Who ever is chosen the new Pope, it will effect history. Simple fact. http://community.webtv.net/damodara/MystoryasIseeit

Response:

For ffteen huindred years there was one interpratation. Catholic. http://community.webtv.net/damodara/MystoryasIseeit

Response:

<damod…@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:25837-4251B224-357@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m glad you enjoy my lovingJudy. > What do you mean original? > There was NOTHING but Catholic Christians for hundreds and hundreds of > years. > Direct descendants from the original. > The only contestant is the Ethiopian Coptic Church. > It wasn’t until the reformation that anybody was anything but Catholic > Christian. > For more then a century and a half,, > Christianity was Catholic. > Catholic means univeral. Open to all.

There was an Irish church for a while until I think the 7th century when Ireland was brought under the control of rome. Some of my Mum’s friends are into this "celtic christianity". They had their own cross with