan

            “No, you misunderstood what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. It’s only a
            fallacy when the definition is made up and changed to suit the person’s
            whims. I have done no such thing since I have cited scripture to define
            what a Christian is and stayed true to the definition.”

            I understand very well what the No True Scotsman fallacy is – it’s when one person’s opinion tries to define itself as authoritative and definitive. And you HAVE done this because you are being very specific about certain Bible quotes that you think define what a Christian is, but ignore a whole range of others. None of which, as I pointed out earlier, figure in an actual common definition of a Christian that everyone can support. To do that requires a dictionary.

          • John_33

            No that’s not what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. The fallacy applies when a person arbitrarily changes their definition to justify their initial premise when their first definition is proven wrong. In contrast, we are disputing the validity of our definitions, which is not a fallacy.

            None of which, as I pointed out earlier, figure in an actual common definition of a Christian that everyone can support.

            This is where we differ. I’m not looking for a definition that everyone can support. God defines what Christianity is in the Bible, and His view is the only one that matters.

          • StereoMan

            From RationalWiki:

            “No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing

            Phrases such as “un-American,” “un-Christian”, “un-Islamic” or “inhuman” are widely used in politics and media to distance oneself from a subject, defining them as outside the bounds
            of what the speaker considers to be truly ‘American,’ ‘Christian’, ‘Muslim’ or ‘human’ behaviour. These phrases strongly suggest the No True Scotsman fallacy, since the use, for example of “un-American” to describe specific political activities by some American citizens implies some special definition of “American” beyond mere nationality.”

          • John_33

            No wonder you don’t know what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. RationalWiki is not a reputable website. It’s filled with inaccuracies and mistakes as well as emotional statements not rooted in fact. Even Wikipedia is far better. For example, there’s no such thing as phrases that “suggest” the No True Scotsman fallacy. It’s either committed or it isn’t. Here’s a real example of the fallacy:

            Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an “ad hoc rescue” of a refuted generalization attempt,[1] the following is an example of the fallacy:[3]

            Person A: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”

            Person B: “But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge.”

            Person A: “Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”

            ~ Wikipedia

            The reason why it’s a fallacy is because Scotsmen can indeed put sugar on their porridge. The rule that Person A created was arbitrary with no evidence to suggest that Scotsmen cannot do so. Also, Person A changed his definition afterwards merely because his first definition was disproven. As I stated before and you ignored it, the fallacy occurs when a second definition is arbitrarily created to defend the original premise after the first definition is disproven. I have not done this. I have defined my term and stayed with it. In contrast, you have not been consistent in your arguments and have changed your definition in this discussion.

          • StereoMan

            RationalWiki is a website used by scientists and mathematicians and is
            EXTREMELY reputable. If it were in any way rooted in emotional
            pleading no one would take it seriously. You have EVERYTHING
            backwards. Inaccuracies and mistakes and emotional pleading are not
            hallmarks of science, they are hallmarks of religion.

            The “sugar on porridge” example is a very good one. What a shame you
            don’t understand it. If you did, you would not commit it as you do
            here:

            I postulate that even though Pastor Steven Anderson is a vile scumbag,
            he is a Christian.

            You say, no, he’s not a Christian because he doesn’t follow the Bible.

            I say, yes he does follow the Bible – he quotes Exodus in his
            justification for killing homosexuals.

            You then say, no, he’s not a TRUE Christian (Scotsman) because he’s
            not following the Bible.

            That is a TEXTBOOK example of how you are guilty of No True Scotsman.

          • John_33

            If mathematicians and scientists use RationalWiki, that just lowers their expertise in my view. It’s not reputable.

            I postulate that even though Pastor Steven Anderson is a vile scumbag,

            he is a Christian.

            You say, no, he’s not a Christian because he doesn’t follow the Bible.

            I say, yes he does follow the Bible – he quotes Exodus in his

            justification for killing homosexuals.

            You then say, no, he’s not a TRUE Christian (Scotsman) because he’s

            not following the Bible.

            That is a TEXTBOOK example of how you are guilty of No True Scotsman.

            No, no, no. That’s not how it works. Just because he quotes a verse doesn’t mean that he follows the Bible. It needs to be taken as a whole, and he doesn’t follow it. He teaches many things that the Bible condemns, and it’s not a fallacy for me to say so.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            My favorite is the statue of Jesus’ upper torso with His arms raised in prayer at the Solid Rock Church near Toledo. (Sarcastically referred to as the “big butter Jesus” by the world). Fire from Heaven destroyed that graven image.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Touchdown Jesus!

          • Carol Richardson

            You. Need to prayerfully study and read the bible and ask the Holy Spirit to open up your understanding.

          • StereoMan

            You need to read a history book.

          • Carol Richardson

            A lot of catholic doctrine contradicts scripture.

          • StereoMan

            That’s simply untrue, I’m sorry.

          • CNthruPC

            “church teaching and ‘sacred’ traditions”—-> precisely what Jesus over and over condemned while He was down here.

          • StereoMan

            Um…no. He told Peter that he was the rock upon which His church would be built. So when Peter established it it’s not likely to be something Jesus would have condemned.

          • John_33

            The Bible was canonized long before Catholics ever came on the scene.

          • Carol Richardson

            Then why don’t they believe it and why do they have doctrine that contradicts scripture.

          • StereoMan

            They do believe it, and they don’t have doctrine that contradicts scripture. They are not “Bible-only” Christians, so in addition to the Bible they follow church teachings and sacred traditions.

      • Paul Hiett

        Are you not aware that Catholicism is what started the entire Christian religion?

        • John_33

          Not Jesus?

          • Paul Hiett

            Actually no. Paul did.

          • John_33

            He came after the apostles, and he wasn’t Catholic.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yes, but there would be no “Church” without either Jesus or Paul.

          • John_33

            Definitely can’t have Christianity without Christ.

          • Paul Hiett

            Or Paul.

          • John_33

            Who was chosen by Christ.

          • Paul Hiett

            And we can’t forget Peter either, whom is considered the first Pope.

          • John_33

            Peter would never take that title for himself.

          • Gorship

            hold up, Paul Hiett were you putting Paul and Peter on the same level as Jesus for furthering Christianity? please tell me I’m wrong here.

          • John_33

            I think you accidentally replied to me.

        • Lisa

          Nope! Not true! Jesus dying on a cross and taking the punishment for sin that whomever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life is what started it all!

          • Paul Hiett

            Yes, yes, we all know about Jesus…but without Paul, there is no Christian religion, period.

          • Lisa

            No without Jesus there is no salvation.

    • Jan123456

      Part of the Nicene creed – prayed at every Catholic mass.

      “I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,the Only Begotten Son of God,”

  • Dave L

    A Great Cloud of Witnesses: “Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton, Wesley, Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently Spurgeon, Bishop J.C. Ryle and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the Papacy as the antichrist.” Taken from All Roads Lead to Rome, by Michael de Semlyen. Dorchestor House Publications, p. 205. 1991.

  • Joel Rivera

    The most unholy father, pope Franky, is nuts! Evangelicals and the Catholic church are not one….the Protestant Movement made sure of that. More and more it looks like the Catholic church will help to usher in the one world religion.

    • weasel1886

      One world religion. Isn’t that what Christians try to do ? Convert everyone?

      • Joel Rivera

        Nope. They just spread the word and leave the door open to anyone that want to hear. Christians are against a one world religion and government. The Catholic church didn’t quite start on good footing forcing conversion on people much like what ISIS is trying to do. Christians believe in free will, but the Catholic church didn’t when they were forcing it on people.

        • weasel1886

          Non Catholic Christians have certinly forced people to convert.
          Why wouldn’t they want the entire planet to be Christian

          • http://www.facebook.com/david.cousins.14 David Cousins

            So have bitter atheists like Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc….

          • weasel1886

            What’s your point ?

    • StereoMan

      “Most unholy father”…you fundagelicals are something else.

      • Joel Rivera

        So are you 6 day a week sinners, one day a week saints in the Catholic church,,,,and Hatetheists as well.

        • StereoMan

          They are far kinder and more reasonable than your breed will ever be.

          • Joel Rivera

            LOL! Far kinder? Then they better start using the church wealth to feed, shelter, and clothe the unfortunate masses.

          • Joel Rivera

            LOL, takes one to know one. Your comments don’t exactly score any brownie points either.

          • StereoMan

            Neither do yours.

    • Webb

      Jorge Bergoglio, AKA pope, is a heretic.

      • Paul Hiett

        So would be anyone who disagrees with whatever version of religion your parents indoctrinated you in.

        • http://www.facebook.com/david.cousins.14 David Cousins

          So you don’t allow people to disagree with the papacy?

  • Josey

    Catholicism mixes pagan rituals with Christianity, they worship Mary which the Bible forbids, they confess their sins to a priest who takes the place of Christ, as a christian we ask God for forgiveness and cleansing through the shed blood of Christ and our faith is not in hail marys but in Christ alone, they wear crosses with Jesus shown still on it when He is sitting at the right hand of the Father, resurrected alive and well. There is only one Father God and Jesus forbid us to call anyone father for we have one in Heaven and yet they call their priests father and there are many other things wrong with Catholicism such as idol worship. This pope doesn’t know Jesus Christ anymore than a fish does, he is a white washed tomb, a hypocrite and liar, looks good on the outside but inside is a den of devils. Religion cannot save one soul, only faith in Christ saves. He is ushering in the one world religion and he knows too that his time is short, he has even said so.

    • Paul Hiett

      Christianity mixes pagan rituals every Christmas and Easter too…doesn’t seem to bother anyone.

    • weasel1886

      Christians have always mixed with pagans

      • Carol Richardson

        Catholocism mixes their theology with paganism. True Christianity does not.

        • Magister_militum_praesentalis

          Hislopian codswallop.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            I love arcane references.

        • StereoMan

          You’ve been reading too much Jack Chick. Or Alexander Hislop.

        • weasel1886

          Easter, Christmas, wedding rings, etc

    • weasel1886

      I thoughg the very basis of Christianity was to have one world religion. Isn’t everyone supposed to be one religion?

    • Lisa

      They use the name of Jesus but don’t really know Him.

      • StereoMan

        And you do?

        • Lisa

          Yes I know Jesus! Or are ya asking if I use the name of Jesus?

          • StereoMan

            They say they know Jesus, and you say you know Jesus. Why are they lying, and you aren’t?

          • Lisa

            I do think that catholics really believe they know Jesus, but they don’t really know the true Jesus because if they did they would know that Jesus paid the penalty on the cross one time for sin-mass isn’t needed.

          • StereoMan

            That isn’t why they have mass.

          • Lisa

            Why do they have mass?

          • StereoMan

            From the “About Catholics” website:

            “We have Mass to worship and to receive God’s grace, to unify with him and with other worshipers through the sacrament of the Eucharist. As a sacrament, it is that Jesus himself acting through the Eucharist, and supplies all the graces we derive from it.

            At Mass we are able to stand mystically at the foot of the cross and witness for ourselves the same self-sacrifice of Jesus, in an unbloody manner.

            Mass is a celebration of this sacrifice. It is the active
            participation of all that come together in the place of worship. We do not come to Mass simply to receive something passively or to watch a show; we come as participants embracing the grace Christ pours out for us shed by his own blood on the cross.”

          • Lisa

            Romans 6:8-10
            Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life He lives, He lives to God.

            Jesus died to sins once and for all-there is no need for mass.

          • StereoMan

            So there is no need to give praise to Jesus or remember his passion?

          • Lisa

            Praise Jesus and remember He died for your sins but mass is not necessary and quite honestly wrong. That’s like saying Jesus sacrifice wasn’t good enough.

          • StereoMan

            Please explain to me why an evangelical praise service is OK but a Catholic mass is not.

          • Lisa

            Who said anything about a praise service? We praise God because He is worthy to be praised!

          • StereoMan

            And so why should it be any different for Catholics?

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            “‘Cuz them Cat’licks worship Mary in it!”

          • CNthruPC

            The Roman mass purports to be a “non-bloody” offering of Christ on the Cross, over and over and over…for millennia. The first problem with that is: there is no remission of sins w/o the shedding of blood, so a “non-bloody” sacrifice is an oxymoron. Further, Jesus on the Cross stated, “It is finished.” This is echoed by Hebrews, “And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Moreover, the Romanist concept of the eucharist is utterly unbiblical: one of the most basic Biblical commands is not to worship anything created by God or fashioned by human agency (hands or machines). Yet Romanists worship a wafer. Why is the wafer not what they claim? Bec. if you go back to one of their favorite passages for their view of the eucharist (John, the Last Supper), you’ve got Jesus eating His own flesh and drinking His own blood. ????? To boot, when He says He is “the bread of life,” He’s using metaphor, in the same way He does when He calls Himself “the door,” “the way,” “the vine,” or when the Word refers to Him as “the morning star,” “the rock,” “lamb of God,” etc.

          • StereoMan

            That’s a very narrow and rigid explanation of what’s going on, and it’s one interpretation. Unfortunately, it’s incorrect.

            Here’s the response I’d give you if I were still a Christian:

            In Protestant churches, we see an empty cross. The problem is salvation was not provided by two boards, but by the man who hung on them. And yes, week after week, many different denominations from Catholics to Lutherans pray for the remission of sins and no bloodshed takes place at all. So no oxymoron. “It is finished” could mean many different things – you are ascribing a single meaning to it and discounting all others, as so many fundamentalists do. But then you take it step further and suggest that Catholics are crucifying Jesus over and over every week, which would be barbaric and contrary to everything a Christian would stand for it it were true. Catholics (you called them Romanists) do not worship a wafer, they believe in transubstantiation meaning Christ is present in the wine and wafer – he said “This is my body, this is my blood” (not this REPRESENTS my body and blood). Jesus isn’t eating and drinking his own body and blood, he’s instructing his disciples.

            Here’s my response as a non-Christian:

            You have your interpretation of Christianity and the Catholics have theirs. I’m sure they probably have just as many criticisms about what you’re doing wrong as you do about them, but no matter how you slice it they were doing it all a lot longer than you have been, so for you to come along 2000 years later and re-write all the rules DOES come across a bit arrogant.

          • CNthruPC

            Like I said a few minutes ago, you’re merely a Catholic who’s on break (I’d be fascinated to know your reasons for presently claiming to be an agnostic); you’ll be wandering back into “the Fold” in due time. And as I said above, the big difference between someone like me vs. the Romanists is that I don’t adhere to any denomination that claims to BE CHRIST ON EARTH.

          • StereoMan

            “Christ on Earth”, eh? I think you’ll find “Vicar of Christ” is the title. It matters little anyway, he’s just the head of the Catholic church, Just as your church has a human leader.

            And the other interesting calling card of fundamentalists like yourself is you claim to know my beliefs better than I know them myself. No, I’m not returning to Christianity. I don’t believe the Bible is the word of God, and if that is anyone’s issue, clearly they are not cut out for Christianity. I don’t even care when atheists attack Catholics. But when fundamentalists do it, they need a serious arrogance and reality check.

          • CNthruPC

            Conjecture on something hardly qualifies as “arrogance.” Now, if you could return to the IDEAS/ISSUES at hand, it would be most profitable…

          • StereoMan

            If you’ve chosen Christian fundamentalism over Catholicism, good for you. Unfortunately in my experience that usually means misrepresentation of Catholicism on a grand scale. How many times was I told I worshipped statues? That I worshipped the pope? That I worshipped Mary? That my own infant baptism was a fraud since I was not old enough to repent of my sins? That my confessions to a priest were wrong?

            I merely wish that to be a fundamentalist didn’t require membership in the Catholic Bashers’ Club.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            He claims not to be a fundie. It will be interesting to see if he will be any more descriptive of his beliefs than the usual “Bible Christian” canard.

          • StereoMan

            “Bible Christian” usually means fundie anyway. Even “religion” is a bad word to these people…they always say “it’s not a religion, it’s a relationship”. Not sure why religion is a bad word nowadays.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Right. You will see fundies and Evangelicals ape the religion/relationship distinction to no end when talking to Catholics. It really turns out to be a false dichotomy that they use to try to self-justify their ecclesiological individualism.

          • StereoMan

            The “personal God” concept is offensive to me anyway, having grown up with the idea that God is for everyone, not this “me me me” aesthetic.

          • CNthruPC

            Why do you assume I’m a “fundamentalist”? Are there only fundamentalists vs. Catholics in the Christian gene pool?

            And disagreeing with someone’s beliefs is not “bashing” them: at a debate forum, the whole point is to be able to engage in a vigorous tennis match of ideas. It has nothing to do with “bashing” people, but if ideas don’t hold up, then they’re not worth holding.

          • StereoMan

            Well, you COULD end the suspense. I’ve only ever known fundamentalists/evangelicals/pentecostals, Baptists, SDAs and Jehovah’s Witness to hate on Catholics worse than if they’d been satanists.

          • CNthruPC

            As I mentioned before, I do not hate Catholics (see my post above). Disagreeing with Catholicism does not equate with hatred. It is most unfortunate (and puerile) that in the present-day U.S., any kind of logical, dispassionate debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of a religion is twisted into “[insert name of religion here]-bashing.”

            As for my “affiliation,” it has nothing to do with the ISSUES, which should be the focus at a forum like this. As mentioned in the verses I quoted earlier (the 3 in Acts), the early followers of Jesus were simply called Christians.

          • CNthruPC

            I don’t “hate on” Catholics, but yes, I do vigorously disagree with everything the RCC teaches that doesn’t square with Scripture.

            Now, if soggy hearts can’t handle a tennis match of ideas, maybe they need to just limit themselves to mini-golf ideas.

          • StereoMan

            How can it always square with scripture when scripture isn’t all Catholics use that is authoritative? They aren’t Bible-only.

          • CNthruPC

            Because if an organization claims to be THE only “true” church and claims that everybody on the planet should be subject to to it, then it should be rock solid, scripturally, since that is what Jesus repeatedly referred to when He debated spiritual issues.

          • CNthruPC

            How many times do I have to repeat that I am not a “fundamentalist.” Believe it or not, there are just plain Christians (like the early Christ followers) who don’t adhere to ANY label, other than that generic one.

            And again, let’s just tackle the TOPIC at hand, which is the article about the pope.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            “I am just a Bible Christian” is the convenient moniker that they all use because it engineers a pedestal of purity from which they can snipe with impunity at all of the denominations and churches that they hate.

          • CNthruPC

            ” a pedestal of purity from which they can snipe with impunity at all of the denominations and churches that they hate.” You’re projecting again: YOU and your cronies here are the ones sniping with impunity at your nemesis, the dreadful “fundies.” If I behaved like you guys over at the Catholic Answers Forums? Those admins would’ve kicked me out within the first day. But then, the RCC has never been known for its tolerance toward “the heretics…” {snort}

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            I am not Roman Catholic. Fundamentalism is not a denomination or church.

          • CNthruPC

            “The Pope is of so great dignity, and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God and the vicar of God.” -Ferraris Ecclesiastical dictionary

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            “Romanists worship a wafer”… wow.

          • CNthruPC

            Yah, “wow” indeed. It is absolutely gobsmacking.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Your rhetoric? Yes, I agree.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Perhaps you can explain why fundies are so neurotically obsessive and pietistic about attendance to Wednesday night services, Bible studies, and two Sunday services, then.

          • Lisa

            I don’t think I can-sorry

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            If you cannot, then perhaps you should not spout off about the Mass, then?

          • Lisa

            What does that have to do with anything?

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Don’t like getting backed into a corner by your own responses, do you?

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            You were whining about Catholics attending the Mass for merit or as a work.

          • Lisa

            No whine-just the truth. Mass is not needed because Jesus once for all died for our sins.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Then explain why fundamentalists insist on judging people’s salvation and morality when they do not attend every Bible study, Wed. night service, and two Sunday night services with the same religiosity that they demand.

          • Lisa

            We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ not by works so no one can boast.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Yes, but that does not address the very real problem I brought up within fundamentalism.

          • Lisa

            What problem? I don’t agree that catholics are Christians and that makes me wrong? I don’t think so. Jesus says that there will be false teachers and prophets so we must be on the alert and not be deceived. People can fall away from the faith.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            No, it is your one-sided rhetoric and failure to address replies in any substantial way that makes you at least suspect in terms of sincerity.

          • Lisa

            I disagree. Have a good evening.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Bye. Please return if you would like to have a discussion and examine your beliefs critically.

          • Lisa

            No thanks-I’m perfectly fine with what I believe.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Then why are you bailing?

          • Lisa

            I’m getting bored with your demand that I answer your questions and then you don’t like my answers-so really no incentive for me to keep talking to you.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            No, but it is becoming quite clear that you have nothing of substance to back your rhetoric and assertions with. If you have to create an excuse to bail, then go right ahead.

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Coward. Good riddance to bad garbage.

          • Lisa

            Goodbye-have a good evening.

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Like I said, Good bye to bad garbage.

          • The Last Trump

            I have been following your discussion and just wanted to say that you did a fantastic job under constant attack from the neighborhood trolls! And you stood firm in your faith with politeness and class. Nice job! 🙂

            These Catholics just can’t bear the thought that THEY don’t hold the monopoly on the Son of God. You are absolutely correct that the Church of Jesus Christ is not a Catholic church, a Protestant church, a Baptist church or any other. It is a world wide church of FUNDAMENTALIST (they really hate THAT word!:) Bible believing and FOLLOWING servants of Christ. Period.

            But these trolls will swarm you in their desperate and shameful attempts to pressure you into “agreeing” with their errant views. And before you know it, you’ll be praying TO MARY (!?) and asking her to PRAY FOR YOU! (Still looking for the Bible verse instructing us to do THAT!).

            Anyway, terrific job and very classy. Keep up the good work and ignore the attention starved trolls desperate to convince you to think as they do. They just tax your time in lengthy “discussions” that inevitably lead absolutely nowhere. They are not here to discuss. They are here to attack. And accuse you of HATE if you disagree with their views!
            Liberals! Go figure. 🙂

          • Lisa

            Thank you Last Trump for your kind words!
            I think it’s an honor and a privilege to contend for the faith. You can call them trolls and liberals but I see that they are poor lost souls who are destined for the lake of fire and sharing who Jesus is, is good because like Paul says we should work enthusiastically for the Lord, knowing that nothing we do for the Lord is ever useless. Have a good day today!

          • The Last Trump

            I hear you. And believe me I tried.
            However the Bible also gives us sound direction in how to properly deal with fools, does it not? And this place is chalk full of THEM!
            For those who would like to discuss and exchange knowledge and ideas, fantastic. But for those who are here to silence and bully Christians who aren’t bothering anybody, I no longer waste my time. Other than to point out their intolerance and hypocrisy and move on.
            As you have discovered, some are here just to fight and take up your time until you eventually call it a day on account of pointlessness.
            But good luck! If you can manage to “sway” any of THESE types away from their intolerance and militancy, you’re a better Christian than I! 🙂

          • Lisa

            And yet Paul tells us;
            Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. Because we aren’t doing a useless thing for the Lord though it may seem that way sometimes to us. Do not lose heart and give in to temptation to lower yourself to the same standard you see around you.
            I don’t do it because I think I will sway anyone-I do it because God is worthy for me to contend for the faith. There are no better Christians none can boast but we can help each other and encourage each other in doing good!

          • The Last Trump

            Great verse! Can’t argue with that.
            And yet Proverbs 26:4 tells us:
            “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him”.
            Makes great sense doesn’t it? Not very wise to waste your time in pointless argument with trouble makers. That’s all I was talking about.
            If you don’t know what I’m talking about yet, you soon will! 🙂
            But keep quoting scripture to them at all times. For most of them, sadly, this is the closest they will ever come to the truth of the gospel message.
            And who knows what God might be up to on a forum such as this!
            And for the rest of the trouble makers, if they want to stalk a Christian website DAILY then by God they’re going to have to read the Bible one way or another, whether they like it or not! 🙂

          • Lisa

            I read the verse you quoted a different way and I agree that you will be just like him.
            Anyway I have been at this site a little while now and I do understand the back and forth between the darkness and the people who say they are the light. I have even talked with you before.

          • Lisa

            2 Timothy 2:24-26
            The Lord’s bond servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

            You may want to seriously reconsider the way you talk about the people you call trolls and liberals and quit excusing your bad behavior.

          • The Last Trump

            Ouch. You’ll have to forgive what you call my “bad behavior”. Calling a spade a spade and a troll a troll if you are simply speaking the truth is hardly bad behaviour, in my eyes. Did not Jesus justly say, “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” when he addressed those deserving of such honest and accurate description?
            (Incidentally, I don’t tell ANYBODY that they are going to hell! Not my call!)

            And there are MANY such examples from scripture of boldly speaking out against tyrannical and oppressive people and addressing them correctly as such. But I absolutely understand what you are cautioning me for and I appreciate your honesty. I sometimes have to reel myself back in when my conscience (the Holy Spirit?) convicts me of insensitivity or line crossing from time to time. After all, I am a flawed and sinful man most assuredly in need of a Saviour. 🙁
            I try to temper my posts accordingly, but I see no need to shy away from truth, no matter how ugly, and call it out as IT IS, not how I wish it to be.

            The hour is late, Christianity is under constant attack, and I’m not here to win souls. Perhaps you are? The simple truth is not everyone will be saved and some people truly are enemies of the gospel and hostile to Christians and to God. I’m simply here to defend the truth of the gospel and support other Christians by boldly exposing falsehood and sheer stupidity from actual fact. And I do so for the sake of OTHER Christians. And unapologetically. Christians today need to know that they can be confident in their faith and in the accuracy of the Bible, despite the constant attacks from the liberal left. Who, I`m afraid, are at WAR with Christianity. I`m sorry if you find that offensive for some reason. But I do understand. There are meek and mild Christians in the world and there are warriors. And everything else in between. I made a point to comment on your discussion the other day, because I was so impressed that you handled yourself with such class and composure under such relentless attack. And it hurt me to see how you were treated by these people, one of them even going so far as to call you ‘garbage’ for no apparent reason whatsoever, other than you simply disagreed 🙁

            I applaud your attitude and respect the class with which you conduct yourself. And I merely wanted for you to know. I had hoped that you were not as hurt as I felt for you and simply wished to offer a sister in Christ a moment of encouragement. I was tempted to jump into the discussion numerous times and come to your rescue, as I felt that you were ganged up on, but you amazed me with each post and made it very clear that you required absolutely NO ONE to come to YOUR defense! My apologies if I made you feel that I desired you to behave more like grumpy old me! To the contrary. As I remarked at the time, I was struck by your class and dignity. PLEASE DON’T CHANGE! It was refreshing to see and even humbled me a little bit. All I was trying to convey with my ‘advice’, rather clumsily as it turns out, was to beware the taxing of your time and efforts in long and pointless arguments of futility, as I have had many myself and since learned from my own experience. Some folks just want to fight. And I think you too came to that conclusion after a lengthy barrage the other day, eventually bringing the discussion to a close yourself and bidding your ‘attackers’ a good night, realizing the time you were wasting.

            Anyway, once again, fantastic job yesterday. You keep up the good work. And I’ll STOP giving advice! 🙂

          • Lisa

            So you are now going to equate your behavior with what Jesus did?

          • The Last Trump

            ?
            My behaviour?! What was it I am supposed to have done again?
            Never mind. I seem to have made a mistake here. My apologies.
            God bless.

          • Paul Hiett

            “But for those who are here to silence and bully Christians who aren’t bothering anybody,”

            I do believe you have just told the biggest lie I’ve ever read on here.

          • The Last Trump

            Not surprising. Given that you embody exactly what I was talking about. Great timing Paul! Right on cue.
            You never disappoint. 🙂

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Who are you calling “trolls?” Anyone can toss around names.

          • The Last Trump

            Oh oh! Does somebody have a guilty conscience?
            Funny, I don’t remember doing any name dropping…
            Very interesting.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Are you wanting to get into it with me again?

          • The Last Trump

            ?
            Get into what? You replied to ME, remember?!
            Go push your pro Catholic agenda and continue to act surprised that people have issues with all of the highly questionable practices, such as Mary ‘worship’ which you confessed yourself to strongly disagree with. No skin off my back. Good luck.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            You pulled the same old rhetorical tropes out in the other instances where we discussed these things. Yes, I strongly disagree with “Mary worship,” because that particular description is a strawman misrepresentation.

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Aw, gee, another fundee with delusions of salvation and omipotence..

          • CNthruPC

            Your generalizations (and your infantile invective) are unprofitable and tiresome: not all “fundies” fit that schedule, and those who do so are only practicing what Acts said (devoted themselves to the Word). If anything’s neurotically obsessive, it’s the teaching that not attending Mass at least once/week is a mortal sin.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Riiiight.

          • ThePhoenixRises

            SOURCE?

          • Carol Richardson

            Religous gobbily goo. Jesus loved people enough to speajk truth to them. Often the truth hurts.

          • StereoMan

            And do you think you have a better brand of religious gobbledy goo?

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            I say this out of love as a fellow believer. Please read “Surprised by Truth” by Patrick Madrid. These are personal testimonies of Evangelicals who joined the Catholic Church. (I even knew one personally, so I can vouch for their veracity.) They discuss in much detail their own struggles with what seemed to them to be the “unscriptural” practices of the Roman Catholic Church. There are many more resources like that. Catholics are not a bunch of sheep who never knew the truth. Many of us are serious students of the Bible, especially us converts.

          • Lisa

            No I’m not going to read about how people fell away from the faith.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Sorry to hear that. Nothing more impenetrable than contempt prior to investigation.

          • Lisa

            I’ve already investigated the catholic beliefs and I believe them to be wrong and not according to scripture. The Bible being the only book to verify the truth.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Why do you believe the Bible to be the only book to verify the truth?

          • Lisa

            It’s the Word of God.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            That’s a circular argument. Why do you believe it to be the Word of God?

          • Lisa

            Doesn’t everyone who claims to be a Christian?

          • Carol Richardson

            You need to pray and ask the Holy Spirit to show that the Word of God Is the Word Of God. He is waiting to prove himself to you personally.

          • Carol Richardson

            Jesus is called the incarnate Word of a God. That’s how much God honors His Word.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Jesus is not the flesh form of the leather, paper, and glue book.

          • CNthruPC

            Because Jesus Himself consistently referred to it as such. I think we can trust the Creator and Redeemer God-Man to be reliable, no?

          • StereoMan

            Too bad. They are still, by definition, Christians. And you branched from them no matter how much you want to say you didn’t. For that reason alone you should be showing a bit of respect.

          • StereoMan

            I’d love to know how YOU did.

          • CNthruPC

            Lisa, no reason to waste your time on that volume he quoted: the interesting thing is that except for one woman (who happened to be from a Reformed background), the people in that book weren’t rooted and grounded in the Scriptures. Even if one knew NOTHING about the false doctrines of the RC (they aren’t wrong on EVERYthing, but on enough points), one could recognize that they’re not who they claim to be (a) by the fact that they did not handle the pedophile scandal rightly and (b) by the fact that they wallow in wealth (“they” here meaning the hierarchy, not the average lay person, obviously). Jesus and the apostles were DIRT POOR. And they had ZERO earthly glory, in contrast to the Roman church which wallows in it.

          • Lisa

            Thank you but I wasn’t going to read the book anyway. I really don’t want to read about people falling away from the faith.
            I think it’s more serious then a peophile scandal and riches. The Catholic Church is currently leading a billion plus souls into the lake of fire. A billion plus people! Who will all defend their church and its practice till they die and calling everything they do as right. That right there makes it incredibly evil and I see nothing good in that so called church. Now they want to say they are Christian and lead even more people astray…..

          • CNthruPC

            Oh, absolutely: the 2 things I mentioned are “the tip of the iceberg.” I only meant that even if someone is not as rooted in the Truth as you are, or as committed, just those 2 features of the RCC would make it patently obvious that they’re not who they claim to be.

          • Lisa

            O how I wish that were true. People don’t seem to see the obvious anymore. But then God said He would send a strong deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Do you think that “a billion plus souls” are going to the Lake of Fire by virtue of them being Catholic Christians?

          • Lisa

            By virtue of them not being Christians. Christians won’t be thrown into the lake of fire.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            But Catholics can be Christians, right?

          • Lisa

            It is not possible.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Interesting. What do you think about the Middle Eastern Christians who have been persecuted and slaughtered as martyrs? Are they martyrs for Christ like the martyrs of old?

          • Lisa

            Wait-do you mean together be a catholic Christian or do you mean can they start out catholic and then become Christian?
            If the first then no it is not possible if the second-yes that is possible.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            The notion that Catholics cannot be Christians under any circumstance unless they become fundamentalists or Evangelicals is a very prejudicial and bigoted view.

          • Lisa

            Not really, you are talking about two different gospels. One is right and the other is totally and completely wrong and that one will get people thrown into the lake of fire.

            What do you suppose Jesus means when He talks about the narrow and wide gates?

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Typical binary thinking at play here…

          • Lisa

            I’ll ask again. What do you think Jesus means when He talks about the narrow and wide gates?

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            I can tell you what I think it does NOT mean. It does not mean that fundamentalists should peer into their crystal balls to find a pretext to consign millions of people to Hell because they hate the Catholic Church.

          • Lisa

            No tell me what you think it means or I will not answer any more of your questions.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Why is what I said not good enough?

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            What makes you think that Lisa is a Reformed Protestant?

          • CNthruPC

            I swear you don’t know how to read: where did I say Lisa was a “Reformed Protestant”? My pt. in mentioning that there was one Reformed Protestant is that presumably, coming from that background, she would have been quite well exposed to the Scriptures, which would make her conversion a suprising phenomenon.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            No, it is just that I pick up on people’s assumptions rather quickly.

          • CNthruPC

            You are good at presumption, then. Your lens is tainted by all the “fundies” you’ve hated along the way, so then, when you encounter someone ELSE who doesn’t agree with your particular view, you immediately lump them in with those god-awful fundies. Bad habit. Unprofitable for debate.

          • Carol Richardson

            Reading/studying the bible without the Holy Spirit is trying to read a book in darkness. Jesus said that you must be born again to understand the word of God. Without the Holy Spirit the bible is a closed book no mattee how intelligent you are. But if you have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit you will see how Catholic doctrine contradicts the scriptures.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Does the Holy Spirit deliver the absolutely true interpretation to you personally every time you read the Bible?

          • CNthruPC

            “I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. But
            the anointing that you received from Him abides in you, and you have no
            need that anyone should teach you. But as His anointing teaches you
            about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you,
            abide in Him.”

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            So the Holy Spirit does, then?

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Madam, you certainly presume to know more about me than I do about myself. I did confess to God that I was a sinner and in need of a Savior. I did place my trust in Jesus’ death on a cross that I might be set free from the power of sin. I prayed and I read my Bible, thoroughly. I did Receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. However, I did not stop seeking the Truth. It was God the Holy Spirit that led me to the Catholic Church. And no matter how wrong you think that to be, I assure you I am in good company with many other believers who have trod the same path.

            I know nothing about you but I would not have the gall to tell you that you are on a wrong path. Catholics don’t attack other Christians’ beliefs. And, yes, we do consider you to be fellow Christians.

          • CNthruPC

            Referring to non-Catholic Christians as “stray brethren” doesn’t exactly not smack of elitism. Nor has Trent been rescinded. So please spare us the cant about considering us to be “fellow Christians.”

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            What part of Trent is being enforced? Also, it is very strange that you would poo-poo the attempts of individual Catholics to recognize orthodox non-Catholic Christians as brethren.

          • CNthruPC

            Check with your magisterium: Trent is infallible, immutable DOGMA (not doctrine, which is subject to reinterpretation).

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            My Magisterium? I am not Roman Catholic.

          • CNthruPC

            Ahhhh, well that’s even more revelatory, then: I’ve intensively studied RCism (and I attended 2 RC highschools and an RC college—but no, I was not and have never had any inclination to be an RC). You need to check up on their Catechism and their other writings to be up to speed about what they teach. Also check out the writings of ex-priest Richard Bennett: he has a TON of fascinating material.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            What is revelatory about it? I have read the Catechism and have not been led to adopt ignorant anti-Catholicism.

          • CNthruPC

            It explains some of your questions/comments, which indicate that you do NOT understand RCism.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            How? You merely saying that something is so and slapping on labels does not make it true in reality.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            In other words “shut up.” Am I correct?

          • CNthruPC

            ??? Where do I say anything even approaching that? You have a contrarian imagination. (Or is it that way down underneath, you recognize that you have no other choice but to “shut up” bec. this point is undebatable?)

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            ” So please spare us the cant about considering us to be “fellow Christians.”
            “Spare us your cant..” means “don’t speak to us about…” It is an offhanded way of saying “shut up.”

          • CNthruPC

            “Fellow Christians” would not be termed “stray brethren” (the implication being that we are like the Prodigal Son). I did not mean to impugn your own personal feelings; it was my ire at the hypocrisy of her Highness “Mother” Church. Sorry if I offended you.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            If I was saved as a Protestant, then I must have known Jesus. Did I therefore forget Him when I became Catholic? My faith in Jesus Christ is every bit as strong now as it was then. Who made you a judge over me?

          • Lisa

            Yes it sounds like you traded the truth for a lie. Am I judge over you? I don’t believe I told you that. Jesus tells us to be alert. Why? So we aren’t deceived. Why would He need to warn us about deception if there wasn’t any? Truth is there is a lot of deception in the church and you really have to be alert and watching to not fall away from the faith. As a Protestant did you never learn that?

          • StereoMan

            How do you know you were not deceived when you elected to follow evangelical Christianity? There are over 40 thousand denominations, what makes you think you magically chose the right one?

          • Lisa

            How do you know that I’m part of any denomination?

          • StereoMan

            Because “non-denominational” sounds nice, but it’s a denomination whether it wants to be or not. If it has an interpretation of Christianity, it is a denomination. And often, non-denom churches are just fundamentalists.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            It’s also the fastest growing “denomination.” There’s a bit of irony for you.

          • Lisa

            Haha I’m not non denominational either.

          • StereoMan

            Oh. Guess you’re not a Christian then.

          • Lisa

            Wrong again-keep trying

          • StereoMan

            LOL. Established definitions for things don’t mean much to you, I see. Here’s how it works – in the beginning was Catholic and Orthodox. Then came the Protestant Reformation, from which came Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists and many others. So if you are calling yourself a Christian, you are either Catholic (or Orthodox) or you are Some form of Protestant. You don’t get to change those guidelines.

          • Lisa

            Well gay used to mean lively and happy and now it just means homosexual-so ya established definitions do change.

            No-here is how it works:
            In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
            I am a Christian and not born out of any religion just through the grace of God and by His Word!

          • Paul Hiett

            Do you come from a Christian family?

          • Lisa

            Nope!

          • Paul Hiett

            So you just randomly locked onto Christianity, eh?

          • Lisa

            Does that not fit your agenda Paul? No one can come to salvation without being raised in a Christian home and be taught all their lives? There would be no hope for anyone if that were a prerequisite. And there is hope for everyone because God sent His Son to the whole world not just to Christian families. On the flip side-just because you are born to Christian parents doesn’t mean you will choose to believe on Jesus and be saved for yourself.

          • Paul Hiett

            Id’ say it’s about 95%. The funny thing is, when presented with this fact, it seems more and more people suddenly don’t come from Christian families and just randomly picked the most predominant religion in the country. How odd, eh?

          • Lisa

            That is odd because I thought I read the other day that Chritianity is on the decline.

          • Paul Hiett

            It is, Lisa. That doesn’t mean that Christianity isn’t the predominant religion in this country though.

          • Lisa

            I highly doubt it is the predominate religion in the U.S.-that is one narrow road and not many find it. There are many however who claim to be Christian’s and aren’t really because they don’t know that a Christian is a sinner saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Such a narrow, narrow road.

          • Paul Hiett

            Did you really just say that you doubt Christianity is the predominant religion in the US?

          • Lisa

            Enter through the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

          • Paul Hiett

            I don’t know what that has to do with Christianity being the predominant religion in the US.

            What religion do you think most people are in the US?

          • Lisa

            I know you don’t know Paul.

          • Paul Hiett

            So what does that have to do with Christianity being the predominant religion in the US?

          • StereoMan

            So you just make up the rules as you go. I see.

          • CNthruPC

            Errm, no: in the beginning was plain ole generic Christian (Acts 11:26 & 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16). And all Christians are Catholic in the sense of the universal faith of the Apostles; the Romanists usurped that term for themselves, but that’s why, to distinguish them from true (historic) Catholicism, they should properly be called Papists or Romanists.

          • StereoMan

            They ARE called Papists and Romanists in a derogatory way by people who don’t like them. The earliest ESTABLISHED Christians were Catholics and Orthodox. The rest happened just as I said it did – this is History 101.

          • CNthruPC

            So you just ignore the Word itself. Uh huh, classic: your Catholic indoctrination has stuck well to your bones. I predict that sometime not too far down the line, you’ll return to your religious roots. Whatever is the cause of your agnosticism, it doesn’t sit well with you way down deep in your bones.

          • StereoMan

            This has nothing to do with me following the word. This has to do you with you thinking you’re following it better or more honestly or more correctly than your fellow Christians.

          • CNthruPC

            Look, the Scriptures I cited (did you even read them?) make it clear that the early Christ-followers were called Christians, not “Catholic” or anything else. What can you say about that? It has nothing to do with whether I think I’m “following it better or more honestly than other religionists (I’m sure there’re plenty of Catholics who are more devout in the formalistic sense than I am, and I do not impugn the sincerity of anybody’s belief—after all, I am not god or divine that I would be able to read people’s hearts or minds); it has everything to do with whether statements made here (or by various religious groups who are under debate) are true or not, consistent with His Word or not.

            If someone can not hack debate, then they would do well to stay away from debating boards. Debate is all about ideas and rigorous exposition and defense of them; it’s not about snively whining about feelings getting hurt. Debate is about dealing with TOPICS at hand.

            And I’m curious: are you female? Reason I ask is bec. your approach to these issues here perfectly matches hundreds of females I’ve encountered over the years. If you can’t hack the rigors of a tennis match of ideas, it might be better for you to just sit out on the bleachers and watch from the sidelines.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            That arrogantly chauvinistic bit at the end there is priceless! I am sure you won over some female fundies in this thread with that one.

          • CNthruPC

            It’s not chauvinistic: it’s the truth, based on my experience. Women more often than men take things personally. They are incapable of the objectivity that adheres by nature in most men. It’s a function of testo vs. estro.

            And women who are NOT that way? They will understand exactly what I’m saying, and will understand that I am not condemning women in general, but only those who can’t hold their own at a debate board.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Well, if the female fundies have decided to play the “enemy of my enemies is my friend” game with you, of course they will offer their blanket validation.

          • CNthruPC

            I don’t consider you an “enemy,” but your comment speaks volumes about your OWN mentality.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            What do they say about my mentality?

          • CNthruPC

            That you consider anybody disagreeing with you or with RCCism an “enemy.”

            Your questions continue to reveal either (a) utter inability to read/think/reason or else (b) captiousness.

            None of all of this has anything to do with the actual TOPIC of this article we’re supposedly commenting on.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            I am not a Roman Catholic. Also, what we have been discussing is related to the topic.

          • StereoMan

            Fine, so the Christians of the Bible were “Christians”. More accurately, they were jews. Shortly after that we had Catholics and Orthodox Christians. But the fundamentalists here are claiming a direct line to the Christians of the Bible and saying they didn’t branch from Catholicism, and that is false. They did. Everyone did (who isn’t Orthodox).

            No I am not female. And I’m “hacking” things here just fine, thanks.

          • CNthruPC

            Who cares what some fundamentalists “here” (I have yet to see any such quotes at this article’s comments) think about a direct line to the N.T. Christians? We’re supposedly trying to discuss the article about what the POPE said.

          • StereoMan

            Yeah, and? What did he say that was so terrible? That Christians should be bound by the things that unite them and not be divided by the other less important stuff? And for that people here are calling the man a “pig”.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Where does the Word say that it is permissible to call Christians “Papists” and “Romanists?”

          • CNthruPC

            I’m going to humor you, bec. as usual, you are using infantile tactics that do not further the discussion. The word does not address that issue, since the Roman Catholic church was not yet in existence at the time that the Apostles wrote their letters.

            However, from Jesus, we have the example of His calling the Pharisees (the Jewish equivalent of the present day RCC) things like “snakes,” “vipers,” “whitewashed tombs,” “sons of Satan” and “foxes.” Then, further on, we find Paul saying that the Cretans are all liars.

            The Bible is not at all averse to calling a spade a spade. God does not mince words.

            I refer to Romanists and Papists to distinguish them from the universal concept of “Catholic” which originally meant all believers in Christ across the globe. The RC’s hijacked the term for themselves.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            CNthruPC: “I’m going to humor you, bec. as usual, you are using infantile tactics that do not further the discussion. The word does not address that issue, since the Roman Catholic church was not yet in existence at the time that the Apostles wrote their letters.”

            Funny how any “tactics” that are used to criticize your position are automatically considered to be “infantile.” That is a very common tactic in its own right.

            Now, as for the issue of Scripture not mentioning it, then that means you are making a particular interpretation based upon anti-Catholic presuppositions. People are free to reject that interpretation without rejecting the Bible itself.

          • CNthruPC

            What interpretation? I was referring to Roman Catholics as “Romanists” and “Papists” and you asked the ridiculous question as to whether Scripture tells me to do that. Either you do not know the Scriptures worth beans…or you’re being “cute” with that question. That is why I referred to it as a tactic.

            If you want to get down to business and actuall FOCUS on the article at hand and the issues it raises, then have at it. I don’t care if someone disagrees with actual positions; it’s querulousness about all manner of non-issues (and inability to read) that drives me up the wall.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Nah, I think it is your spiritual hubris and pretensions to intellectual superiority that drive you up the wall. Have you fallen back down to the ground yet?

          • CNthruPC

            Yes, Most Holy Father, I grovel at your most saintly feet, dreadful heretic that I am. Have mercy on me, a poor wretched wormy sinner.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            CNthruPC: “However, from Jesus, we have the example of His calling the Pharisees (the Jewish equivalent of the present day RCC)”

            Nonsense. This is the tactic of playing the Pharisee Card against whatever positions you don’t like. It is an ad hominem of association or genetic fallacy, take your pick.

          • CNthruPC

            {sigh} You really can’t read…or else you can’t debate…or both. Go back and SEE what I was responding to, there.

            Honestly, I’m starting to see why the RCC claims that the average Catholic can’t read the Bible w/o the magisterium spoonfeeding them.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            So now anyone that disagrees with you “cannot read?” I guess it is a rather stinging insult to refer to those who question your assumptions as illiterate women.

          • CNthruPC

            I was referring to several of your comments where you obviously can not read.

            As for the “illiterate” women, nowhere do I say that (again: you can’t read). I do say that many women can not REASON logically and dispassionately, instead getting all whiny about “you just hate us/me” yada yada.

            The sign of a mature debater is focusing on ISSUES, not on our poor widda feelingth.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Thanks be to you, O Debate Master, for deigning to shed some of of your magnificent rays of internet enlightenment and unapproachable intellectual superiority upon me, a lowly mortal and novice.

          • CNthruPC

            No, I am not playing any “Pharisee card against whatever positions I don’t like.” The fact is that the Pharisees were people who had an entire system of man-made sublaws which were supposed to keep people from sinning against the Big10C, and the Pharisees considered themselves the sacred keepers of God’s truth.

            But actually, my point in mentioning the names Jesus called the Pharisees was to illustrate that even Jesus called people names (since someone was bellyaching about my using the words “Romanist” and “Papist). Oh, wait, and YOU yourself asked the puerile question of whether Scripture tells me to call RCs that.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            “Puerile” — your arrogance and patronizing really know no bounds. “Romanist” and “Papist” are buzzword insults that internet Neocalvinists use because they think it will grow their beard longer like Charles Spurgeon.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            CNthruPC: “The Bible is not at all averse to calling a spade a spade. God does not mince words.”

            And fundamentalists are not aversed to co-opting biblical language to use as a weapon of denigration. To subordinate the Bible to rhetoric is an abuse of it.

          • CNthruPC

            Partly right: fundamentalists are not “aversed,” they are usually very well versed in the Word. 😉

            BTW, I’m not a “fundie,” just for the record. Like I’ve said now several times, don’t lump everybody who’s not RC (or whatever YOU happen to be) in with the “fundies.”

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            What are you then? “Neither Protestant nor Catholic just Bible Christian” is not a valid answer.

          • CNthruPC

            Oh? So you are the ultimate arbiter of what a valid answer is as to what type of Christian a person is? ROTFL x 1000.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            No, it is just that I have seen what people try to do with such deliberately obtuse terminology. Is that what you were going to say?

          • CNthruPC

            Terminology can not be obtuse; only a person. Now, perhaps you meant “obscure.”

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            The “I am neither Protestant nor Catholic, just a Bible Christian” canard is one that fundies use so that they can build a wall to hide behind and snipe at all the denominations and churches that they hate.

          • StereoMan

            They seem to think they exist around all the existing rules and foundations that everyone else measures these things by.

          • CNthruPC

            In the beginning was plain ole generic Christian (Acts 11:26 & 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16). Now, if you’re a Romanist/Papist, you’re the one who’s obviously “sniping” at “fundies” because of your rancor that they don’t goosestep to your false Christianity. Those of us who use careful discernment in choosing where we’ll worship (notice I did NOT say “where we’ll be dotted line members”) don’t necessarily HATE all the other denominations: when I choose a Rolla over a Ford, or a GE appliance over a Sears, it’s not that I “hate” the Ford or the Sears. When I choose to attend college X instead of college Y, it doesn’t mean I “hate” college Y. It’s a modern fallacy that if you disagree with a position (or a set of teachings/practices) it’s automatically equated with “hate.”

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            I did not necessarily say that you think in such naïve binary categories, although now my curiosity is piqued. Also, I very much doubt that most fundies or faithful Catholics would suffer to have their belief reduced down to choosing one car over another.

            That being said, a great deal of the rhetoric of fundie polemicists on the internet is based more upon anti-Catholic bigotry than it is informed disagreement. I do not see how one can overlook this unless it is deliberate or they are a partisan of some sort.

          • CNthruPC

            Take each commenter on their OWN comments, not for what you perceive as their group affiliation.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Likewise.

          • CNthruPC

            ROTFL! I have been doing that thruout; go back and reread my comments. I address ISSUES…rigorously. It would be most gratifying to see the same sort of behavior from the other side of the tennis court. 😉

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Maybe Luther, Calvin and Zwingli traded the truth for a lie.

          • Lisa

            Why should I care what they did?

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Because, like it or not, your theology can be traced back directly to one or more of these men. If you say it can’t, then you are a Catholic.

          • Lisa

            Nice try but nope!

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Because then you will see what kind of aberrations you have been inculcated with by taking what your pastors and personal interpretations say for granted.

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Reading your exchanges, I have to ask: What are you smoking?

            It must be REALLY good sh!t.

          • Melancholy Man

            I believe she was making a generalization about the Catholic Church not about you personally. My research indicates that only 22% of Catholics profess to a born-again salvation experience. Evangelicals have the highest at 78 percent. Being that an institutions leadership is usually a reflection of its majority I believe it is a fair assumption that the Church hierarchy, are not born-again either. If an institutions leadership and 4 out of 5 of its members are not something, that institution considered as a whole is not something. In this case not born-again. Therefore I believe it is not an inaccurate generalization to say what Lisa said. In (John 3:3-8) Jesus tells us in no uncertain terms that we must be “born-again.” I feel there is no disputing this by scripture, the testimonies of tens of millions of Christians of all denominations from around the entire world and from my own personal experience. And as a nondenominational or unaffiliated Christian I would wonder why one would chose to become a Catholic unless one was born into it. But that is none of my business.

          • Melancholy Man

            In regards to my first comment below. I just had a thought I never had before nor have I ever heard anyone address it. Perhaps some people can indeed become “born-again” in such a gentle or gradual way that they themselves do not perceive it as an “experience.” Therefore they do not answer yes when asked if they had a born-again experience. Depends on how the question is phrased too I suppose. But whatever the wordage, saved, born-again or whatever, it all has the same meaning. The receiving of God’s Holy Spirit. That doesn’t mean one has to be filled with Spirit as to speak in tongues etc. Even one mustard seed worth of the Holy Spirit should indicate a “sealing” unto salvation. But I believe people who have had the express-lane bolt-of-lightning type of born-again experience just naturally assume that’s the only kind there is. Jesus makes no mention as to the length nor intensity of the born-again experience nor does he even reference it as an “experience.” I never really considered that before. I believe most evangelicals have the instantaneous-experience. That’s probably why they are evangelicals in the first place. It may it also explain why they think and do not think as they do.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Thank you for your careful and considerate reply. I believe you are correct in saying that the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in us in many different ways. I have had some life changing experiences but that was not where my enduring faith comes from. It grows over many years of fellowship with Christ and His church.

          • Carol Richardson

            You. Must have known Jesus????? Just because you were protestant doesn’t automatically guarantee that you knew/know Jesus. Its at some point in your life where you bend that inward knee and realize and confess to God that you are a sinner in need of a savior. And confess faith in Jesus’ sacrafice of the cross for forgiveness of your sin and ask Him to come into your heart as savior and lord

          • CNthruPC

            Not a judge over you (God’s in charge of that), but we can most certainly—we MUST!—judge (in the sense of assaying/evaluating) teachings, especially those coming from folks who call themselves “Christ on earth.”

        • Carol Richardson

          I do. Many know of Him but unfortunately many just know of him. Big difference. Many think they are Christian but they just know of him. They have never confessed faith in him and asked him to forgive them of their sin and come into their hearts as savior and lord.

          • StereoMan

            I’d sure like to know why you think that applies to you but not to Catholics.

    • StereoMan

      Catholics don’t worship Mary. I wish I had a nickel for every fundamentalist who’s spouted that tired old lie. They ask Mary to pray for THEM. That’s Catholicism 101, so I’m surprised you don’t know it.

      And the pope is just the church’s leader. Just like your church has an earthly leader. Don’t tell me it doesn’t.

      • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

        Let’s turn that argument around. Why do Protestants disrespect Mary? The angel said that henceforth all generations would call her “blessed.” Why don’t Protestants call her “blessed?” Mary was the Virgin prophesied in Isaiah 7:14. Why do they not call her the Blessed Virgin? If her name is Mary, she should rightly be called the Blessed Virgin Mary. That’s not merely Catholic, that’s scriptural.

        • Carol Richardson

          Jesus said that the time was coming when God the Father would be looking for those who would worship Him in Spirit and in truth. Praying to any other enity is worship.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            I have been a Catholic for over fifteen years now and nobody has ever asked me to worship or pray TO Mary. We pray WITH Mary just as we would pray with any other believer.

          • StereoMan

            I grew up Catholic. No one worships Mary. They simply respect her. Why do you not respect the mother of your savior?

          • CNthruPC

            Whoa, there, StereoMan: just because we non-Catholics don’t put Mary on a pedestal and pray to her doesn’t mean we don’t respect her. If the Bible says she was blessed, we agree with that. Big difference between agreeing with that and making her into the “Co-Mediatrix.”

          • StereoMan

            Why don’t you find me a single Catholic that asks Mary for salvation, and then we can talk further?

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Interesting. Can you elaborate on how you think that Mary relates to the Incarnation of Christ?

          • CNthruPC

            Um, what I “think” is of no consequence, only what the Word clearly tells us, but as you perfectly well know from the Scripture, Mary is the one who gave birth to the Savior, Jesus Christ. Yet by her own admission, she’s still in need of a Savior, meaning she’s not sinless, and she’s not on a par or semi-par with her Son.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Okay, but that does not answer my question. You are reproducing talking points against what you think Catholics believe.

          • CNthruPC

            ? I *DID* answer your question: look at my preceding answer. Like I said before, my impression is that you do not read well: you are so busy supposedly ferreting out people’s “assumptions” that you read INTO their comments things that are not there, yet you do not read what really *IS* there. Bad case of eisogesis, my friend. 😉

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            No, you did not answer my question about the relationship and how it informs your understanding of the Incarnation. All you did was say that “Mary is the one who gave birth to the Savior.”

          • CNthruPC

            So what did you WANT to hear from me. I answered the question for you, but obviously, you didn’t get the answer you WANTED to hear. Honestly, it’s just tedious dealing with the likes of you.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Um, to answer the question is what I wanted you to do. LOL!

          • CNthruPC

            That is my answer to your question, yes. If that does not satisfy you, there’s nothing I can do about it.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Well, like most fundamentalists and Evangelicals, you have a very paltry understanding of the Incarnation of the Lord. Pity.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            You’re disparaging a term you don’t fully understand. It was in Mary’s “yes” to God that she became an essential part of God’s redemptive plan. That is what we mean by that term. She is most definitely NOT a mediator between God and man and nowhere in the catechism does it say that. If you can back up your allegations with citations from the catechism I’ll go back to being a Protestant.

          • CNthruPC

            In ancient times:

            St. Antonius (circa 250 – 350): “All graces that have ever been bestowed on men, all came through Mary.”
            St. Bernard (1090 – 1153): “[Mary is called] the gate of heaven, because no one can enter that blessed kingdom
            without passing through her.”

            St. Bonaventure (1221 – 1274): “As the moon, which stands between the sun and the earth, transmits to this
            latter whatever it receives from the former, so does Mary pour out
            upon us who are in this world the heavenly graces that she
            receives from the divine sun of justice.”

            1750: Alphonsus Mary de Liguori, canonized as Saint Alphonsus
            in 1839, wrote a book “The Glories of Mary.” It continues to be published today, under various church imprimaturs.
            Various chapters in the book are titled: “Mary our Help,” “Mary our Mediatress,” “Mary our Advocate,” etc.

            1935: Pope Pius XI gave the title co-redemptrix to Mary during a radio broadcast.

            1964-NOV-21: The Chapter 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution of
            the Church, passed by the Vatican Council II, and “Solemnly promulgated by Holiness Pope Paul VI” states, in part:

            “Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man’s salvation through faith and obedience. For as St. Irenaeus
            says, she being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching …’death through Eve, life through Mary.’ This union of the mother with the son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death.”

            “Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to
            bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into their blessed home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the church under the titles of *Advocate, Helper, Benefactress and Mediatrix.*” [My emphasis. Recall from your Protestant days that Jesus ALONE is our Advocate and Mediator, and the Holy Spirit alone our Helper.]

            “…the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. ”

            1985: Pope John Paul II recognized Mary as co-redemptrix” during a speech in Guayaquil, Ecuador. He said, in part, “Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity…In fact Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.”

            1987-MAR-25: In his encyclical Redemptoris Mater, Pope John Paul II “referred to Mary as ‘Mediatrix’ three times, and as ‘Advocate’ twice.”

            1997-APR-9: During an audience, Pope John-Paul II referred to the role of Mary during the crucifixion of Jesus: “Mary
            … co-operated during the event itself and in the role of mother; thus her co-operation embraces the whole of Christ’s saving work. She alone was associated in this way with the redemptive sacrifice that merited the salvation of all mankind. In union with Christ and in submission to him, she collaborated in obtaining the grace of
            salvation for all humanity…In God’s plan, Mary is the ‘woman’
            (cf. John 2:4; John 19:26), the New Eve, united to the New Adam in
            restoring humanity to its original dignity. Her cooperation with her
            Son continues for all time in the universal motherhood which she
            enjoys in the order of grace. Trusting in this maternal cooperation,
            let us turn to Mary, imploring her help in all our needs.” [Scripture mentions ONLY Christ as the one to turn to in all your needs. Book of HEBREWS.]

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            PS the answer to this and many other questions about what we believe may be found at Catholic Answers. I won’t give out the web address because it will get you booted off the site.

          • CNthruPC

            I’m well acquainted with the site, OBOB: that’s where I did most of my studying of RCism.

          • Leon Grzesiak

            Why does the Catholic rosary have 10 prayers to Mary, which is unscriptural, and only one Lord’s prayer which is scriptural ??…..Please explain ???

          • StereoMan

            Why do you people keep expecting the Catholics, who take authority from 3 places (scripture, the magisterium and sacred tradition) to be Bible-only? Why do you keep asking for scriptural backup? Those are your rules. Don’t expect established Christians to play by them.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Yes, it is called moving and adjusting the goal posts.

          • StereoMan

            I always roll my eyes when I get any question that starts with “Where in the Bible dies it day…” You instantly know you’re dealing with a fundie.

          • CNthruPC

            So Jesus must’ve been a “fundie,” then, bec. He consistently used Scripture in His debates.

          • StereoMan

            He could hardly do otherwise since there was no existing Christian church (and therefore no church teachings) – which there wouldn’t have been, since Peter built it for him.

          • CNthruPC

            Let’s for a moment assume the RCC position that Mother Church functions as Jesus here on earth: in that case, while Jesus Himself lived and taught here in the flesh, there was no need for any church, since it simply substitutes for Him while He remains absent physically from the planet.

            So the fact remains, Jesus in arguing with the Pharisees, referred to Scripture, over and over (mind you, He could’ve just simply declared things pointblank, since He was after all the 2nd Person of the Godhead). This illustrates how central the Scripture is for “all things pertaining to life and godliness.”

          • StereoMan

            And where does that leave the magisterium? Where did the church teachings come from?

          • CNthruPC

            Go back up a couple of comments: according to your logic there, Jesus would’ve had to be a “fundie,” since He consistently referred to Scripture. He didn’t need any magisterium: He **IS** the Ultimate Magisterium, seeing how the Bible calls Him the exegesis of God. The Christian refers to the Scriptures for truth. (Inasmuch as the magisterium concurs with the Word, the magisterium is believable; where it diverges from the Word, it is not).

          • CNthruPC

            “Why do you keep asking for scriptural backup?” Because that’s what Jesus used, over and over, when He discussed things with people. He even point blank accused the Pharisees of being flat wrong, imagine that! “You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God.”

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            It’s not an election. And there is so much as one prayer TO Mary in the rosary. We repeat the words the angel said at the annunciation (totally scriptural) and follow that with a petition that she pray FOR us. Have you never asked anyone to pray FOR you? If you did, were you thereby praying TO them? No, of course not. To really explain this we would first have to get into the Communion of the Saints but space does not permit.

          • CNthruPC

            There’s a HUGE difference between asking someone here on earth to pray for us vs. asking someone who’s dead (and pleeeze, don’t give me the “she’s not dead!” bit: here on earth, she’s dead). We’re not to try to contact/communicate with the dead at all.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            I’ve decided to limit my participation on this site to my efforts to encourage Catholics and Evangelicals to join in brotherly action to defeat the enemy. Theological debates interfere with my goal of finding common cause. So I will say to you and to every other defender of the Protestant faith, nolo contendere.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            I admire your idealism when it comes to this lofty goal of unity. However, in looking at it from the standpoint of a realist, I would add that it takes both sides giving some ground. You have been willing to do that.

            The types of fundamentalist radicals and apologists who comment here, though, have no inclination towards considering this on a basic level. What do I mean? Well, one should examine what they think about “ecumenism” and even an ecumenical movement that does not require all of Christianity to capitulate into some nefarious One World Religion. That is precisely how they define “ecumenical,” and it makes it even worse when they associate it with Catholicism. They have taken a neutral—if not positive in many cases—term and concept and turned it into an absolute pejorative four-letter word.

          • tom bordeau

            I don’t think you answered his questions? Why don’t protestants call her ‘blessed’? The bible does state ‘ ALL generations shall call ‘ME’ blessed. Do you really think doing so is ‘worship’??

      • Carol Richardson

        You need to ask the Holy Spirit to help you understand the Word of God. God so honors his son that Jesus is called the incarnate Word of God. If you will do that you will see that Catholicism is nothing more than religion (glorification of the works of man). True Christianity is a personal relationship with God the Father. Through Jesus Christ the Son. God the Father sacraficed His only Son so that we could come boldly into his presence. Trying to go to God through any other person denies the gospel of Jesus Christ..

        • StereoMan

          I find it hilarious that you think what you have is NOT religion.

          Of course it’s religion. Watch how fast it becomes religion when they try to take away your tax-free status.

      • Carol Richardson

        You need to prayerfully read the whole bible starting with the gospel of john

        • StereoMan

          Why?
          I’ve read the entire Bible many times. It is the reason I am no longer Christian. Does John tell us not to be Catholics or something?

      • The Last Trump

        Please provide the Bible reference directing Christians to ask ANY dead person to pray for them, let alone Mary.
        Thanks. We’ll wait.

        (miss me, bigot? 🙂

        • StereoMan

          Why are you asking for a Bible reference from the Catholics, who are NOT a Bible-only faith? That’s YOUR game, and you are expecting them to play it. That’s ridiculous. Why did you throw away church teachings and sacred traditions? Who told you you could do that….Jack Chick? Kent Hovind?

          • The Last Trump

            Soooo……no scripture verse to support your illogical and unfounded position?
            Thank you.
            Game, set and match. Again.
            What would you like to lose at next, bigot?
            (Don’t forget to submit this post now, little troll! Or just like when MisterPine gets embarrassed and humiliated, I guess some posts don’t make the cut, huh? Hee, hee! Not surprising. 🙂

          • StereoMan

            Trump: Please cite scripture for…
            Me: Catholics don’t do Bible-only, they have other sources, therefore no scripture is required.
            Trump: (dazed silence). I win! Yay!

            Look at you go! Leaving everyone in awe of your reading comprehension skills!

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            They try to rope people into a fencing match of prooftexts wherein they can refuse to acknowledge that they interpret Scripture, declare “nuh uh, it doesn’t say that” when prooftexts are offered, and then proceed to re-interpret those prooftexts according to their presuppositions. It is a ridiculous circular exercise.

          • StereoMan

            I also like how they insist Catholics aren’t Christians, but when you cite something terrible the Christians did like the Crusades, they conveniently turn into Catholics!

          • CNthruPC

            “Why did you throw away church teachings and sacred traditions?” Odd question from an agnostic who “will never return to [Catholicism].”

            Bible-Christians take Jesus at His word when He condemns the traditions of men and exalts the Scriptures (which He does repeatedly). Or, as Isaiah already puts it, “To the Word and to the Testimony: if they speak not accordingly, there isn’t the slightest glimmer of light in them.”

          • StereoMan

            It isn’t an odd question at all. I threw it all away because I don’t believe any of it comes from God, I think it’s all man made. But you and others like you agree that the church teachings and traditions are man made, so you’re fine to toss those out, but you keep the Bible which is just as man made as the rest of it. So to me it’s hypocrisy.

  • weasel1886

    It warms my heart to see Christians hating each other. The comment here are evil

  • StereoMan

    “Which seeks to unite Christians and Catholics”

    Interesting concept since Catholics ARE Christians.

    • Paul Hiett

      Welcome back, Stereo…

      I think the existence of over 42,000 denominations is evidence they really all have no clue what constitutes being a Christian.

      • StereoMan

        Thanks. Nice to be here. Not that I ever left.
        Wish there was a way to exchange contact info with some of you.

        • Paul Hiett

          Hah! 😉

          • StereoMan

            Just another instalment of Christians Behaving Badly, I see…the hate on this forum you could cut with a knife.

          • The Last Trump

            I hear you!
            They’re called “trolls”. They come here A LOT!
            You know, from intolerant and hateful sites like FSTDT dot com…
            🙂

          • StereoMan

            I get it…you’ve been utterly humiliated, and your wacky posts are being celebrated now. That must hurt.

          • The Last Trump

            I love you guys. I really do.
            You take comments that someone has already posted publically, and then, you take those posts and you submit them to another site where they are…..wait for it…..POSTED PUBLICALLY!?
            Oh the shame and embarrassment of it all! The humiliation!
            Hee, hee! The fact that a bunch of twelve year old maladjusted nerds who hate freedom and despise Christianity gather together at a hate site to point fingers and giggle like school girls IS HUMILIATING TO OTHERS to these folks!? Poor unfortunate souls.
            They just really don’t get it! 🙂

          • StereoMan

            It’s just that really off the wall observations made by people who have been screwed up by their fundie-ness are VERY entertaining to some of us, and so they created a website to celebrate these rather unbelievable posts. Embrace your fame!

      • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

        It’s pretty much gotten to the point where every Protestant church is a denomination unto itself. At the rate Evangelicals are going there will have two be two “non-denominations” for every church pretty soon.

  • Dave L

    A Time Line of Papal Horrors;

    Taken from A Bloody Past (from amazingdiscoveries website)

    1096 Roman Catholic crusaders slaughter half the Jews in Worms, Germany.

    1098 Roman Catholic crusaders slaughter almost all of the inhabitants of the city of Antioch.

    1099 Roman Catholic crusaders massacre 70,000 Muslims and Jews when they capture Jerusalem.

    1208 – 1226 The Albigensian Crusades in southern France. Roman Catholic crusaders slaughter approximately 20,000 citizens of Beziers, France, on July 22, 1209. Albigensian Christians and Catholics were slain. By the time the Roman Catholic armies finished their “crusade,” almost the entire population of southern France (mostly Albigensian Christians) has been exterminated. During the six centuries of papal Inquisition that began in the 13th century, up to 50 million people were killed. Read what J. A. Wylie’s The History of Protestantism has to say about the Crusades against the Abigenses

    1236 Roman Catholic crusaders slaughter Jews in the Anjou and Poitou regions of western France. The Catholic crusaders trample to death under their horses 3000 Jews who refuse baptism.

    1243 Roman Catholic mobs burn alive all the Jews in Berlitz, Germany (near Berlin).

    1298 Roman Catholic mobs burn alive all Jews in Rottingen, Germany.

    April 26, 1349 Roman Catholic mobs burn to death all Jews in Germersheim, Germany.

    1348 – 1349 The Jews are blamed for the bubonic plague. Author Dave Hunt tells us, “Accused of causing the ‘Black Death’ Jews were rounded up [by Roman Catholic mobs] and hanged, burned, and drowned by the thousands in revenge.”

    1389 Roman Catholic mobs murder 3000 Jews in Prague when they refuse to be baptized.

    1481 – 1483 At the direction of the Roman Catholic inquisitors, authorities burn at the stake at least 2000 people during the first two years of the Spanish Inquisition.

    1540 – 1570 Roman Catholic armies butcher at least 900,000 Waldensian Christians of all ages during this 30-year period.

    1550 – 1560 Roman Catholic troops slaughter at least 250,000 Dutch Protestants via torture, hanging, and burning during this ten-year period.

    1553 – 1558 Roman Catholic Queen Mary I of England (aka “bloody Mary”) attempts to bring England back under the yoke of papal tyranny. During her reign, approximately 200 men and woman are burned to death at the sake. Her victims include bishops, scholars, and other Protestant leaders.

    1572 St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. French Roman Catholic soldiers begin killing Protestants in Paris on the night of August 24, 1572. The soldiers kill at least 10,000 Protestants during the first three days. At least 8000 more Protestants are killed as the slaughter spreads to the countryside.

    1618 – 1648 The Thirty Years’ War. This bloody, religious war is planned, instigated, and orchestrated by the Roman Catholic Jesuit order and its agents in an attempt to exterminate all the Protestants in Europe. Many countries in central Europe lose up to half their population.

    1641 – 1649 Eight years of Jesuit-instigated Roman Catholic butchery of Irish Protestants claims the lives of at least 100,000 Protestants.

    1685 French Roman Catholic soldiers slaughter approximately 500,000 French Protestant Huguenots on the orders of Roman Catholic King Louis 14 of France.

    Circa 1938 – 1945 Catholic dictators such as Adolf Hitler and Monsignor Tiso slaughter approximately six million Jews in Europe prior to and during World War 2.

    1941 – 1945 The Roman Catholic Ustashi in the fascist state of Croatia butcher up to one million Serbian Orthodox Christians. Roman Catholic killer squads are often led by Franciscan priests, monks, and friars. This genocide is choreographed by two Jesuit prelates: Aloysius Stepinac and Ivan Saric.

    For those who say Hitler wasn’t a Catholic;

    Nazi General Gerhard Engel also wrote that Hitler was a believer, having written in his diary that in 1941 that Hitler had stated: “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”

    John Toland, Adolf Hitler. New York: Anchor Publishing, 1992, p. 507.

    Michael, Robert (2008). A history of Catholic antisemitism. New York: Macmillan, p. 111

    • mourningair

      Don’t forget 2000 years of pedophilia! Founded on Vaticanus- the witches/soothsayers hill. The first people to run to him were the Charismatics… when the mother harlot called the daughters came home. Good facts… the entanglement between Catholicism and Nazi’s cannot be understated.

      • StereoMan
        • mourningair

          Lol, sorry not one of them either…

          • StereoMan

            The point is you can’t just point at Catholics for having pedophiles. All denominations have them.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            There’s more to discuss here than space permits but let me make an honest Catholic response. For a long time, entering the priesthood was a good cover for closeted homosexuals, so a gay subculture became entrenched in the hierarchy which reached its worst manifestation by the 1980s. The book “Good Bye Good Men” by Michael Rose documents this throrughly. (He’s a Catholic BTW). St. John Paull II attempted to root this out and appointed Cardinal Ratzinger (later pope Benedict XVI) to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in order to accomplish this.

            His subsequent sudden and unprecedented resignation from the papacy was due in large part to the political treachery and obstinacy of the Curia. Pope Francis will probably not be as aggressive as was Benedict so the liberals in the Church (and the secular media) are all over this.

            What’s important is that all denominations have their share of sexual deviants but it is the hierarchical nature of the Catholic Church that focuses it makes this more newsworthy. If a local Baptist minister is caught with his pants down it doesn’t make it to CNN because it doesn’t tarnish the whole denomination.

            And pedophilia is technically not what the Church covered up. It was homosexual HEBEPHILIA, so get your terms correct. A good summary of rampant Evangelical sex abuse can be found at huffpo 2013/10/01. Evangelicals are more likely to engage in heterosexual PEDOPHILIA and adulterous affairs with congregants. He who is without sin.. etc.

            My overall point is this: the sin of people who hold a particular doctrine does not negate the truth of that doctrine. The Gospel is not negated because Jimmy Swaggart preached it.

          • StereoMan

            My point was that pedophilia is made out by fundamentalists to be a “Catholic problem” and statistically it’s a problem everywhere.

          • CNthruPC

            It’s not pedophilia first and foremost, it’s the way it was mishandled for decades. And furthermore, saying it’s a problem everywhere is irrelevant: RCC claims to be THE ONLY TRUE church and THE voice of god on earth, so they don’t have the luxury of committing that sort of sin, and especially not of covering it up and shuffling the perpetrators from parish to parish.

          • sam

            You make a valid point , imo. What the press drums up as ‘pedophilia’ has always registered as homosexuality to me. This is a plague within the church which the church does not effectively deal with very well. It is obvious why ‘they’ target the catholic church. The church is the oldest , the largest , the richest and has the pedigree to show that it is the church Christ founded. How the press deals with deviant behavior in the secular world is bizarre , to say the least. They embrace it with open arms, as if the forcing this deviancy upon us will change our minds.
            But this subject is to be dealt with on another forum.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Thanks for the thoughtful comments. The vultures of the popular media would be licking their chops about Evangelical sex scandals if they ever popped up above the radar. But Evangelicals are so decentralized that all they ever get is the occasional Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Baker. The Catholic Church is, as you observe, “oldest , the largest , the richest” but it is also the most plundering due to its rigid top-down control. A slow-moving easy target that disillusioned Catholics love to see ridiculed. Their schadenfreude is palpable if a bishop even breaks wind let alone covers up a scandal.

      • Evangelina Vigilantee

        Right, and there is another book out called “Nazi Persecution of the Churches” in which hitler claims to be a Catholic. In some sections he admits he is against all of Christianity (any denomination) and has the intention of undoing it. His quotes, not mine. You gotta read it and see. It’s by Conway. Also the Catholic church supported the nazi’s and never excommunicated hitler, so they accepted him. Only a few priests protested the holocaust but the vatican and the catholic church as a whole supported it all; nazis, hitler, holocaust…
        There was a group of resisters from the Protestant side but most of that side was also ‘coerced’ by the state and didn’t resist. It is a choice we all have which we will give an account for one day.

    • StereoMan

      “Amazing discoveries” LOL

      • Dave L

        Any of the dates and atrocities are searchable regardless of the site affiliation. Also search for “Estimates Of The Number Killed By The Papacy In The Middle Ages And Later” by David A. Plaisted

        • StereoMan

          So what? The church was a ruling body at that time, which is why we don’t mix church and state these days. And guess what? Since this was pre-Reformation, the only people you can blame for the atrocities were the CHRISTIANS!

          • Dave L

            Actually, it continued after the Reformation which ended in 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia. We see Catholics murdering well into 1685 when French Roman Catholic soldiers slaughter approximately 500,000 French Protestant Huguenots on the orders of Roman Catholic King Louis 14 of France.

            Are you blaming Christians for being murdered?

          • StereoMan

            Going to conveniently ignore the others who murdered too?

          • Dave L

            There were some Lutherans and Reformed who also murdered Christians. So they stand condemned as well.

          • StereoMan

            Cut to the present day, where we have a host of fundamentalist pastors such as Steven Anderson who are calling for the execution of homosexuals.

          • Lark62

            When he was runnung for Congress, Jim Bob Duggar called for the death penalty for incest. Oops

          • Paul Hiett

            Welcome to the politics of history, where every side believed their version of “god” to be with them and against the enemy, regardless of whom the enemy worshiped.

            Many, many rulers slaughtered people they feared might throw them over. We also see murder by Christians everywhere throughout history. A small, small example of that are the Salem Witch trials.

            Another example? Native American genocide.

          • Carol Richardson

            Christians in name only.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            How convenient.

          • Jim Deferio

            The religions of atheism and evolutionism have resulted in hundreds of millions dying. The few thousands killed by those claiming to be Christians is minuscule in comparison.

            See these scholarly works:
            1) Encyclopedia of Wars” by Alan Axelrod & Charles Phillips
            2) “Death By Government” by RJ Rummel
            3) “The Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900” by RJ Rummel

          • Carol Richardson

            False christians. Christians in name only.

          • StereoMan

            So you are a textbook, Catholic-hating fundie. Nice Christian attitude. So warm, welcoming and inclusive.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Fundies constantly play the Who Killed Who Game and then smugly resort to the No True Scotsman fallacy when they are shown to be ignorant of history.

    • FoJC_Forever

      Interesting that Scripture tells us we were first called Christians in Antioch.

      • Carol Richardson

        Yes the term Christan was used in a derogatory sense – too much like Christ. Really a compliment.

      • Dave L

        Yes, and we were “Sermon on the Mount” Disciples at that. A big difference from what passes for Christianity in history as well as today.

    • Magister_militum_praesentalis

      Well, that is rather one-sided, now, isn’t it.

    • ThePhoenixRises

      Very thorough TOTALLY WRONG, but thorough.

      Here’s a helpful hunt: Crusaders only fought in the CRUSADES — which were in the Middle East, not GERMANY AND FRANCE, so your whole effort is wasted on a lie.

  • tyler

    The angry fighting on here is way too funny!
    Guess what? you’re all wrong. Jesus isn’t magical, humans wrote the bible, and nobody knows what happens after you die.

    • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

      Except the ones who die………………….

    • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

      I really am embarrased by the rancor on this site. Christians ought to comport themselves better than this.

      As for your comments:

      1. Jesus isn’t magical and never claimed to be. But you can’t disprove the miraculous from within a rational system that starts with the premise that eveything has a material cause.
      2. Humans wrote the Bible. But that says nothing about the possibility of revealed truth.
      3. Nobody knows what happens when you die in the sense that no one has come back to report on it. By analogy, we have not yet seen a traveler from the future but that doesn’t definitively prove that time travel is impossible.

      You may be interested in reading “Why Science Does Not Disprove God” by Amir Aczel in which he takes on Dawkins, Hitchens and the other celebrity atheists on their own turf, and does so with philosophical rigor.

      There’s nothing wrong with being a skeptic if the alternative is naivete, But there is something wrong with it when its opposite is open-mindedness.

      • Melancholy Man

        Obviously this is what is in the hearts of many Christians? We might as well get it out of systems here on this earth because I am reasonably sure His Majesty will never allow this “upstairs.” Besides aren’t we Christians suppose to be little children? Sorry…..that’s a joke and you are very serious.

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          I pray I’m not always that serious. We could all stand to be a little more child-like and a lot less childish, including myself. Thanks.

  • Joseph Wagner

    the Word of God is the only true gospel and Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to the Father….pray for discernment my brothers and sisters judgment is coming and there are many false prophets, false teachings, doctrines of demons all around us repent and turn to Jesus and meditate on the Word day and night…..

  • Peter Leh

    I tell you i like this pope.

    you can tell you have a good pope when the Protestant and the leaders in the RCC hate him.

    i wish i could be catholic. but i wont betray the victims 🙂

    • StereoMan

      Best thing about this pope is he has no patience for fundies.

      • Peter Leh

        i think you are right.

  • tyler

    You would think that God would have told one person to write down a first-hand account of anything Jesus ever did.
    Oops! He didn’t.
    That’s one of the many deal-breakers for me.

  • Houdini50

    as I read most of these comments here is see there is very little truth in most of you. I actually pity your souls.

    • Paul Hiett

      What would you say to a Muslim who told you you had no truth in you?

    • Melancholy Man

      No…..there is lots of truth here…..its just that nobody can agree on it.

  • Bobby Mae

    People fighting over the same Jesus… And people wonder why religion is on the decline in America lol

  • Evangelina Vigilantee

    Jesus came to divide by the truth of His gospel:

    “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.” Matthew 10; 34-36
    The truth of the bible divides. Those who uphold it are persecuted for Jesus’ namesake.
    If we are not divided by Truth, we will be united in error. Let those who desire unity cross over to our side by becoming born again. We will meet you at the foot of the cross.

  • Evangelina Vigilantee

    Tossing doctrine out the window for the cause of unity is the devil’s job; to usher in the one world religion of Revelation under antichrist. But that’s something that people who study the Word of God would know… and those who don’t comply with the end times one world religion but rather choose to remain faithful to Jesus become the next round of martyrs, loyal to His Truth unto death. Revelation 12; 11. Be ready, it’s getting closer.

    • Bobby Mae

      Great username!! Lol

  • Frank

    The devil of the Antichrist in you Francis is the divide.

  • Carol Richardson

    Disciples of Jesus or disciples of Mary?

    • StereoMan

      Jesus of course, why?

  • Bobby Mae

    Evangelicals are without a doubt the most self-righteous, backstabbing, passive aggressive “Christians” on the planet.

    • Melancholy Man

      Gee, and I was under the impression we evangelicals were viewed as just plain stupid?

  • Carol Richardson

    CanCan two walk together except they be agreed. Evangicals believe salvation by faith in Jesus’ finished work of the cross. Catholics believe salvation by works of man.

    • Bobby Mae

      Not true.

  • Carol Richardson

    The bible is not the basis for the Catholic faith. That’s the difference between Protesants and Catholics. Cathlics are not taught to believe in the bible and that is why much of the catholic church’s doctrine contradicts scripture.

    • Magister_militum_praesentalis

      Nonsense.

    • ThePhoenixRises

      Source? Hislop? Calvin? Wesley? Luther? Who?

    • Magister_militum_praesentalis

      So you claim to be a Protestant?

      • StereoMan

        Some of the people here are so fundie they refuse to call themselves Protestants, even.

        • Magister_militum_praesentalis

          Yep, I have seen then all over the place. Check out my follow tab. There is a solid group of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians who are committed to exposing fundie nonsense, among other things.

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Interesting thing: Carol’s account was created March 4. Other than this spate today, she posted once a month ago and three times 2 months ago and four times three months ago.

            Wonder who owns THIS sock puppet.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Do you think that Carol is really the nice little old lady her avatar would have us think that she is?

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Short answer? No. Not even when I first saw it.

          • StereoMan

            I must be doing something wrong, I went to your follow tab – do you mean there is a group, or just individuals?

            I defend Catholics constantly against fundamentalist arrogance even though I consider myself agnostic.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            There are just other individuals in the followers listing. They are Dr. Thomas, WelderChick, ThePhoenixRises, and others.

    • StereoMan

      Total crap.

    • CNthruPC

      Oh, it’s a bit more subtle than that, Carol: they only believe what the Church teaches about the Bible. If you quote them a Scripture verse that contradicts their doctrines, they will tell you, “We have to follow what the Magisterium says.” Once you buy into RCism, you are BOUND by the dogma that claims only Mother Church can properly interpret Scripture. You hand over your brain and your soul to a gabble of gurus (which of course stands in direct contradiction to what Jesus says, “Call no man father,” i.e. call nobody your Ultimate Arbiter of spiritual things. Only Christ is our Ultimate Exegete).

      • Magister_militum_praesentalis

        Oh, please, there are many fundamentalists and Evangelicals who are just as beholden to the interpretive traditions of their respective denominations or favorite rockstar pastors. They create their own self-appointed and self-justified magisteria.

        • CNthruPC

          True: for the ardent Calvinist, it’s Chauvin; for the Lutheran, the fiery German Reformer, etc.; all implicit popes. The big difference is: none of those denominations or teachers make the blasphemous claim of being CHRIST ON EARTH.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Where is it decreed that the Pope is “Christ on Earth?”

          • CNthruPC

            The RCC claims that it is “Christ on earth.” Not Christ’s ambassador, mind you, but “Christ on earth.” And of course, the pope is claimed to be infallible, yet if you look into the history of the popes, you will see they contradicted each other quite a bit.

            I have no beef with individual Catholics (I was exposed to lots of great RC’s when I attended 3 different RC educational institutions—and no, I have never been RC, no worries; no inclination that way either): it is the system and the hierarchy that I strenuously object to.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Please cite the exact language where it is decreed that it is “Christ on Earth.” Also, I know all about the issue of infallibility, and it is not universal in the sense that whatever the Pope believes or thinks is mandated for Catholics.

          • CNthruPC

            The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…by divine right the
            pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every
            pastor and his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the
            entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the
            infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of
            councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the
            supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by
            one, God himself on earth.” (Christopher Marcellus addressing Pope Julius II during the Fifth
            Lateran Council which began in 1512)

            Yet the Bible says *Jesus* is the head of the entire church, the infallible ruler, the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, Supreme Judge of heaven and earth, judge of all, being judged by no one, and God Himself on earth (during His 33 years in this earthly flesh).

  • FoJC_Forever

    Catholicism has never been Christianity. To ignore theology is to ignore the Bible. Those who practice vain traditions are just like those who claimed to know God, but did not accept His Word made flesh, Jesus (the) Christ. Catholics reject specific Words spoken by Jesus, but claim to be His Church. Like any cult, they hide the poison while people partake of their tainted and false doctrines.

    If the Devil wasn’t convincing in his depiction of fake Christianity, then people wouldn’t be fooled and we wouldn’t have been warned about the false ministers claiming to bring us Righteousness. God will not let Satan take us out of His hand.

    People can argue and debate Scripture until they are put into the grave, but it’s not going to make any difference. Those who don’t have the Holy Spirit are not Christ’s. Those who are not “known” by Jesus, even though they practice what they claim is Christianity, even doing great and marvelous works in Jesus name, will not be welcomed into His Kingdom when God remakes the Universe in Righteousness.

    • Magister_militum_praesentalis

      This is a bunch of propaganda that is designed denigrate Catholics and elevate your own interpretation of the Bible as the one delivered once and for all by the Spirit.

    • StereoMan

      Total garbage, which could only have been spouted by an uneducated fundamentalist.

      • The Last Trump

        Well, when it comes to total garbage, a guy from FSTDT dot com ought to know! Listen to this man, folks. He’s an expert in this field! 🙂

        • StereoMan

          When you REGULARLY make statements that betray a lack of knowledge of everything from the Bible and Christianity right through to mental health and evolution, you can expect to be a bit of an anti-celebrity, can’t you?

  • bowie1

    The intercession of the saints and/or Mary may be one error that keeps us apart. My brother in law converted when he married a Catholic girl – twice. (His first wife passed away.)

  • Magister_militum_praesentalis

    Don’t you just love the arrogant headline with “Pope” specifically in quotation marks.

    • StereoMan

      Also love the they they can’t call him Pope Francis, he’s “the Roman Catholic pontiff known as Francis.’

    • StereoMan

      They do the same thing when they talk about gay “marriage”.

    • Bobby Mae

      Yes, this is a very unbiased magazine

    • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

      These guys remove comments critical of their site while rabid anti-Catholic vitriol spews forth unimpeded. I just had a comment deep-sixed by the tolerant and loving moderator.

    • WelderChick

      What I find telling is the article leaves no room for doubt that these types of fundees prefer to hate catholics rather than set aside differences and fight the evil that hates us both.

      • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

        Sad but true. The war on Christians is being waged on both Evangelicals and Catholics. The world ignores the liberal mainline denominations because they drink the Kool-Aid.

        • WelderChick

          The devil has conquered them, they aren’t a threat anymore only those who still oppose his agenda.

  • Melancholy Man

    All I know is that when I converse (argue) with atheists and agnostics on other websites I always get hammered with the same three arguments that I can not dispute:

    1. There is no objective empirical scientifically verifiable evidence to support my beliefs.
    2. Ancient historical documentation does not exist or has already been discredited.
    3. The multitudes of sins of the Catholic Church throughout it’s history up to today.

    • ThePhoenixRises

      This smells of a STRAW MAN post to me. Say, aren’t you Mark Robn?

  • Chrissy Vee

    The pope also claims that Allah and Jehovah are the same God and is an advocate for Chrislam. He is trying to win weak Christians as well as turn people on true evangelicals with a smile on his face, fooling the masses. Talk about a wolf in sheep’s clothing. No thank you. He’s not fooling me. Praise be to Jesus!

    • Bobby Mae

      Liar

      • Chrissy Vee

        Haha. You guys are so easy. Sorry, not going to play ball with you.

        • Bobby Mae

          Bye trick. For an evangelical your avatar looks a bit immodest. Does your godly husband approve?

          • Chrissy Vee

            ;O~ yaaaaawn.

          • The Last Trump

            Grrr! Arrrrgh! Fundies!! Grrrr!

          • StereoMan

            Hee, hee! Hee, hee!

          • The Last Trump

            Har, har, ho! 🙂

    • The Last Trump

      You know you have a great “Pope” when homosexuals, Darwinists AND atheists all think he’s amazing!

      Oh and, great to see you back again! 😉
      It’s still as terrible as ever around here but playing “School a Troll” can be fun!
      Remember to ignore them more often than not. Drives the little attention starved, argument craving loons batty!

      • Chrissy Vee

        Thanks Trump! 🙂 ♥
        Yes, I see they still have no clue what is happening around them because they are so busy scanning for these articles, hanging on our every word, waiting to pounce. Quite sad really.
        Good to still see you around too! Nice to have the support. 😀

        • CNthruPC

          “Waiting to pounce” sums it up. They don’t seem to have a life at all. It’d be like me going over to Catholic Answers Forums and constantly sniping at the RC’s there (difference being, here, the Protestant admins allow the RCs to get away with their Torquemada obnoxiousness, whereas over at that RC site, they shoot Protestants down [ = ban them] at the slightest sign of saying ANYthing the admin doesn’t want to hear).

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Which I will never do on my blog. The only blocking i will ever do will be to enforce civility (no ad hominem arguments allowed) and sniping (deriding someone else’s post without addressing n a substantive way. And then only after repeated warnings. I know I’m inviting a lot people to my blog, but I can’t stand the shrillness here and I don’t know anywhere else Catholics can engage with Evangelicals in a profitable way.

          • jessica22

            Since when did this become a “Protestants Answers” forum?
            (FYI… If you’re a Christian, you deserve the exact same credit as Torquemada
            for his actions. At that time, all Christians were called Catholic…)

          • CNthruPC

            “The exact same credit” as Torquemada? LOL! How? I’ve not sent anybody to torture, nor do I advocate the torture of anyone with whom I disagree (whether spiritually or politically). You have a knack for exaggeration and jumping to conclusions. You need to learn how to truly debate (you wouldn’t by any chance be MMP’s daughter…or wife? {snort}).

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            You are still using the Torquemada punchline? Yes, I do wonder what it is you are snorting.

          • ThePhoenixRises

            No, she’s my elderly aunt.

          • CNthruPC

            Hmmn, so Jessica and TPR are the same person…interesting…

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Hey, if you believe that, I’ve got some oceanfront property just outside Tucson for sale — cheap!
            (Cash only.)

      • StereoMan

        You are one of the main reasons it’s terrible around here Trump. Bigotry, hate and idiocy in equal measure. Which is what has made you famous.

        • Paul Hiett

          HEE HEE!
          TROLL is what you are and TROLL is what you shall remain!
          HEE HEE!

          • StereoMan

            Hee, hee!
            What a LOON!
            Hee, hee!

        • The Last Trump

          Aww, shucks!
          Twern’t nothin’.

          🙂

        • http://www.facebook.com/david.cousins.14 David Cousins

          Accusing people of “bigotry” & “hate” for disagreeing with Catholicism, gay marriage, etc., speaks VOLUMES of your own ARROGANT worldview of intolerance for the expression of diverse views in the public arena.

          • StereoMan

            Standing up to bigotry and hate isn’t bigotry and hate.

    • StereoMan

      He doesn’t need to win souls, sweetheart, that’s YOUR department. It must just eat you alive that there are over a billion Catholics worldwide, eh? And how many fundies?

      • Chrissy Vee

        Aww 🙂 Thank you for your interest in me and my feelings, but I don’t dig bantering with fools. Have a great day.

        • StereoMan

          I see, you just stopped in to spread some random hate and intolerance to Catholics and now you’re on you merry way. Well bye!

          • Chrissy Vee

            The truth hurts, I know.

          • StereoMan

            Hate and intolerance hurt more, fortunately I don’t have a dog in this fight.

          • Chrissy Vee

            Wow. Hate and Intolerance, hm? Only one of us is jumping up and down, stomping their feet, pointing fingers and spewing out intolerance.
            BTW that would be you.

          • StereoMan

            Who are you trying to convince, you or me? Which one of us is hating on homosexuals? BTW that would be you.

          • Chrissy Vee

            Really? And when was this?
            Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. ~Abraham Lincoln
            Seriously..shhhhh.

          • StereoMan

            Are you actually serious?

            “Thank you Lord…Texas! The way gays are winning victories, and the way the LGBT agenda is being bulldozed down our throats everywhere, leads me to believe the homosexual population is MUCH greater than 3%. I for one would like to stand behind a movement against the LGBTs for harrasssing Christian businesses.”

            Stop attacking homosexuals Chrissy and they will not find it necessary to fight back.

          • Chrissy Vee

            OK so I am upset that gays are bullying Christians and winning unjust victories against us… But again, where does it say I hate homosexuals? Try again.
            BTW hypocrisy is one of your major attributes here. You may want to examine yourself.

          • StereoMan

            Gays don’t bully Christians. It’s the other way around. Christians bully gay people. Do you see gay people telling Christians that they can’t get married?

          • Chrissy Vee

            Never saw Christians bullying gays. Never. But I have seen gays of the LGBT community bully Christians, especially business owners The despicable actions of the LGBT community against Christians is what I stand against.
            Saying gay marriage is wrong is not bullying. You really need to get your definitions and facts straight.

          • StereoMan

            Ever ask yourself why the LGBT people are angry at the Christians? Do you know what religious persecution is? Do you know why Christians should be allowed to discriminate based solely on their faith?

          • Chrissy Vee

            No, they scream it from rooftops. Yes, it is happening all around the world and is in the beginning stages here. Yes, it’s called practicing what we believe so as not to be forced to sin against our own conscience.

          • StereoMan

            Religious persecution OF homosexuals is what I’m talking about, apparently some of you think your faith allows you to hate and discriminate against people based on their attractions. Are they getting in YOUR face about YOUR weddings? Can’t you “practice what you believe” without being obnoxious to other people and attacking their basic human rights?

          • Chrissy Vee

            Move on.

          • StereoMan

            Stop hating and oppressing, then people will move on.

          • Chrissy Vee

            OK StereoMan, if I start doing that, I will stop. Boing!

          • Chrissy Vee

            I am guessing you are very young. If so, I apologize for even getting into it with you, as your understanding is not fully developed.

          • StereoMan

            I am guessing you are very naive to be so uninformed about the subject you’re currently involved in. Do I need to post the list of U.S. pastors calling for the execution of homosexuals? Look up Steven Anderson from Phoenix for starters. And then come back and tell me all about how the gay people are picking on you.

          • Chrissy Vee

            Again, nice try, but this is now getting ridiculous. There is obviously not going to get anywhere and I am done. All will be revealed.

          • StereoMan

            If it’s ridiculous, it’s because you don’t see how your “Christian” actions cause other people real pain.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Do you ever actually address the arguments that people make? Condescension and patronization appear to be the two defense mechanisms you commonly use.

          • Chrissy Vee

            Depending on what they are saying to me, I reply as I will. Most people are in attack mode and can not be reasoned with. They dish it out but can’t seem to take it. This reply you are commenting on is very much the truth of what I believe I was dealing with. I am sorry if you don’t approve.

    • Magister_militum_praesentalis

      Fundamentalists are still name-dropping “Chrislam?”

      • Chrissy Vee

        You all want to remain in ignorant bliss… go for it. You want to worship a mortal man, your choice. The truth shall be revealed.

        • Magister_militum_praesentalis

          Where did I say that I worship a mortal man?

          • Chrissy Vee

            Sorry. Assumed you are Catholic and in your eyes the pope is holy and can do no wrong. Forgive my quick assumption to your odd response.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            No, I am not Roman Catholic.

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Where did you get the idea we Catholics consider ANY (living) Pope “holy”? That smacks of fundee claptrap.

          • Chrissy Vee

            Oh good grief! Really, I am already bored with you guys. Move on.

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Ah. I see. IT IS FUNDEE CLAPTRAP!

            Go ahead and bail. You have been unmasked.

          • Chrissy Vee

            HahaHA!! You people are here just to start trouble and throw around the word fundamentalist… fundeee. (whatever makes you feel better about yourselves) and think you’re being rather clever. Umm… nope. Sorry.

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Umm, yep. Sorry.

            Ad for being clever, you ate WOEFULLY INADEQUATE there.

          • Chrissy Vee

            Face it, you love me…you love Christians… that’s why you hang around us so much. Aww, so cute. 😀

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Reverse psychology…

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            I find it sooo interesting that you hold on to what some non-Catholic told you about what Catholics believe of the pope, but when a Catholic tells you how the pope is considered in the Catholic faith he is just here “to start trouble and throw around the word fundamentalist.”

          • Chrissy Vee

            Yep.

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            And you think you’re being reasonable?

          • Chrissy Vee

            Considering your original response has no merit of truth… not sure where you got your info from anything either one of us wrote) I am not sure what you’re looking for.

          • jessica22

            He’s simply looking for the truth…

          • Chrissy Vee

            Oh, and here you are again. Still without a clue. …sigh.

          • StereoMan

            Precisely what it is.

          • CNthruPC

            Not just the Pope (google “pope most holy father” and you’ll find a post at Catholic Answers Forums), but also Mary:

            “The culminating moment of the Jubilee of Bishops was
            the Mass concelebrated by the Pope and Bishops in St Peter’s Square on
            Sunday morning, 8 October. Tens of thousands of the faithful gathered for
            the sacred liturgy, which concluded with the Act of Entrustment to Mary
            Most Holy.” L’Osservatore Romano Weekly edition in English 11 October
            2000.htm

          • ThePhoenixRises

            I hate to have to point out the obvious BUT
            1.) “Holy (x)” is a title of respect not a statement of holiness;
            2.) Mary has been dead almost 2000 years.

            #commoncorecomphrehension

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            I wonder if they get that idea from the comparable examples in the non-Catholic world of Peter Popoff’s green hankies and Jan Crouch’s divine purple hair?

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Lol

          • jessica22

            MMP’s not Catholic but I am.
            We don’t worship a mere man; we don’t worship the Pope.

            You make a very strange assumption (you know what they say
            about people who assume?)… As a Catholic, we only believe the
            Pope speaks infallibly when he speaks “ex cathedra” on dogmatic
            issues and he’s only done that twice since the beginning of Christianity
            (both on Marion matters)

            So your fundamentalist concern is unfounded…

          • Chrissy Vee

            Hm.

          • Chrissy Vee

            You may want to reread my comment before assuming (you obviously know what they say about people who assume) that I was referring to all Catholics. Thank you for sharing in my “fundamentalist concern” though.

          • jessica22

            Ok, I’ll reread your comments.

            “You all want to remain in ignorant bliss”… “You want to worship a mortal man”…
            “In your eyes the Pope can do no wrong”… “The Pope claims that Allah and Jehovah are the same God”… “He’s fooling the masses”… Snipe, snipe, snipe…

            Chrissy, I’m not looking for an argument. I’m trying to address your ignorance. You apparently are not familiar with Catholic Doctrine… which is fine, until you start making claims about it which are TOTALLY UNFOUNDED and in grievous error…

            Btw… you say I was wrong to ASSUME you were referring at all Catholics??
            I didn’t ASSUME that; you said it. I quote “you ALL want to remain in ignorant bliss.”
            Your words, not mine…

          • Chrissy Vee

            Oh my. You have no clue what went on in this conversation as many comments were deleted. Obviously you need to know because you’re still here… the ALL referred to those who were not happy with my original comment and started name calling and attacking my character because of the TRUTH I stated. Please, get on with your life and your beliefs and don’t worry about mine.

        • StereoMan

          That is obnoxious. No Catholic worships the pope or any other human being. Do you worship Pat Robertson or Kent Hovind?

          • Chrissy Vee

            Really? Hm. I didn’t know you knew every Catholic. Interesting concept yet, you still don’t have a clue.

          • StereoMan

            If your accusation is that Catholics worship the Pope, then you’re wrong. They don’t.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Can you come up with a concrete example of a Catholic worshiping the Pope?

          • CNthruPC

            Kissing his ring, for one thing.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            How does that constitute worship?

      • StereoMan

        It’s do important to them to mock, ridicule and judge. They love that old hymn that goes, “They’ll know we are Christians by our HATE”.

        Seriously, if I was for ANY reason to return to Christianity, I’d go Catholic or Episcopalian in a heartbeat. I NEVER hear them attack the other Christian faiths.

        • CNthruPC

          Then you haven’t read the Council of Trent.

          • StereoMan

            I mean modern-day, on web forums like this one.

    • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

      You confuse Catholicism with the papacy. Popes make comments and people who think they understand Catholicism assume that it reflects Catholic doctrine. Not one thing a pope says publicly has any bearing whatsoever on our doctrine. The pope is not holier than any other Catholic. Not sure where you got that idea.

      The current pope is a Jesuit and, not surprisingly, a liberal. Personally I don’t like him, and I certainly don’t worship him. I loved John Paul II but I didn’t worship him either.

      Catholic-bashing Evangelicals share one thing – a profound ignorance of what the Church actually believes. And whenever I try to bring some light and reason to the discussion by giving the Catholic point of view all I get is infantile tantrums and name-calling. I spent many years in Evangelical churches and I am quite sure that the vitriolic nonsense that appears on this site are an embarrassment to those good people. I’ve never seen such a snotty bunch of Christians in my life. Are any of you capable of carrying on a civil conversation? I find the atheists more polite and interesting.

      • Melancholy Man

        Your comment was great! I am still laughing aloud! But yes we do confuse the papacy with the Church. We are under the impression that the Pope speaks on behalf of the Church as a whole. Indeed I just looked it up on “Catholicism for Dummies.” He is infallible on doctrines of faith and morals protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error and is the Supreme Head of the Universal Church. As far a Pope Francis is concerned he is the most sincere, compassionate and at times brutally honest Pope in my lifetime. A lot of Protestants including myself respect his open and honest expressions concerning the issues of our times. He is apparently making the first attempts to slowly bring the Catholic Church into the twenty first century. Concerning the Jesuits I thought they were the educated intellectuals of the church. Too liberal? Brains and liberalism usually go together. But the open mind is prone to having one’s brains fall out on occasion.

        And yes we evangelical types do share a profound ignorance of just about everything. We are not God’s children for our brains. If that were the case all the atheists would be Christians because they are by far the most intelligent people I have encountered. Sorry about the infantile tantrums and name calling. And you must remember that the anonymity that the internet provides lends one towards foolish behavior. I feel it too sometimes. Lets face it, I’m not talking to you face to face, I am writing to imaginary avatar icon. I am reasonably sure this is not how God intended people to interact. One of man’s constructs. Like atheists say about God. I find atheists obnoxious. They are all into science and the cosmos and I could care less. And they believe in the existence of advanced alien life forms but call me an idiot for believing in “imaginary god thingies.” But perhaps you engage with a better class of atheist than I do.

        I believe you said somewhere that God lead you to the Catholic Church. It appears it must have been for the purpose of being some sort of Ambassador to the Protestants. Because that is what you are doing on the internet and you seem pretty good at it. Howbeit a frustrating and thankless job no doubt. And try not to take the Catholic-basing too personal. As it has been my observation that evangelicals and fundamentalists do only two things well…..the spreading of the gospel and bashing. I think it goes with the territory as “defenders of the faith.” That’s how they see themselves you know. And that is also what happens when someone’s zeal outstrips their maturity. And throw in a little ignorance just for good measure. But most of them mean well believe it or not. Well what choice have we got? Like you said on another post…..Catholics and Evangelicals…..everyone else has drank the cool-aid.

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          What a wonderful response. You deserve my trust and respect. I think Evangelicals and Catholics do need to join together to protect Christ’s church from the evil arising in the world.

          One of the first baby steps I took toward Catholicism was a 1994 article in “First Things” entitled “Evangelical and Catholic Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millenium” Its authors included Charles “Chuck” Colson who came to Christ while serving time for his Watergate crimes and later started the highly successfull Prison Fellowship and Richard John Neuhaus , a priest and former Lutheran minister. My real desire is NOT to win Evangelicals to the Catholic faith, but to learn to work together in Christian love. We have much common ground and the Lord can use the synergy that arises out of the two traditions. I don’t expect that Catholics and Protestants will re-unite in my lifetime but I think we may grow closer in our common purpose.

          I feel that I have sinned by becoming too defensive about my faith and have allowed anger to stand in the way of my original intentions in following this site. Please join me on my blog bbcatholics located on blogger. If you think the goal is a worthy one I would greatly appreciate your participation.

          • Melancholy Man

            First let me say that I am not a very good writer so I often go back and tweak my posts later. You may want to re-read my original post as I tweaked the first paragraph to better express my personal feelings about the current Pope. Second, I already knew you were not trying to proselytize Evangelicals. That’s almost impossible. Third, I do not feel that you have sinned by becoming too defensive. Your faith was under attack from all sides. You did well just to refrain from lashing out or striking back as many evangelicals probably would have.

            I saw your recent appeal for Evangelicals and Catholics to work together. I thought it more discreet to respond to that here. Alas I feel your appeals will fall upon predominately deaf ears.With all due respect to you personally, were you not aware? Many of us have long been taught that the Roman Catholic Church is, “Babylon the Great, the Mother of Prostitutes, and the Abominations of the Earth” spoken of in the Book of Revelations. See (Revelations:17:1-18) and (Revelations:18:1-8). Of Special Note: “Come out of her my people so you do not partake of her sins and receive not her Judgments.” (Revelation:18:4). I studied a whole series on this subject under Jimmy Swaggart back in the late 1980’s. And indeed there were many others teaching this very same theology. And to the best of my knowledge some still do. Why do you think you get so much resistance? Did you not know this?

            I recently had some exposure to the Catholic EWTN Network and let me say I found it most unappealing indeed. Sorry to have to tell you this but if EWTN is representative of the Catholic Church as a whole I believe it will prove difficult to get Evangelicals into some sort of partnership with the Catholic Church. Personally I believe the only way Catholics and Evangelicals will ever be able to partnership in any meaningful way is for both of us to completely throw-off all the trappings of our respective denominations and approach Christ’s work as an ordinary Christian. Blue jeans, T-shirt, sneakers and a standardized New Testament. His work being that of the taking of…..HIS GOSPEL….. nothing more and nothing less…..to the four winds of the Earth.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            EWTN has about as much appeal to me as TBN. There are still legions of cradle Catholics who will never see the Church as the dynamic and exciting place I found it to be. It appeals to the lowest denominator and virtually all of its audience would be flummoxed by present-day Catholic theology.

            I was raised in precisely that anti-Catholic atmosphere and know all the relevant proof texts almost by heart. I was making these same arguments against my sister who had converted and some other friends who were much more knowledgeable about the Bible than I was (and I thought I knew it pretty well). They challenged me to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church with an open mind. I found that even when I did not agree with it, I had to admit that it was every bit as scriptural as my Evangelical theology. I subsequently read “Rome Sweet Home” and “Surprised by Truth” and began to see how baseless the Evangelical calumnies against Catholicism were. When I began attending Mass with my fiancee I came to realize just how liturgical I really was. I had wandered around looking for a church where I felt at home and never seemed to find one. As I sat in Mass I realized that I found Evangelicalism too irreverent and it was the beauty and solemnity of the Mass that I had been craving. It was all over by that point. I don’t know if I could ever translate that experience to the good and well-meaning people who hold those unfortunate views.

            I’m just becoming more aware that theological squabbles are just the enemy’s way of weakening us. That’s the Point Pope Francis is trying to make, but you see how far that got in this venue.

            I like the image of that roll-up-your-sleeves pragmatic approach. If we start out by admitting that we’re never going to be of one mind on the essentials then we can come together of one accord to to, as William F. Buckley put it, “stand athwart History and yell ‘Stop.'” There’s too much at stake now to focus our energies on divisions unresolved for centuries instead of the critical issues. It’s like two people in a burning building fighting over the best way to put out a fire instead of just putting the thing out.

            I’ve probably gone on to long here, but your responses demand more than a throw-away quip. Who knows, maybe having a sensible discussion in the midst of all this chaos might catch someone’s attention.

            Thank you for getting me to recover my focus. I hope you’re willing to follow my blog and comment there.

          • jessica22

            You make an interesting point… you said “many of us have long been taught that the RCC is the whore of Babylon… the Abomination of the earth”. You see, as a Roman Catholic, I was never taught that Protestants were evil, abominable or disingenuous.
            My grandmother is Catholic and my grandfather is Protestant. They’re both devout to their faiths, but live together happily raising a large healthy, faith-filled Christian family.

            So you were taught growing up that Christians (of a Catholic persuasion) were abominable and you didn’t question that belief? You understood Christianity started under the Catholic name until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century yet you still call them evil?

            Plz explain to me… from a Protestant’s POV… of Christ’s Great Commission,
            what makes you a Christian?????

          • Melancholy Man

            I do not now nor did I ever believe Catholics were bad people. The teaching I referred to was often taught in Evangelical circles. It is in the Book of Revelation. I am not 100% positive if it is correct. But the Book of Revelation was speaking of something. The Catholic Church does have a terrible long nasty history if you go back and research it. Atheists hate the Catholic Church more than all the other faiths because of the persecution by the Church of men of science that occurred so commonly back in those unenlightend days of the middle ages. It is also possible that the things referred to in the Book of Revelation pertain to events concerning the Roman Catholic Church that have not yet happened. It is not called Revelation for nothing. It is a book of prophecy or the foretelling of future events.

            But the Roman Catholic Church is loaded-to-the-gills with unscriptural teachings, practices and beliefs. I can’t go into all of them here. Way too many! According to the Bible we are not to call anyone Father but the God the Father in heaven. Also anyone who forbids marriage is to be, “flee from such as these.” The list is very, very, very extensive. And the Pope’s infallibility is a joke, even to many Catholics. Why do you think Luther broke away and started the Protestant Reformation 498 years ago? Nothing better to do? But I believe one can be a good Christian and a good Catholic too. As far as your Catholic EWTN is concerned I think it stinks. But I also feel that way about the vast majority of Protestant television programming as well.

            The Catholic “onebreadonebody” on here trying to get us to work together agrees with me. He rightfully compares EWTN to our TBN. It is mostly lightweight programming for baby Christians. But there is a place for that too and I am not condemning it. I found it indeed was similar to TBN but only with an even less palatable Catholic flavor to it. The Great Commission is what I consider one of the two Bedrocks of Christianity. Bedrock One: Salvation by grace through faith in Christ as the free gift of God that requires nothing but faith. Bedrock Two: Go into all the world and preach the Gospel unto every creature. And when this gospel is preached to the whole world as a witness then shall the end come…..Christ’s return to earth. I believe it was the last commandment Jesus gave to his disciples after his resurrection and just before his physical bodily ascension into heaven thus to be seen on this earth no more.

            Basically I see it as I give money to Ministries that support missionaries to travel around usually in third world countries and spread the gospel to both large and small crowds of people who have never heard it before. Also I do some witnessing myself. But as everyone in the America has had plenty of exposure to the gospel it is generally a total waste of time. Most Americans have long ago accepted or rejected it. At least that has been my own personal experience. And just in case you are a wise-guy…I did not call my earthly biological parent father, I called him dad. But anyone who believes it is wrong to call their dad…father…is taking scripture far too literally. It was pertaining to within the Church…in Protestants opinion.

          • Malibu Bob

            Protestants & Catholics are like Sunnis & Shiites. They have been slaughtering each other for hundreds of years.

          • ThePhoenixRises

            MM has just admitted he “tweaks” his posts…better keep the notification email around, so you can check it against what his post says after you have replied to it — if your response no longer makes sense to you. MM appears to be a teen posting under the direction of “Mark Robn”: A poster of many many names and accounts. (the first line of his comment below aboout him not being “…a very good writer…”)

            It may also be Mark himself posting — as the rest of the post is consistent with his previous attempts to establish another persona. he ususally fails because he will break cover and admit to( or refer to) things that.the person supposedly posting hadn’t done or couldn’t know about, but MARK did/would.

            HE once posted several times to me as “EarsToHear” supposedly a “christian” “woman” concerned about my “salvation”. That the account was brand new and had only posted to me at that point immediately raised my suspicions. subsequent posts’ phraseology and strange out-of-the-blue concern from a total stranger, and finally referring to something said to Mark (as another of his account names that Had been identified as him).

            One thing that is consistent in ALL of his personae is his obvious anti-Catholic feelings.
            .

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Thanks for the background. I tend to take people at their word but I am not naive. Even if he is misrepresenting himself (let me emphasize “if”) it’s still been beneficial to me because it compelled me to explain my beliefs on a deeper level and just possibly someone else may be benefited. One plants, another tends, still another harvests. Who knows how the Lord works. “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in
            order to bring about this present result…”

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Seen in that light, I agree.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Be careful! People will jump at the chance to take advantage of your honesty and charity in this regard.

          • CNthruPC

            “Evangelicals and Catholics do need to join together to protect Christ’s church from the evil arising in the world.”

            By calling for One Worldism? Yah, that’ll really “protect Christ’s church from the evil.”

          • jessica22

            So you have an issue with Christians uniting in a belief of One, True God??

            How about Americans agreeing America is the best place to live…
            even tho one lives in Texas and one lives in New York?

          • Malibu Bob

            Would you actually rather live in someplace like Mississippi or West Virginia then Monaco, Lake Como, Cannes, Zurich, Paris or London?

          • jessica22

            Never been to Cannes or Lake Como… but of the other choices outside of the U.S.
            I’d pick Zurich. Love it!!!
            I like to travel and visit those places… but my heart will always be home… I love
            the USA (was in Biloxi last year… it was great… what is your problem with small-town USA? I’ve never lived in a small town – job opportunities are limited – but I have friends from small towns. It would be great to be friends with the entire population!)

          • Malibu Bob

            My heart will always be home too. I’m just saying their are many places in Europe that I would rather live then most parts of America. Zurich would be one of them (I love the west district).. I think you would LOVE Lake Como, It’s beautiful!

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            With all of this talk of “One Worldism,” I am going to take a guess that he thinks ecumenism/ecumenical is always a negative and pejorative term.

          • jessica22

            LOL… When your initial construct is anti-catholic/orthodox and you haven’t
            broken away from your juvenile teachings of “Protestant Only”, I understand
            the “Fight ’em or Flee” approach!

            Certain Protestants struggle with an ecumenism mentality (however
            not my Grandfather; he’s the epitome of a fatherly Mother Theresa…)

          • jessica22

            I’m Catholic and have read several of your posts. I respect your effort to bridge various Christian faiths as my grandparents are RC and Protestant raising a happy, healthy Christian family (so yes… it can be done).

            My concern is the ease with which you throw your trust. It seems before you can advocate on someone’s behalf you need greater assurance that they’re not just a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” using you to make a point you may disagree with.

            After Melancholy Man’s charming post to you showering you with praise and accolades, you answer “what a wonderful response. You deserve my trust and respect.” So are a few flattering words all it takes for you to trust someone?

            Then here you go… “You are soooooo smart that I believe EVERYTHING you say!”… and “What an intellect! You add so much to this blog”… and “Wow! Your faith assures me of your honesty”…. despite the fact that you have absolutely NO IDEA who you’re talking to, you give them your “trust and respect”??????

            Doesn’t that kinda cheapen your “trust and respect”????? (Btw, I DO appreciate your efforts and think they make sense but here in avatar-land “trust” should be held close-to-the-vest and well-earned…)

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            That’s a very valid point and one that has been borne out by experience. In this kind of anonymous environment people can hide behind false identities and be as cunning or as obnoxious as they please with no consequences. In the case you cite, it was in fact misplaced. That’s part of the reason I have my blog and where the discourse is more honest and intellectually rigorous. I have invited some of the more thoughtful commenters there where all can express their ideas and be held responsible. If you google bbcatholics blogspot you’ll find me. I’m trying to build interest there where the “trolls” can’t hide. Please consider it.

          • jessica22

            I have read your blog and will continue… thank you for your work!
            I didn’t mean to sound so harsh… I just don’t want someone who
            appears to be honest and well-intentioned to be blindsided.

            Good luck!

          • Malibu Bob

            Jessica, did it ever occur to you that The bible is upside down, with reversed roles? It makes MUCH more sense if it’s God’ that is ‘Satan while the being known as Satan is actually ‘God’. Think about this…If ‘Satan’ is the ‘ruler of this world’ as the bible claims, why would the Ruler of this world allow a bible to exist which casts him in bad light? As the very epitome of evil? the first thing he would do is manipulate the book to cast himself as the Good Guy, and the real Good guy as the Bad Guy. It’s a no brainer. Just a thought….

          • jessica22

            You are just too smart for your britches!
            (Sadly, intelligence won’t get you into Heaven)

            The answer to your question (why would the Ruler of this world allow a bible to
            exist which casts Him in bad light?) and i think the answer is obvious; Free Will.

            God wants you to choose Him but He won’t force you to choose Him
            (and due to free will, bad things happen to good people…)

          • Malibu Bob

            I think you missed my point. 😛

          • PoorKnightofChrist

            well put…

          • jessica22

            There aren’t a lot of people’s opinion I take to heart… but yours is one of them.
            Thank you…

          • PoorKnightofChrist

            I am well and truly honored by your words of praise. Thank you

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          I will make one other comment. I don’t see liberalism and conservatism as an indicator of intelligence or learning. Both have their share of idiots. And the opposite is true as well. I can point out some very intelligent and learned conservative Catholics (Peter Kreeft, George Weigel and especially Robert George). The point being, of course, is that this a generalization invariably defined by one’s own beliefs and therefore meaningless.

          I can get into the Jesuits on the blog, but let me say that they are so consumed by their erudition that accessible Catholicism has become anathema to them. I’ve actually heard a Jesuit priest say with a straight face that liberal abortion laws serve as deterrent to abortion. So much for brains and liberalism.

          • Melancholy Man

            I see your point most clearly and you are correct. I would assume that for pure intelligence on a standardized I.Q. test both should score equally well. But as a rule-of-thumb it has been my subjective observation that liberals are more in-the-know, up-to-date and well-informed. And far more accepting of the truth. That is to say they are more open-minded as to accept unpleasant truths. Where as many conservatives seem to have a tendency to back-off from unpleasant truths they do not wish to hear. So liberals “seem” more intelligent or conservatives “seem” less intelligent. Conservatives tend to be a lot more patriotic no matter what stupid things their country or government does. Liberals on the other hand just get more cynical. Lets face it, fundamentalists are very conservative and are also somewhat ignorant. Or at least they appear that way.

            Liberals generally do not close their eyes to unpleasant truths so readily. They do close their eyes, but it takes more for them to do so. After all both are human. And again these are generalizations I am making based on my personal observations. Which I hope are not too prejudiced by my own beliefs. I like to think I came to my beliefs because of what I observed. I realize total impartiality is not humanly possible. But I try as best I can to be fair and open-minded. I too no doubt am subconsciously influenced by my heredity and environment even going back to my childhood. But again I am just making a generalization. You are “technically” correct but I feel my view better represents what actually happens in the real world. There are always exceptions. But I have never met an atheist who was not a liberal. I am sure conservative atheists do exist but apparently in very small numbers. And liberal atheists are by far the most intelligent people I have ever encountered.

            But, “The fool has said in his heart there is no good.” So I guess the most intelligent people on earth are fools in God’s sight. Also you must admit that that the intellectual atheists that are leading our world astray are almost always very liberal. The conservatives lead us not away from God but don’t “seem” to fair so well in intellectual debates with liberals and with atheists. Remember, “The children of darkness are more wise in this world’s wisdom than the children of light.” (Luke:16:8). I am not saying liberals are better than conservatives nor always right. In my opinion many liberals to push things too far. That’s what I meant when I said, an open-mind tends towards one’s brains falling out on occasion. Conservatives don’t usually have that problem because their minds generally are not open enough for anything to escape as to fall out. Again, these are generalizations made from real world observations and there are always some exceptions. I am just going by my personal observations that I “hope” are not too self-prejudiced.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Regarding open-mindedness, I love G.K. Chesterton’s quip:

            “Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”

            BTW, Chesterton is a brilliant conservative Catholic convert who is well worth investigating. Much of his writing derived from his debates with one the world’s most erudite atheists, George Bernard Shaw. “As iron shapeneth iron…etc.” Having intelligent debates with Evangelicals and atheists is mighty fine exercise in understanding my own faith, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give
            the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and
            respect.” Gentleness and respect. How did that part get missed?

            One last thing. Chesterton got the final word on Shaw. While attending Shaw’s funeral he observed, “Poor George! All dressed up and nowhere to go.”

          • Melancholy Man

            With all due respect, in my opinion it seems you may be living somewhat in the past. George Bernard Shaw died 65 years ago. Today’s atheists are far more intelligent. In his day Bertrand Russell was considered something of a genius. Today’s atheists would probably laugh at much of his simple-minded common-sense logic. Except for that dam “Teapot” those atheists keep throwing at me! We have to face facts…..today’s atheists are far wiser and far more knowledgeable than those of any previous generation. And the Church, liberal or conservative, has not even begun to play catch-up.

            As far as gentleness and respect goes…..apparently you are unaware of what I, and others, have been through. Especially on NPR. Nice or not they tare you to shreds and deliberately make you feel the buffoon.They are up on all the latest cosmic sciences and they have a great knowledge of church history. Especially the bad parts! Even the knowledgeable Christian is at a severe disadvantage at best. And being nice to a New Age Spiritualist only gets you an invitation to their next online seance or at best a recommendation for one of Wayne Dyer’s or Eckhart Tolle’s latest books.

            I have completely give on on NPR. For one thing I can’t even begin to hold my own there. And on the rare occasion when I come up with something modestly intelligent or slightly profound the moderators immediately pull my comment. NPR is a den-of-iniquity. Your job is to be a Catholic Ambassador to the Protestants. You have to be nice. Unfortunately for me and my internet witnessing-buddies apparently our job is to take a beating as to heap fiery-coals upon the heads of the vilest of unbelievers for their day of judgement. Our called profession is not a pleasant one as this is a war and apparently we are losing it.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            First, let me correct my misattribution. Shaw outlived Chesterton, so the quote could not have been correct. The actual account is this “At the funeral of an atheist with whom Chesterton was acquainted an an onlooker commented to him ‘All dressed up, with
            nowhere to go!’. Chesterton replied grimly, ‘I bet he wishes that were
            so.’”

            At first I assumed that you were merely a little prejudiced toward liberals but now I see that you are laboring under the delusion that people of faith are somehow intellectually inferior to atheists. I don’t know what passes for theology in Evangelical circles today, but the conservative Catholic writers I read are men and women of immense intellectual prowess who could more than hold their own in any debate with an ahteist. I suggest you read “Why Scince Does not Disprove God” by Amir Aczel and then tell me how intelligent atheists are.

            My goal here is to try to get Catholic and Evangelicals united to fight the enemy and to quit fighting each other. We are like two people standing in a burning building arguing about whose fire-fighting strategy is the correct one as the flames consume them both.

            I am not (or at least am no longer) interested in defending Catholicism against Fundamentalist blather. You are somewhat are correct in your assertion that we are losing the war, but we are only losing the one contrived by the media. But if Catholics and Evangelicals continue to fight each other we may very well lose in fact.

            Finally, regarding your comment that you were in the trenches fighting for your spiritual life while I was “at Mass” pretty effectively discredits anything you have to say. Catholics draw their spiritual strength as they partake of the of the Eucharist. The mass is not entertainment, not somewhere we go to hide from the fight. It is the source and center of our faith and the single most important thing we do.

            PS I follow Hermit and, while she is quite astute, I have caught her in some pretty obvious blunders. So I really am not worried about her making a fool of me. I do that well enough on my own and

          • Melancholy Man

            I am not against you. I apologize for that remark about the mass. I realize now it was inappropriate. Sorry. But I have to disagree about atheists not being more intelligent than Christians. Jesus even said so himself. As I have previously quoted scriptures numerous times. And I have seen enough debates. Also I don’t believe we are losing the war in the media alone. I have read some articles and have had some personal contacts with the Millennial Generation. They think we Christians are narrow-minded self-righteous homophobes. Many know and are friends with gay or persons of non-christian faiths. They have told me they will never accept any religion that claims to have the monopoly on the truth as Christianity claims to have.

            Also any faith they accept must be spiritually all inclusive and also accept without reservation the LGBT community as well. And any religion they accept can not be based on faith alone…it must have good logical or verifiable evidence to support whatever claims it makes. This is not merely losing the war in the media. It sounds as if we have already lost it in the hearts and minds of our young people. You do not have to defend Catholicism to me. Catholicism of itself does not bother me. I do not believe the pope is the anti-Christ or any of that other dribble you get on this forum. I’ll try not to bother you anymore as I see you have your hands full with both bbcatholics and bbevangelicals. BB does stand for baby doesn’t it?

          • CNthruPC

            “Liberals don’t close their eyes to unpleasant truths.” Firstly, they don’t believe in “truth,” and secondly, murder by abortion is very much an unpleasant truth they close their eyes to.

          • disqus_23FzLxRDKW

            It has been my subjective observation that liberals are more well informed and accepting of truth. Or open minded as to accept unpleasant truths. Where as many conservatives seem to possess a tendency to draw back from unpleasant truths they do not wish to hear. As a result liberals “seem” the more intelligent by comparison. Conservatives are generally far more patriotic no matter what foolish or outrageous thing their government has just done. Liberals on the other hand just get even more cynical, as if that were possible. And in my experience liberal atheists tend to be the most intelligent individuals I have yet encountered. Nut that is not to imply that liberals are always in the right. Indeed in my opinion liberals have a tendency to push things too far. As the open mind has tendency towards one’s brains falling out on occasion. Conservatives don’t have this problem for their minds are not open enough for anything to escape as to fall out. Nor enter therein either.

          • Melancholy Man

            I have seen many debates and discussions. It is the liberal atheists that are leading our world astray. Why are so many people following them? It is not because they are liberal nor atheist. It is because they are more intelligent. They make the better argument. Liberal atheists are by far the smartest people on this planet! That’s why the world is listening to them. We live a world that now values brains over faith. Intelligence and education is highly prized and getting the more so by the day. Remember, “The world by it’s wisdom knew not God, so it please God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” And “God has hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them unto babes.” The Bible tells us plainly that the…world…the unbelievers…the atheists…are indeed more intelligent than us Christians. And is not the world far more liberal than the Church? I see little room for debate unless you know an awful lot of conservative atheists?

          • CNthruPC

            The liberals have control over all the organs of influence. That’s how they push thru their ersatz-religion; it has nothing to do with greater intelligence (but perhaps with more cunning, yes). Every venue is their pulpit.

          • Melancholy Man

            Dear Lifelong Libertarian. I can’t stomach libertarians. For the last 35 years I have heard that same old Libertarian platform. “Government should only do for the people what the people can’t do for themselves.” Well as the “Great Recession” made clear as a sunny day…..there are and always have been tens of millions of Americans would can’t meet their own and their families needs. Fifty million Americans live in poverty and don’t have adequate employment, housing, healthcare and income. When are you libertarians going to make good on your promise to “do for” these Americans what they obviously can’t do for themselves? You just can’t admit that your political philosophy is morally and intellectually bankrupt. If Libertarians lived up to their “creed” they would make President Obama look more conservative than Ronald Reagan. Dare I name it…..could it be…..Socialism?

          • CNthruPC

            Errrm, what does this post have to do with the article about the Pope? {scratching head}

          • Melancholy Man

            Comment had nothing to do with the article. I’ve just been waiting a long time for a Libertarian to come along so I could tell them that. You were just the Libertarian who happened to come along. Nothing personal.

          • CNthruPC

            No problem, I didn’t take it personally. But should I send it around the world to all my fellow Liberts? 😉

          • disqus_23FzLxRDKW

            LIBERTARIANS
            For the last 35 years I’ve heard that same old Libertarian platform, “Government should only do for the people what the people can’t do for themselves.” Well as the Great Recession made clear as a sunny day there are (and always has been) tens of millions of Americans would can’t meet their own and their family’s needs. Fifty million Americans live below the poverty line and don;t have adequate income, employment, housing and healthcare. When are you Libertarians going to make good on your promise to “do for” these Americans what they obviously can’t do for themselves? You just can’t admit that your political philosophy is intellectually and morally bankrupt. If Libertarians lived up to their “creed” they would make President Obama look more conservative than Ronald Reagan.

          • disqus_23FzLxRDKW

            I have seen many debates and discussions. It is the liberal atheists that are leading the world astray. Why are so many people listening to them? It is because they are more intelligent. They make the better argument. We now live in a world that values brains over faith. Intelligence and education are highly prized and forever getting the more so. For as scripture tells us, “The world by it’s wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” and “God has hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them unto babes.” The scriptures tell us that the unbelievers of this world are indeed more intelligent than us Christians. And is not the world far more liberal than the Church?
            References:
            (1 Corinthians 1:21)
            (Matthew 11:25)

      • Chrissy Vee

        I understand every point. I am going to get back to you because I am going to work. I will address this when I have time so you understand where I am coming from.

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          I look forward to it. Please see my reply to Joe Dokes. The invitation to my blog applies to you as well.

      • Joe Dokes

        “Catholic-bashing Evangelicals share one thing – a profound ignorance of what the Church actually believes.”

        We know enough:

        DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH

        LUMEN GENTIUM

        SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS

        POPE PAUL VI

        ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

        “Bishops, therefore, with their helpers, the priests and deacons, have taken up the service of the community, presiding in place of God over the flock, whose shepherds they are, as teachers for doctrine, priests for sacred worship, and ministers for governing. And just as the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors, so also the apostles’ office of nurturing the Church is permanent, and is to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears [the bishops], hears Christ, AND HE WHO REJECTS [THE BISHOPS], REJECTS CHRIST AND HIM WHO SENT CHRIST.”

        * * *
        Short version: If you reject Rome, you reject Christ and God. Period.

        That is your church’s canon law which cannot be changed or rescinded. As a Catholic, you do not have the freedom of conscience to question or dispute it. That means…so much for the “they are one” and “separated brethren” lies you Catholics are fond of telling everyone else, and yourselves. Your own church law does not support it, but contradicts it.

        • Magister_militum_praesentalis

          Has it been the practice of the Catholic Church to take a hardline approach to this law? No, it has not. Even if it did, fundie apologists would accuse the Church either way of wanting to persecute non-Catholics and set up a “One World Religion.”

          • Joe Dokes

            “Has it been the practice of the Catholic Church to take a hardline approach to this law? No, it has not.”

            Are you even listening to yourself? It shows your own church’s hypocrisy. It’s the immutable LAW, as far as Catholics are concerned, from only a handful of decades back. But more to the point, it puts to the lie all of the ecumenical bleatings and hand-holdings by Rome and idiotic prots who’ve been suckered in.

            Either ecumenism or Lumen Gentium has to go. One of them is false, or both are, but they can’t both be true.

            The second your church rescinds Lumen Gentium and the various anathemas, I’ll believe otherwise. Until then, you’re either an ignorant dupe or a deliberately lying deceiver. Either way, you’re wrong.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Joe Dokes: “Are you even listening to yourself? It shows your own church’s hypocrisy.”

            Yes, I know what I have posted, and I am not Roman Catholic, either. You are simply playing the part of the polemicist trying to manufacture controversy where there is none.

            Speaking of “bleating,” no doubt you would be doing so if the Vatican were rounding up Protestants and systematically executing them, as well as if it extended the olive branch of Christian charity to non-Catholics. Your smug poo-pooing of ecumenism is illustrative of this.

          • Joe Dokes

            You’re not Catholic yet you argue in defense of Rome? How novel.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Well, if you really care why, I happen to find anti-Catholic rhetoric and bigotry much more disagreeable than the theological or ecclesiological disagreements I have with Roman Catholicism.

          • jessica22

            So you wouldn’t defend the Truth if you knew it?

          • CNthruPC

            “You are simply playing the part of the polemicist trying to manufacture controversy where there is none.” Now you are projecting….BIGTIME.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Dr. Freud, heal thyself.

          • Joe Dokes

            He’s also a liar.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            How am I a liar?

          • ThePhoenixRises

            How so? I have found him extremely knowledgeable and well-spoken. He does not resort to sniping from behind a rock — as you just did.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Joe Dokes: “Either ecumenism or Lumen Gentium has to go. One of them is false, or both are, but they can’t both be true.”

            After Lumen Gentium what would have to go next? Everyone knows that radical fundies will settle at nothing until the Catholic Church is erased from the planet or at least fulfills their eschatological wishful thinking.

          • Joe Dokes

            It’s not about me. It’s not about fundies. It’s not really even about you, personally. It’s about your church’s canon law, which precedes and overrides current ecumenical overtures, revealing them ALL to be lies. It’s that simple.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Sorry, but based upon my experience with fundies and people who level these criticisms about canon law, it is a slippery slope situation waiting to happen. Nothing the Church or the Pope can do is or would be enough.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Joe Dokes: “Until then, you’re either an ignorant dupe or a deliberately lying deceiver. Either way, you’re wrong.”

            Commence internet tantrum sequence. No, you are just ticked off that someone sees through your polemics and dares to question your assumptions.

          • CNthruPC

            Oh, I think it has: Torquemada would be a good example. And Trent has not yet been rescinded.

            The only reason the RCC isn’t still persecuting people in the West is bec. they don’t have the temporal power they even still have in other parts of the world.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Slippery Slope.

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          Thank you for taking the time to give a reasoned and civil reply. I don’t think that it rises to the level of “worship” but you are correct in declaring the doctrine of “in loco christi.” I wish that every Evangelical commenter were as thorough and concise. I would love to have you visit my blog. It is on blogger and the name is bbcatholics. Its purpose is to have just these sorts of dialogs. Although I was raised Protestant I don’t claim to be an expert on Reformation theology and can probably learn a great deal from you. I hope to see you there.

        • Oboehner

          “Short version: If you reject Rome, you reject Christ and God. Period.” Nope.

          • Joe Dokes

            “…and he who rejects [the bishops of Rome], rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ.”

          • Oboehner

            So says the catholics. Post the scripture on that.

      • CNthruPC

        Well, then, hang out elsewhere. It’s not like this is a Catholic website, where all of us “infidels” are stampeding your field and showering you with invective.

        And there are those of us who do indeed know what the RCC teaches/believes, because we have gone to their educational institutions and have studied their teachings.

        Disagreeing with actual ideas (in this case teachings) does not by a long shot constitute “bashing” or bigotry…or lack of respect. But if you look around even just at the comments here at this article, many of the pro-RCs spend a lot of time being disrespectful, sarcastic, and WAYYYYY off-topic. It gets really old.

        Vigorously present your point(s) about ISSUES, and respect would no doubt abound.

        • Magister_militum_praesentalis

          Tell us, if you have the “home-field advantage,” what does that permit you to do to the visiting team?

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          I have certainly been off-base getting down in the mud with y’all. I have a blog site where that sort of thing is not allowed but where we do discuss ways to bridge our differences without having to surrender our beliefs. I happen to the think that is possible and even necessary, but you are quite right in saying that I should hang out elsewhere. Please be assured I will never comment on one of your posts again.

          • CNthruPC

            {egg on my face} I just left an apology at your personal blog: my comment above was supposed to be to MMP. I regret having fouled up and getting you caught in the crossfire.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Not a problem. I would really enjoy having your input on my blog. If I think anyone is reading it I might actually write something once in a while. I’m not l0oking for people who agree with me, just those who are able to express their views in a Christian and civil way. God bless you.

        • jessica22

          “Disagreeing with actual ideas (in this case teachings) does not
          constitute bashing or bigotry or lack of respect.”
          REALLY???
          Then what does it constitute??

          “The only reason the RCC isn’t still persecuting people in the West is because
          they don’t have the temporal power.”
          You aren’t looking for a debate… you’re looking for a slaughter (of Catholics) and
          you can’t cope with an intelligent apologist like Magister defending Catholicism
          (btw… it is the source of Christianity today)

          Yeah, he’s not Catholic… he’s just recognizes the Truth and the core of Christianity (the belief that Christ is the Son of God, our Redeemer and Savior)… that core belief does NOT have to separate Christians… just as Pope Francis said!

          • CNthruPC

            Do you have kangaroo genes in your background? Because you’re EXCELLENT at jumping to conclusions. Like that I’m advocating the “slaughter of Catholix.” You’re projecting on me what RCism did centuries ago to Jews and Protestants. I’ve read comments by RC apologists (if I could remember where I saw it, I’d post it here) where they basically say that Mother Church should once again have the power to execute heretics. All I ask for is that never again would there be any one denomination running the state, whether directly or indirectly, especially not “Mother” Church.

            As for disagreeing with teachings, you had Jesus doing it all the time with the Pharisees, Paul doing it with the Judaizers and with the Gnostics, the O.T. Prophets doing it with the false prophets and with apostate Israel, etc. Even the Apostles did it during the first “ecumenical council,” as your denomination likes to call it. (Acts 15:2: “When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them…”) It is highly unfortunate that in this post-60’s age, where the emphasis is on nothing but poor widda hurt feelingth, good vigorous debate is equated with “bashing,” “hate speech,” and other ludicrous terms. If somebody can’t hack the rigors of debate, they should remain out on the bleachers, and wear their hard hat to boot.

            As for MMP, he hardly knows how to support any points: his forte is in sniping, griping and general harrassment. He could learn a lot from OBOB.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            CNthruPC: “As for MMP, he hardly knows how to support any points: his forte is in sniping, griping and general harrassment. He could learn a lot from OBOB.”

            When were you going to tell me this? I have supported each and every one of my points. I have also taken great care to address the specifics of your replies with quotes.

            From my observation, it has been a tactic of yours to label everything that I say with these patronizing and condescending phrases that indicate that you think you are God’s own gift to discussion and debate.

          • Joe Dokes

            God is not the author of confusion among those who are His, so the existence of two contradictory gospels is not His doing. In the context of this article, we have exactly that: one gospel requiring works AND faith for the chance at salvation (after purgatory, very likely), and another gospel requiring only faith WITHOUT works, belief in which guarantees eternal, inseparable oneness with and in Christ.

            Since these gospels contradict, either both of them are false and some other salvation message is true, OR only one of these can be of God…automatically making the other of Satan.

            Whichever option you pick, they can’t both be true; at least one of them is a lie and everyone who believes the wrong one is damned right where they stand. Hence ecumenism and “separated brethren” is completely illogical and insane; it simply can’t be true because it makes God the author of confusion by yoking together some who MUST be unbelievers with those who are believers.

          • jessica22

            So you DON’T believe Jesus Christ came as a Savior for all… both Jew and Gentile? Do you believe He came only to save the Jews?

            The term “catholic” was used to identify this Christ as the Redeemer for ALL, both Jew AND Gentile (catholic meaning universal, for all). Up until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, the term “catholic” was used to identify all those who believed Jesus was our Savior.

            I don’t identify the Reformation as a dichotomy of Christianity, altho it became one.
            Keep your eye on the prize and your focus on being a Christian… over time, all will fall in place…

          • Joe Dokes

            “So you DON’T believe Jesus Christ came as a Savior for all… both Jew and Gentile? Do you believe He came only to save the Jews?”

            No, and you couldn’t have gotten that from anything I posted. What I believe is this:

            “For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.” (Romans 11:32) … “Who [God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).

            Are you a universalist?

            “the term “catholic” was used to identify all those who believed Jesus was our Savior.”

            So? The issue here is which good news saves. Two contradictory gospels cannot both be true because God does not author confusion and does not contradict Himself. So one of these gospels is wrong and whoever believes the wrong one is damned.

          • jessica22

            The problem here is that you contend both are mutually exclusive and I think that contradicts Christ’s message. My personal beliefs will ONLY redeem me!

            As Christians, we’re called to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ’s Salvation… but we can’t do that if the door gets slammed before we open our mouths…

            (Btw… I’m not a universalist… what is a universalist?)

          • Joe Dokes

            “As Christians, we’re called to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ’s Salvation”

            Okay, so what is that good news? If a sin-convicted unbeliever asked you what he/she must do to be saved, what would you tell them? Be specific, please.

          • jessica22

            Very simple… Love the Lord God with all of your heart, mind and soul and love your neighbor as you love yourself.

          • Joe Dokes

            That’s it?

            Where’s word of Christ and Him crucified for our sin? Where’s His burial? Where’s His raising again for our justification? That’s what the apostle Paul said the Good News is. Why would you not share that?

          • jessica22

            You start with a simple message for simple minds (no offense intended)…

          • Joe Dokes

            Paul said he’d resolved to know nothing among the pagan Corinthians except Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor 2:2) because that’s what they needed to hear, and that’s ALL they need hear to be saved. He later reminded them of the Gospel that he’d preached and which they’d believed:

            “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures…” (1 Cor 15:3-4)

            You evidently would not mention any of this to a convicted sinner who sought your help.

          • jessica22

            Are you asking me how I would begin a debate with a theological scholar on the resurrection of the dead or are you asking me how I would approach a sinful unbeliever (which was how you started this discussion)?

      • Jennifer

        One Bread One Body…thank you for your comment! I am a Catholic too and it is hard to tell non-Catholics (or some Catholics) that the Pope is not God and there is no worship there. He is supposed to be Christ’s Ambassador however I agree with you that Francis is not doing a very good job keeping with the doctrine. I am concerned about September and the conference in Philadelphia. The things that he says ‘off-the-cuff’ are disturbing to say the least but what I more disturbing are the people that don’t understand that he is not speaking with authority and it is taken as gospel. With keeping with the article, you can’t have one group believe in the Eucharist and another that doesn’t come together under one roof. That particular dogma would then be taken down from divine status (which it is) to a meaningless part of a ceremony. I pray for unity, but that all believe what Jesus said on more then occasion that in order to have eternal life we must eat and drink his flesh and blood, and that he gave us his flesh and blood at the last supper. I think that many people forget that at the last supper he was in a transfigured body, the divine part of his being. He transformed himself into bread and wine so that we could fulfill what he said about eating and drinking his body.

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          Thanks for your comments. The question of being under “one roof” really has to be qualified by what roof you’re talking about. Conservative and liberal Catholics are still under one roof because we don’t create schism every time we disagree. Google “bible believing catholics elephant in the sanctuary” to access a blog I wrote about this.

        • Eric

          “He is supposed to be Christ’s Ambassador” — Curious, can you show me where this is in scripture?

          • Jan123456

            If you read John 20:19-23 Jesus commissions his disciples – As the father sent me, so I send you. (paraphrase)

            Then in nd Matthew 16:19, he tells Peter that he will build his church on Peter (rock). Perhaps “ambassador” is not the optimal term…but the Pope is the leader of Jesus’s church by his own words.

          • Oboehner

            The Greek has Peter as “pebble” and the fact that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God as the rock he built his church upon. He most certainly did not build his church on a fallible man who went on to deny him three times.

          • Jan123456

            Two points:

            1. Almost every bible translation I have seen of Matthew 16:18 uses the term “rock” for Peter.
            2. Obviously Jesus is the founder of the church, however, the fact that he picked Peter as the first leader knowing his faults gives us hope as Christians. God knows we are not perfect and allows us into heaven anyway.

          • Oboehner

            It is nonsensical for Christ to build his church on a flawed foundation with a fallible man, no matter how it is “translated” the original Greek still says pebble.

          • Warning Signs

            Amen!

            It was faith that Jesus was speaking of, the faith that Peter had that Jesus was the Christ.

            No one had to tell Peter who Jesus was.
            Matthew 16:
            16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

            17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven

            Jesus was speaking of faith. It is by faith we are saved. So simple.

            Jesus is the Rock.

            Speaking the truth in love.

          • pepin

            As a former Catholic, I have to say there is one thing the Catholic church got right: The way you interpret (or misinterpret) the Bible is everything! Matthew 16:18 has been so misinterpreted that the Catholic church even creatd forged patristic writi gs to confirm their interpretation of the verse, AND there’s even an aryicle abput this in the Catholic encyclopedia as well, do a search on Pseudo-Isidorian decretals. The ebove mentioned decretals contained 313 forged (invented out of thin air) supposedly patristic writings on Matthew 16:18. In fact, if you take into account only theactual, real patristic comments on this verse, 80% of church fathers wrote that Jesus is referring to either Peter’s faith or Peter’s statement as “the rock”, not to Peter himself as a person! Another very disturbing thing is the way the Catholic encyclopedia writes about the forgerer of these decretals, (thpugh the scolarly consensus is there were entire monasteries producing these forgeries during and after the nineth centuries, it is physically impossible for a single monk to secretly write hundreds of gofgeries andto forge hundreds of other existing church dovuments and local chur h vouncil decisions, all in a period of less than 5 years) – the encyclopedia writes about him as a “clever man that he was”! Talk about the father of lies!
            And this is only one of numerous Catholic forgeries, just google it! Who knows how many other forgeries there are that the Catholic chirch is still hiding, it took them “only” a few ce turies to admit about these after protestant scholars started to reveal those forgeries!

          • sam

            Oh yes, everything found by googling is indeed accurate! Where’d you get the 80% from? Take a poll?

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            If not a Catholic, what are you now?

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Probably just”Christian”,a bona-fide Biblical designation.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Is there a reason why you would presume to answer for pepin?

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Mainly because he reminded me of me,and that’s what authentic Christians do,something that there’s not enough of nowadays.It’s time past that Christians stop checking their brains at the ecclesiastical door,and examine what they think they believe themselves.Pepin might even be wrong in some of what he claims,but frankly,I would rather be wrong on my own that be led dumbly to the hermeneutical slaughter.The Lord our God told us that we are to love Him…”with all our minds”…I take that to mean my OWN mind,not someone else’s.—PEACE IN CHRIST, ALWAYS!

        • Oboehner

          “The Pope is of so great dignity, and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God. and the vicar of God.” -Ferraris Ecclesiastical dictionary

      • Peter Leh

        “I find the atheists more polite and interesting.”

        yep

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          And it shouldn’t be that way. Everyone ought to be polite.

          • Peter Leh

            Again.. yep.

            I seem to remind many “christians”the scripture that says” if they hate me they will hate you” is not self fulfilling nor confirmation of effectiveness.

            After all, a “nonbeliever” need not the holy spirit indwelling to recognized a [email protected] 🙂

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            His prophecy that you will be hated is not a commandment to be hateful.

          • Peter Leh

            Totally agree.

          • PoorKnightofChrist

            Seems politeness has long gone out of fashion, replaced by “rude, crude, and socially unacceptable”…to which I must confess is a grievous fault of mine at times…mea culpa…(along with interjecting myself into others conversations, again, with apologies to you and Peter, simply in agreement here, and I plan on looking at your blog soon, thank you for making the effort in it)

        • jessica22

          You don’t have a lot of exposure to atheists, do you?

          • Peter Leh

            i know quite a few.

            i have found the response one gets is directly proportional to the behavior given. 🙂

          • jessica22

            Ok, I was speaking tongue-in-cheek… I don’t know many atheists myself…
            of the few I do know, one in particular is hardly polite! In fact he is the most combative, argumentative, defensive individual I know!

            Which leads me to believe that being an atheist gives a person very little compassion, acceptance or peace…

            (On the other hand, the other atheist I know is just like you said…
            “polite and interesting”…)

          • Malibu Bob

            I consider myself more then just “polite and interesting”!!!! 😛

          • jessica22

            Sorry… wrong one!

          • Malibu Bob

            I LUV you too!

          • PoorKnightofChrist

            you know others, though they may not be “atheist” anymore… 🙂

          • jessica22

            You’re right… that comment puts a smile on my face… 🙂

          • PoorKnightofChrist

            I am especially fond of Clive Staples…and hope to personally thank him someday…

          • jessica22

            Loved Chronicles of Narnia and the Screwtape Letters (altho at different times in my life). Yeah, he was a real intellect… would be great debating Christianity with him… especially with his Mere Christian viewpoint…

          • PoorKnightofChrist

            I doubt there would be a debate…

            I imagine it would be more like a cheerful conversation with a gifted great-Uncle…in the Land of Eternal Spring… the kind of conversation that leads one to higher and higher points and perspectives and Truths, filling the heart and mind…the kind of conversation that one wishes could go on for hours and even days…like a child asking a parent to read a favorite story over and over at bedtime, and the parent lovingly rereading it as many times as asked…

          • PoorKnightofChrist

            I agree with Peter in this…I’d rather converse with someone genuinely atheist over some of the “once saved, always saved, John 3:16, all Cathlix are DOOMED” crowd (no offense intended to those offended, just trying to use verbal short-hand to convey a point, however clumsy and inept that point is here)…

            most genuine atheists that I’ve encountered have been quite reasonable, with the exception of the militant ones that wish to impose their unbelief on all others (Communists, Socialists, Radical Nihilists, Progressives, Democrats) because they are PO’d at God…

            a good friend who claimed to be truly atheist, was genuinely happy to hear that I’d “found Religion” as he put it…and he maintained that ideology almost to the end…TBTG, he too “found Religion” in his last few weeks on Earth…one can never tell how God’s plan will work for those of us who are still trapped in Time and Space…one must run the race until the end as best they can with Hope…and Love…

      • MrRightWingDave

        “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” – Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

        • jessica22

          Great quote… I love Bishop Sheen!

    • jennylynn

      You are right. He is preparing people for the “one World Order.”

    • Peter Leh

      “The pope also claims that Allah and Jehovah are the same God”

      like bono? But even then people can;t get the quote or context correct in their vitriol

      • Chrissy Vee

        I guess like Bono if that is his belief too, as many others jumping on that bus. Where have you people been?

        • Peter Leh

          “I guess like Bono if that is his belief too,”

          it is not his belief. but is does not other “chrisitans”from misrepresenting.

          se ray comfort and bono on utube. 🙂

          • Chrissy Vee

            ? Sorry… That was hard to understand.

    • Jan123456

      Read the story of Abram. His descendents with Sarah are the Jews and ultimately, Christians. Abram’s descendents with Hagar are Muslims.

    • Malibu Bob

      Allah and Jehovah are the same God of Abraham.

      • Chrissy Vee

        (o_O)

  • Bobby Mae

    300+ comments!! Woohoo! Nothing gets the evangelicals riled up like the gays and Catholics

  • Evangelina Vigilantee

    Not the same Jesus. Our Jesus died once and for all for sin. Theirs is still being offered through the Eucharist. (not really, but they think so). It is another gospel, and not that of the bible. The Catholic church has twisted it into something unbiblical. Our foundation is the Bible, not the traditions of men that contradict God’s Word. Any honest bible student will see this.

  • Evangelina Vigilantee

    “Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.” Romans 16; 17
    Translation; avoid unity with those who don’t hold to the biblical teaching. That is not Christian unity, but unity that is to be avoided. We protect true Chistian unity by avoiding those who don’t share biblical teaching, but those who introduce false teaching are the ones who are bringing the wrong kind of division. Unity at the expense of truth was not what the Lord was asking for in John 17, but rather that we are sanctified in His Truth, and true unity would follow. If not divided rightly by truth, then we will be united in error.

  • Evangelina Vigilantee

    “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.” Matthew 10; 34-36
    And then there is this verse. Which I posted earlier and it… disappeared after being posted… hmmm. Bedy eentarestink!

  • Melancholy Man

    I hate to say this but at this point in the spiritual development of both the Catholic and Evangelical Churches…..maybe Satan does us a service by keeping us apart…..for judging from the posts on this forum I fear any premature attempt at unification might very well lead to bloodshed.

  • Dave L

    “Canada, the Crown and the Vatican stand guilty as charged as disestablished criminal bodies” – International Common Law Court of Justice, Brussels

    Seventeen years after Rev. Kevin Annett publicly disclosed evidence that over 50,000 children died in Canada’s church-run “Indian residential schools”, Canadian governments have finally confirmed this genocidal mortality rate after releasing hitherto-concealed death records from the schools.

    “Canada and its churches, the British Crown and the Vatican stand guilty as charged as disestablished criminal bodies and can no longer have any lawful or legitimate constitutional authority if the rule of law is to be followed”.

    This is an example of what happens When the Papacy and his protestant step children get “back together”.

    There are many links to this, search “Catholic, Genocide, Canada, Indian Children” etc.

    • ThePhoenixRises

      Sounds like an atheistic or fundee website produced these “quotes”.

      If such an announcement were actually made by alegitimate Canadian authority there would be all sorts of legal ramifications that would be being played out in the courts, Since you don’t provide any indication that this is actually happening.

      In fact, EVERY website article I looked at appears to have an axe to grind either against Christians or the Queen or both.

      Yes, I know that there is a Wikipedia entry, but since the wiki can be edited by anyone, it remains in doubt, especially since readers are not like to go examine its references.

      EDIT: Real Canadians refer to Native Americans as “First Nation” rather than “Indian”

      • Dave L

        It comes from native Canadian sources. If you search, there are quite a few. I’ll try to sneak a link through. canadiangenocide nativeweb org/

        • ThePhoenixRises

          Yes Kevin Arnett is (was) a Canadian EVANGELICAL — who has an axe to grind against the Catholic and Anglican churches. His biography lists him as “Worked as Counsellor(sic) and Community Organizer, 1976 – 1990”
          Like Obama, perhaps?

          Either way, the fact that he is plugging his book and BEGGING for donations, tells me all I need to know about what other CANADIANS think of his views.

          The fact that he was EXPELLED from his original church and STRIPPED of HIS ORDINATION by that church and subsequently was “ordained” by some non-denom uber-splinter group also speaks volumes about his alleged veracity.

          • Dave L

            How do you explain the evidence?

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Like the “evidence * he “uncovered” that lead to him being stripped of his ordination and expulsion from his church?

            Hislop and the Raëlians would be proud of him.

          • Dave L

            This headline is from HuffPo “UN Urged To Declare Canada’s Treatment Of Aboriginals ‘Genocide'”, worth searching out and reading.

            Also a time-line from Nativevillage. org and Examiner. com

            It seems there is more to it than not. I suppose with our own history of genocide, it seems probable.

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Riggggghhhhtt.

  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    He’s right about lies from the father of lies dividing the church. Is this man going to lead a charge of repentance from the false divisive doctrines towards the truth? I have a short list of devilish doctrines he could address. I don’t think that’s what he’s saying, sadly.

    • ThePhoenixRises

      Really? Are you Catholic? Or Fundamentalist/Evangelical perhaps?

      • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

        Seriously? Are you Catalytic? Or Funny/Experimental perhaps? You are having trouble sticking to the topic.

        • ThePhoenixRises

          Answer my question.

          • Deina

            Why should he?

            What relevance does it have to the topic?

          • ThePhoenixRises

            It has a LOT of relevance to his earlier comment ( the one I first replied to:
            ” I have a short list of devilish doctrines he could address. I don’t think that’s what he’s saying, sadly.”

            If he is Catholic, that would lead to one interpretation of what he stated. If he is an anti-Catholic (ie a fundamentalist or Evangelical) that throw a whole different light on his comments.

            So, were you seriously asking — or are you just another Catholic-hater?

          • Deina

            Hmmmm

            Forgive me if this concept is too high over your head, but have you ever thought about asking him what he meant, instead of trying to find which side of an issue he’s on, & then letting your prejudices take it from there?

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Oh so you ARE a fundee? Why am I not surprised, given your attitude?

            So are you Calvinist or a follower of Jacob Arminius? Or maybe Alexander Hislop?

          • Deina

            So it didn’t occur to you to ask him.

          • ThePhoenixRises

            I see you edited your original “Forgive me if…” post. And I **Did** ask him:
            “ThePhoenixRises Martin Smit • 14 hours ago

            Really? Are you Catholic? Or Fundamentalist/Evangelical perhaps?”

            So I guess you lack the ability to decipher simple English words and sentences.

            #commoncorereading, #commoncorecomprehension

          • Deina

            No, I just went back through my cache and this is the only version of that particular message I have. Occasionally I do edit, usually to add in something I forgot, but not in this instance.

            If you show something different, do let me know. If you believe I said something truly evil, contact the Mods. They should have access to all versions of any particular message.

            Finally, no, you did not ask him what he meant by his post. Instead, you asked him what his religion was, which initiated my first missive to you.

            Evidently it’s not I that “lack{s} the ability to decipher simple English words and sentences.”

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Non responsive claptrap–exactly what I would expect from someone with something to hide.

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            No, you answer my question first. Are you catalytic? Did you convert?

          • ThePhoenixRises

            Ah , another brand new troll account! Showing your IQ early, too (below 75).

            No, I am not a catalytic converter, I am a human being. I can go out in the sun without turning into a rock. Unlike you.

          • ThePhoenixRises

            And CREATED May 28,2015…

            Hi Mark!

    • Paul Hiett

      I always get a laugh out of Christians hating and insulting other Christians.

      And you wonder why people are turning away from religion more than ever.

  • StereoMan

    People who scream “FALSE CHRISTIANS!” at others really need to learn a thing or two about manners.

  • haas

    Follow Jesus not the church Jesus is my only Pope.

    • Joseph Essien-Obot

      Jesus left a Church behind to do what? To teach.

      • haas

        It depends on the definition of church. If you define it as being a body of believers.
        Or a definition in where it is a institution in where people have membership to it.
        The whole pope thing kind of freaks me out it is too much authority. Not really build on the church design scriptural post Christ
        If we follow Jesus when we get together that is the church.

        • Joseph Essien-Obot

          And where there is disagreement as to where Jesus is going to follow him what happens? Start your own church? Well, the pope has the final word but he doesn’t do that without the involvement of the church’s leaders, the bishops. So, he encapsulates the mind of the Church. That’s why CC doctrine has remained constant throughout the centuries, not what we can say of many today.

    • StereoMan

      To follow the Pope IS to follow Jesus. He is Jesus’ representative.

      • haas

        I could not disagree with you more. It is a replacement for Jesus but puts too much focus on man and away from God Jesus. He is a very popular Pope and I do not disagree with him in all things, But deny works affirm Grace humble himself to position lower than the papacy.
        Affirm the supreme Deity of Jesus above that of the Koran or Buddha or any other faith. Tell others they will burn hell if they do not follow the one true God. Like atheists instead of saying follow your conscience and you too can be in Heaven.
        Direct all Catholics to put down their traditions and ask them to invite the Holy spirit into there lives personally
        And I too might consider the Pope as being the representative of Jesus.

        • StereoMan

          Asking the Catholics to put down their traditions is like asking a fundamentalist to put down his Bible. Catholics are not “Bible-only” Christians, that movement is fairly recent. Whereas you hold only the Bible as authoritative, Catholics historically hold the Bible as ONE thing authoritative, but two more as well, those being the magisterium (church teachings) and sacred traditions. Why should they discard those two key pillars of their Christian belief?

          As for the pope, he is merely the church’s human leader, just as every church including yours has a human leader.

          • haas

            Pillars should load bearing and I can’t seem to find any weight in Praying the rosary or statues to Mary or prayers to patron saints. If there was any biblical reference to the practices that embody the catholic church I would abandon everything to follow Jesus. Even if it meant the papacy I would follow. Take a look at Paul when he fights with the church body that is trying to jewdiaz the Church. The subject of the day was whether or not people should get circumcised it really is the same argument today. Only the gentile church has morphed and those seeking to reform are meant with resistance because of tradition. The point is lent, hail Mary, our fathers, are the same as Kosher, Passover daily sacrifice, Circumcision.
            Jesus came to replace the Law he came to offer peace and grace forgivness of sins in exchange for devotion to him. He invites us to invite him into our hearts there the holy spirit manifests and we become sanctified in his blood.
            If we were to place our trust in him how much different might the church be.
            Please do not think I think less of the Catholic I think there is still enough room to be Catholic and be saved but it just
            is more difficult with all the other distractions.

          • StereoMan

            “Pillars should load bearing and I can’t seem to find any weight in Praying the rosary or statues to Mary or prayers to patron saints.”

            Then don’t. But that doesn’t give you the right to criticize others who take comfort by asking Mary to pray for them, which is all that is going on.

            “If there was any biblical reference to the practices that embody the catholic church I would abandon everything to follow Jesus.”

            Well, you are a “Bible-only” Christian and Catholics are not. For you, everything must have a Biblical reason behind it, and for Catholics there is the Bible as well as church teaching. So I don’t know why people continually ask the Catholics to back up all their practices with the Bible.

          • haas

            Listen jump through hoops while setting your self on fire knock yourself out do what ever seems right in the name of tradition. But do this one thing ask Jesus to come into your life ask him to lord over your soul ask Jesus how do you become born again. This is all I am saying Love Jesus and howl at the moon I don’t care but evoke Jesus. His response just might be surprising.
            Peace to,

          • StereoMan

            Which Catholics do. That’s what this is all about. It amazes me that so many Christians of other denominations don’t think Catholics do this.

      • Melancholy Man

        Christians have the indwelling Holy Spirit as Jesus’s personal representative to us as individuals. The Body of Christ receives, Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastor and Teachers. I have read nothing in the Bible about any Popes.

        • StereoMan

          Catholics are not Bible-only Christians, which is why you have read nothing in the Bible. It is not there.

          • Melancholy Man

            We are not Bible only Christians either. I mentioned the Holy Spirit did I not?

          • StereoMan

            Why are you demanding scriptural justification for having a pope from a faith which is not Bible-only?

          • Melancholy Man

            Let me simplify this as best I can. If the Bible or God through the Holy Spirit instructs me to accept a Pope…..I will…..otherwise I shall not. I think my view speaks for most Protestants.

          • StereoMan

            Well, the pope is speaking for all Catholics, so I fail to see the problem. If you aren’t Catholic, don’t pay attention to him.

          • Melancholy Man

            I have no problem with this pope. Indeed I believe Pope Francis the most sincere, compassionate and at times brutally honest pope in my lifetime. A lot of Protestants including myself respect him for his open and honest expressions concerning the issues of our times. But we can not agree to accept the false teachings and doctrines that accompany the Catholic Faith. If Pope Francis wants to come over to our side I imagine many Protestants would embrace him. But the Roman Catholic Church and many of it’s beliefs and practices are not for us. Sorry.

          • StereoMan

            Rather than making blanket condemnations like “false teachings and doctrines” maybe you could kindly and rationally point out what those are? I know I could have a field day with all the false teachings and doctrines practiced by the churches that came long after Catholicism, particularly this new brand of evangelical fluff.

          • Melancholy Man

            I am sure you could indeed have such a field-day. As far as I know all faiths contain false teachings and/or practices. Man is a fallen creature and everything he touches he messes up. Even the things of God.

  • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

    These guys remove comments critical of their site while rabid anti-Catholic vitriol spews forth unimpeded.

    • Melancholy Man

      You think this is bad? Go to NPR website when they have a story that “draws.” I mean any story that “draws” atheists or persons-of-faith. For if a story draws the one it will most certainly draw the other. And both in great multitudes as flies to honey. And as a believer you will be attacked from all sides as even the moderators are often radical atheists openly hostile to all things religious. And Catholic articles are given special prominence as NPR management knows what their target audience loves. There atheists lay-in-wait anxious to vent-their-spleens on unsuspecting Catholics who dare enter their secular dominions. There you will be made to feel as I imagine the early Christians did in the arena awaiting the lions. You will aghast in horror as every sin of the Mother Church throughout all the ages will be vividly recounted as in a jury trial. Until finally they run you off in shame and disgrace. There it is not Christian vs Christian. It is Satan and his henchmen vs the child of God. The children of darkness vs the child of light. The verbal battle of the ages between good and evil.

      • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

        National People’s Radio gave up any semblance of objectivity decades ago. What galls me most is how people like Terry Gross or Diane Rehm put on an air of objectivity when interviewing conservative or Christian guests while condescension drips from every word. Seems like a Catholic kid can’t buy a break. 😉

        • Melancholy Man

          I never understood why hardcore atheists are just in love the idea of alien life forms superior to our own. It is so illogical it is like what they say of religion. And when I point out this fact they deny it and tell me I’m an idiot. I get responses like…..the theoretical mathematical probability for alien life is so overwhelming…..but the empirical objective scientifically verifiable evidence for God is zero! I keep trying to point out how illogical their logic is and they just spit-out the latest scientific theories as if they were facts and tell me I’m an idiot. They keep telling me that science has eliminated all the places for God to hide. If he were out there science would have found him by now. After hearing this argument about a hundred times I finally in my frustration posted, “If you all don’t think God can play hide-and-seek better than Stephen Hawking I believe you all need to re-evaluate your thought processes.” And the moderator immediately pulled my comment! I tell them the cosmos is their god and science is their religion but they keep denying it and tell me I’m an idiot. How does one deal with such persons? How does one deal with such…..idiots?

          • disqus_23FzLxRDKW

            I never understood why hardcore atheists are in love with the idea of alien life forms superior to our own. It seems as illogical as what they say of religion. And when I point out this fact they deny it and tell me I’m a idiot. I get responses like, the theoretical mathematical probability for alien life is so overwhelming but the empirical objective scientifically verifiable evidence for God is zero. I keep trying to point out how illogical their logic is and they just spit-out the latest scientific theories as if they were facts and tell me I’m an idiot. They keep insisting that science has eliminated all the places for God to hide. If he were out there science would have found him by now. After hearing this argument about a hundred times I finally in my frustration posted, “If you all don’t think God can play hide-and-seek better than Stephen Hawking I believe you all need to re-evaluate your thought processes.” And the moderator immediately pulled my comment! I tell them the cosmos is their god and science is their religion but they keep denying it and tell me I’m an idiot. How does one deal with such persons? How does one deal with such idiots?

      • disqus_23FzLxRDKW

        Of concerning the persecution of Christians in the American media. Go to the National Public Radio or NPR website comments whenever they run a story that “draws.” By that I mean a story that draws the attention of either atheists or persons of faith. For if it draws the one it will most certainly draw the other. And both in great multitudes as flies to honey. And as a believer you will be attacked from all sides as even the moderators are often radical atheists openly hostile to all things religious. And Catholics are given special prominence as NPR management knows what their target audience loves. There atheists lie in wait anxious to vent their spleens on unsuspecting Catholics that dare enter their secular dominions. There you will made to feel as I imagine the early Christians did in the area awaiting the lions. You will aghast in horror as every sin of the Mother Church throughout all the ages will be vividly recounted as in a jury trial. Until finally they run you off in shame and disgrace. There it is not Christian versus Christian. It is Satan and his henchmen versus the child of God. The children of darkness versus the child of light. The verbal battle of the ages between good and evil.

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.cousins.14 David Cousins

    Have Protestants forgot the reformation? WHY are there so many on here sympathetic to papal rome?

    • Magister_militum_praesentalis

      Is this supposed to be a Protestant-only website?

      • StereoMan

        If it is, they should tell Catholics they aren’t welcome. Then at least they’d know.

    • Melancholy Man

      As it has been 498 years since Martin Luther began the Protestant Reformation my guess is that indeed many have forgotten. As far as Pope Francis is concerned he is the most sincere, compassionate and at times brutally honest Pope in my lifetime. And perhaps in centuries. A lot of Protestants, including myself respect his open and honest expressions concerning the issues of our times..He is apparently making the first attempts to slowly inch the Catholic Church into the twenty first century. However so far he has basically just done a lot of talking. He can definitely “talk the talk.” I am still waiting to see if he can, “walk the walk.” He has stated that he believes his reign will be a short one.

      Personally I believe the true powers that be will not allow the radical changes that apparently Pope Francis believes the Catholic Church needs to undergo. Perhaps he will be assassinated or perhaps he will resign in frustration. It is also possible that the true mission of Pope Francis was just to get the ball rolling. As in any gigantic dinosaur of an institution dramatic and genuine change comes only very slowly and with great difficulty. It took America 146 years from the Emancipation Proclamation to the election of the first black president. I see no reason to expect the appropriate proportional changes to occur any faster in the Roman Catholic Church.

      • ThePhoenixRises

        Hi “Guest” (@bret620) now Melancholy Man. You should have chosen a different user name if you really were expecting to fool us — at least for very long.

    • ThePhoenixRises

      Perhaps they realize how far modern Prot. churches have strayed from what their founders taught — which was virtually identical to Catholicism, minus papal authority.

  • jennylynn

    If people study the history of pope Francis they will find he has a wicked past and is responsible for thousands of deaths in Argentina, along with the tortures of his own priests. The Jesuit oath is to kill the heretic. It is no wonder he’s trying to draw others in to his false church, for the “One world order” that has been the way of the Jesuits throughout history. They were responsible for killing the anti-baptists for being fundamentalist. Be warned about this man’s deception as he dresses up in false piety.

    • StereoMan

      That is utter nonsense. Total paranoid schizophrenic fundamentalist crap.

      • jennylynn

        You don’t study much history do you? I don’t blame you, it isn’t pretty, but sticking your head in the liberal bubble doesn’t help either.

        • StereoMan

          History is one thing. Jack Chick’s hate bombs are another. Don’t be so gullible.

  • Joseph Essien-Obot

    What’s with the “Christian and Catholic” thing? Catholics are Christians and Christians are Catholics too. Catholicism and Protestantism may disagree but claiming that one is Christian and another not is rubbish! Maybe within Protestantism we will now be talking of Christians and Baptists, or Lutherans, or Mega Evangelicals or what? Maybe there is already the idea of Christians and Eastern Orthodoxers.

    Protestantism is a is break away from Catholicism. Catholicism is Christian and share thought with all ancient Christian bodies whether found in Africa, the Middle East or India. If breaking away from this Christian heritage makes you anything other it wouldn’t be Christian thus making that statement something of an oxymoron.

  • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

    Can we work together to defeat the enemy without having to re-unite? Evangelicals and Catholics have much in common. We each, in our own way, love and serve Jesus and we each are deeply troubled by the evil of the world.

    Here are some areas on which we agree:
    1. The evil of abortion
    2. The coercion of people of faith by the state to act against heir beliefs
    3. A militant LGBT agenda that seeks to stifle the free expression of religious speech
    4. A militant celebrity atheism that seeks to portray us as evil buffoons.

    I could expand the list but you see my point.

    I DO NOT want a one-world church. I want each of us to live out our respective faiths and to show christian love toward one another.

    Can we do this? Is there any reason we should not?

    • CNthruPC

      You might not want a one-world church, but the RCC does. They want everybody to “return to ‘The Fold.’ “

      • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

        I don’t care what the “RCC” wants to do. I am a Christian trying to defend Christian faith in a hostile world. I need all the help I can get and I don’t care about anyone’s other agendas. Will you stand with me in the name of Jesus and say “No” to a world that seeks to destroy us, or do you want to stand on the sidelines taking potshots at slow moving targets?

        • CNthruPC

          Nobody’s seeking to “destroy” the RCC: the Pope is all chummy with the world’s leaders (political and religious) and will most likely be spearheading the future 1-world religion.

          I will not ally myself with an institution that I consider anathema, sorry.

      • Melancholy Man

        Lifelong Libertarian: I wrote a post about salvation. It is the “newest” post on this old forum. I would like your opinion on it if you do not mind.

  • BornfromHeavenAbove

    Dear Readers.
    The true body of Christ are those that have
    put their faith and trust in Jesus alone for their salvation, they are In
    Christ, because they have supernaturally received the Holy Spirit (known as
    Born Again).

    3 Jesus answered and said
    to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot
    see the kingdom of God.” [Jhn 3:3 NKJV]

    God does not care what banner (earthly church denomination) you have across your chest, He looks only to see that you have been marked with the blood of His Son, Jesus Christ, by receiving Him by saving faith alone, putting your entire trust in Jesus alone for your salvation.

    Faith in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross and his resurrection is the ONLY key to salvation, NOT in ANY work that we can do because it is a GIFT that we did not earn. To offer payment for a gift to anyone (much less God) is an insult and; therefore, it is
    no longer a gift. God is Holy and perfect, our efforts to save ourselves does not meet God’s Holy standard and, therefore; are worthless.

    6 But we are all like an unclean [thing], And all our righteousnesses [are] like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away. [Isa
    64:6 NKJV]

    9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. [Rom 10:9 NKJV]

    8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; [it is] the gift of God,
    9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. [Eph 2:8-9 NKJV]

    If anyone adds any
    additional requirements (works) to this Gospel of salvation other than the
    total sufficiency of Christ, than we are going to be judged by the law, and
    that requires perfection, God tells us that all of us have already failed to
    keep the law…

    Romans 3:23 (NKJV)
    23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

    6 And if by grace, then
    [it is] no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.
    But if [it is] of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. [Rom 11:6 NKJV]

    No religious act or good deed of any man or earthly institution can save you.

    It is not enough just to have an intellectual faith or head knowledge.

    19 You believe that there
    is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe–and tremble! [Jas 2:19 NKJV]

    Once you agree to trust in Jesus’ sufficiency on the cross, God forgives us, and seals us with His Holy
    Spirit.

    This is the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins
    according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again
    the third day according to the Scriptures, [1Co 15:3-4 NKJV]

    Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation, NO exceptions.

    6 Jesus said to him,
    “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
    [Jhn 14:6 NKJV]

    Acts 4:12 (NKJV)
    12 “Nor is there salvation in any other,
    for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be
    saved.”

    Isaiah 43:11 (NKJV)
    11 I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there
    is no savior.

    God warns us not to preach another Gospel…

    9 As we have said before,
    so now I say again, if anyone preaches
    any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. [Gal 1:9 NKJV]

    4 For if he who comes
    preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or [if] you receive a
    different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you
    have not accepted–you may well put up with it! [2Co 11:4 NKJV]

    15 and that from childhood
    you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for
    salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. [2Ti 3:15 NKJV]

    The following verses shows that the Bible says that there is NO unity unless we are like minded in correct Doctrine (teaching). True biblical unity can only be had amongst those which are in agreement to the one and only true teachings of the Bible. Unfortunately, the RCC preaches another Gospel which is unbiblical doctrine.

    14 Do not be unequally
    yoked together with unbelievers. For
    what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has
    light with darkness? [2Co 6:14 NKJV]

    9 Whoever transgresses and
    does not abide in the doctrine of Christ
    does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father
    and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor
    greet him; 11 for he who greets him
    shares in his evil deeds. [2Jo 1:9-11 NKJV]

    17 Now I urge you,
    brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine
    which you learned, and avoid them.
    [Rom 16:17 NKJV]

    11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works
    of darkness, but rather expose [them].
    [Eph 5:11 NKJV]

  • Wesley

    it is interesting that every article dealing with the Catholic Church has a rebuttal from Mike Gendron who claims that he never heard the gospel at the mass. either he never heard the mass in the venacular or he reject the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. likewise he must never really reads the words of the Apostle and especially the Nicene Creeds for the latter creed begins it statement about the the gospel presentation with the words “for us sinners and our salvation” then proceeds to declare that God became flesh to live, die and live again. he must have been asleep at the “sacrifice of the mass”, which is the Eucharist that re-presents Christ’s passion through bread and wine becoming Christ’s broken body and blood. besides like all literalistic fundamentalists he assumes that all mankind was building the tower of Babel, but it could easily and makes more sense that it was the civilized world built the tower and God another civilization to stop its building. by the time of Abraham Sumerians and Akkadians had risen. just a simple study of early civilizations tells us that Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations beginning at about the same time roughly around the time that the Greek Septuagint tells us Noah’s flood occurred. we see in the Sacred Scriptures that God used the Neo-Babylonians to destroy the Assyrians, then later the Medo-Persians to destroy the Neo-Babylonians, and later the Macedonian king Alexander the Great to destroy the Persians, and later the Romans to destroy the Greek empires along the Mediterranean Sea. given what we know by the time of Abraham and how God used other empires to judge other empires that ruled over the jews can give us new light into better understanding Moses’s brief highlights of human history before coming to the Patriarchs of the jews.

    • Melancholy Man

      I didn’t get the point of what you were trying to say for the multitude of your words. Is there a point? It sounded like you were defending Catholics…got into some scriptures…and then tired to make some point using history as an example. One needs to speak plainly to us evangelical types. We are not use to having to memorize the encyclopedia Britannica to experience salvation by grace through faith in Christ’s finished work on the cross. For us it takes but a one simple act of child-like faith. And who is Mike Gendron anyhow?

      • CNthruPC

        ROTFL! LMTO! Encore, encore! {thumnbs up x 10}

      • Wesley

        i was pointing out that using Gendron would be like using an unbelieving jew to help interpret messianic prophecies for the unbelieving jew missed the fact that the messiah had come and Gendron never really understood what the Catholic Church actually teaches. it is funny that Gendron never noticed that every three years he heard the entire New Testament at least once just at Sunday mass as well as many major events in the Old Testament.

  • kim segar

    I have nothing to boast about but Christ Crusified. we are not to go toward religion, but to the ONE which is the ONLY way to heaven. we are not to call anyone ATHER and also to o to the FAther in Heaven thru Jesus alone..Paul peached of “anoter Jesus” and we ae to pray to none other but G-d thru Jesus, not o some nan who thinks h is Christ for forgiveness we are to unite under the only gospel preached in Timothy and to turn away from any other. WE are saved by Grace thru Christ alone..seems like all most all churches today in great apostasy…no longer believe the truth..G-d says theywill have No excuse as the bicker of things their churshes believe is right but are not even in the bible. another thing to is they think the church replaced Isral..but my bible says we who love HIM and the chorsn people and suport them are grafted into Israel. that the Jews will alway own the Olive tree.. the first church came out of the UPPER Room..so quit readin the New tbackwards to the Torah..the old tet reveal the New T and the new T is concealed in the OLD T..romans 9 10 amd eleven.. that -d blinded the Jews for us hatheno we could become sons of G-d…in the end, HE said HIS eyes goes back to Israel as the time of he gentiles is done……………………Gensis 12:3..

  • gatekeeper96740

    This pope is a communist.

  • Melancholy Man

    To the best of my understanding this is what we Protestants believe. Salvation is the free Gift of God by Grace through Faith…..in Christ Jesus. The Grace is God’s grace that He gives only once and does not take back for in Him there is no shadow of turning. The Faith is ours to keep or lose. If works are required to receive or maintain one’s salvation…..salvation then becomes a combination. A combination of Christ’s Blood and Our Works. For if even only one good deed were required and that deed went unfulfilled…..that individual would lose their inheritance as Abraham’s seed according to the promise. The end result would be that the one good deed is of greater weight than the Blood…..for that individual enters not the Kingdom. This amounts to us laying our pitiful human deeds along side of Christ’s Blood as if they were equal or even of greater value in God’s sight. I assure you they are not. If indeed there were a sin worthy of unforgiveness, as is said of the Holy Ghost blaspheme, without question this would be that sin. For of ourselves there is nothing within us nor that which we can achieve in this life that in anyway could equal Christ Jesus as God and His Blood as Atonement for us to be worthy of…..adoption into the Father’s Heavenly Family. It is my sincerest of hopes that I am wrong but I fear those who believe otherwise…..will inherit the wind.

    • CNthruPC

      Spot on. Only hesitation is “the faith is ours to keep or lose.” Not sure what you’re saying there. Maybe you could enlarge a bit on it?

      • Melancholy Man

        You asked for some “enlargement” on the “faith” comment. I did enlarge on it a tiny bit. See if you feel it is enough. I also did a tiny bit of editing. See if you think it still reads well. I also added a post up top about…..who are the “true” Christians. Your opinion on that would also be welcomed. Thanks.

  • MrRightWingDave

    “…which seeks to unite Christians and Catholics.” Uh, pardon me, but Catholics ARE Chistians. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

  • http://HisPlaceDanville.com Stephen Anderson

    The Bible keeps true Christians and Roman Catholicism separate. It was the Bible that precipitated the Reformation. And its is the rejection of the Bible that enables ecumenicism. Let the Pope lead Catholicism back to biblical New Testament Christianity and then we can be one.
    pastor Stephen Anderson

    • Magister_militum_praesentalis

      Are the “true Christians” composed exclusively of fundamentalists and Evangelicals?

      • Melancholy Man

        The only legitimate assessment of true Christian status is all those who have received the Holy Spirit.

        1. God knows for sure.
        2. The believer may or may not know for sure.
        3. Others can not know for sure.

        • Magister_militum_praesentalis

          I understand that charismatics believe this. However, on what authority do you base it?

        • ThePhoenixRises

          This sounds like a cop-out to avoid answering the question posted in the comment you are replying to directly. Why is it that you don’t want to be pinned down to a concrete answer?

    • http://www.mindfulofthetruth.wordpress.com Kyle Schumacher

      Unfortunately, the Pope is continuing to lead people further away from the Scriptures and closer to Global Enslavement.

      • landy fincannon

        Hello kyle, I’ve missed you. How have you been ? We can communicate through disqus

        • http://www.mindfulofthetruth.wordpress.com Kyle Schumacher

          Ive been doing pretty well. getting my house in order for the coming storm. missed chatting with you as well! how have you been?

          • landy fincannon

            Storm ? We’re talking future storm I presume. I’ve been fine, still having
            fun with the chump I mean trump fans

          • http://www.mindfulofthetruth.wordpress.com Kyle Schumacher

            Yes future / coming storm. With all of the one world religion promos the pope has been giving it seems like it’s just on the horizon. I see two linch pins : Isis, and climate change. I think these two things will deffinately be used to bring about the new world order and one world religion.

            Yeah trump is a pawn. Even infowars is off in their assessments recently. Anyone who backs trump is falling for it hook line and sinker

  • Melancholy Man

    Who are the “true” Christians? The only legitimate assessment of TRUE CHRISTIAN status are all those who have RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT.

    (Romans 8:9) You however are not in the realm of the flesh but in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed THE SPIRIT OF GOD LIVES IN YOU. And if ANYONE DOES NOT HAVE THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST, THEY DO NOT BELONG TO CHRIST.

    (Romans 8:11) And if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead IS LIVING IN YOU, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies, because of HIS SPIRIT WHO LIVES IN YOU.

    (Romans 8:14-16) For those who are LED BY THE SPIRIT of God ARE CHILDREN OF GOD. The SPIRIT YOU RECEIVED does not make you slave, so that you live in fear again, rather The SPIRIT YOU RECEIVED brought about your ADOPTION TO SONSHIP. The SPIRIT Himself TESTIFIES with our Spirit that we are GOD’S CHILDREN.

    (Ephesians 1:13-14) And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of the truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you BELIEVED you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised HOLY SPIRIT. Who is a deposit GUARANTEEING our INHERITANCE until the REDEMPTION of those who are GOD’S POSSESSION.

    See also these other references:

    (John 15:26)
    (John 16:13-15)
    (Romans 8:26-27)
    (1 Corinthians 6:11)
    (1 Corinthians 12:13)
    (Galatians 5:13-25)
    (Ephesians 4:30)
    (Titus 3:5)

    * All references from the New International Version

  • Melancholy Man

    To the best of my understanding this is what most Evangelicals believe concerning salvation. Salvation is the free Gift of God by Grace through Faith…..in Christ Jesus. The Grace…..is God’s grace that He gives only once and does not take back for in Him there is no shadow of turning. The Faith…..is our faith to keep or lose. If deeds of any sort are REQUIRED to receive or maintain one’s salvation…..salvation then becomes a combination. A combination of Christ’s Blood and Human Deeds. For even if only one deed were REQUIRED and that deed went unfulfilled…..that individual would lose their inheritance as Abraham’s Seed according to the Promise. The resulting implication would be that the one deed is of greater weight than the Blood of Christ…..for that individual enters NOT the Kingdom. This amounts to us laying our pitiful human deeds along side of Christ’s Blood as if they were of equal or greater value in God’s sight. I assure you they are not. For of ourselves there is nothing within us nor that which we can achieve in this life that in any way could equal Christ Jesus as God and His Blood as Atonement for us to be worthy of adoption into the Father’s Heavenly Family. It is my sincerest of hopes I am wrong but I fear those who believe or practice otherwise may…..inherit the wind.

  • http://HisPlaceDanville.com Stephen Anderson

    It is the Bible and the Gospel that separates us from Rome, as it always has. Let the pope lead Roman Catholicism back to the Gospel and the authority of the Scriptures.

  • ac287149

    The Vatican has many ways of subverting Jesus Christ and replacing Him with various traditions and rituals, the most ridiculous of which is either the Virgin Mary being the co-redemptor with Him, or sinful priests controlling the individual’s entrance into Heaven. Then, they decided that mumified corpses could intercede too. Now, presumably the incorrect response to the environment will get people excommunicated from Heaven, even if they’re covered by the blood of Jesus and accepted by YHWH.

    The Vatican suggested it as early as 1964, but if Francis really thinks that Allah and YHWH are the same, then he’s found another way to subvert Jesus Christ and he’s trying to talk us all into subverting and rebelling against Jesus ourselves. Reminds me of the Garden of Eden.

    Believing that we all worship the same god denies the deity of Jesus Christ and His place in the Trinity, His position to judge the quick and the dead, and His right to open the seals in the book of Revelation. Allah doesn’t have a son and it’s blasphemy and apostasy to suggest it. Islam teaches that He didn’t die on the cross. Islam has a death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy.

    Any subversion of Jesus Christ is anti-Christ and is anathema to YHWH and His Word and must also be anathema to any true follower of Jesus Christ.

    • Magister_militum_praesentalis

      It is a false dilemma to suggest that Jesus Christ and ritual are mutually exclusive. It does not justify the anti-sacramentalism of fundamentalists.

      • ac287149

        1 In terms of my comment, what exactly are you saying?

        2 Please explain your definition of “anti-sacramentalism” and “fundamentalist”

        • Magister_militum_praesentalis

          From my observations, non-Catholic Christians (especially fundamentalists and Evangelicals) constantly trash “ritual” and “religion” while reducing everything down to a “relationship” with the Lord.

          What I am saying is that ritual/religion and relationship are NOT mutually exclusive. To suggest such a thing is to set up a false dilemma. The Church has never taught this and Christians have never believed this before the Radical Reformation of the late sixteenth century.

          • A Question of Balance

            I believe you do not correctly understand the Evangelical position. You can have all the rites, rituals, sacraments, ceremonies, observances, customs, formalities and traditions you want. And if they make you feel better or closer to God that’s great. But the individual must fully understand that these “deeds” play absolutely no role whatsoever in ones salvation. They can not save anybody. Salvation is not an ongoing process either. Salvation is a once in a lifetime “event.” The only deed REQUIRED by God is the deed of having FAITH…..in CHRIST’S ATONING BLOOD sacrifice to pay for our sins…past…present…and future. Nothing more is necessary and nothing less is adequate. You are correct…deeds and Jesus are not mutually exclusive. But deeds and Salvation are mutually exclusive. Salvation is by Faith…and Faith ALONE.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Well, I am glad that you and your particular Evangelical church have tolerance for rituals. However, it has been my experience that the vast majority of Evangelicals and fundamentalists who comment here categorically reject rituals as too “Catholic” and will never admit to holding traditions or practicing rituals of their own.

          • A Question of Balance

            That is because we believe…that you believe…those rituals are a necessary part of your salvation-process. And indeed when I research Catholic and Orthodox…that is what I find. Salvation is said to be brought about by faith and sacrament and is an ongoing process. Is this not what you believe? Are my research sources incorrect?

  • disqus_23FzLxRDKW

    testing my computer….will remove comment shortly.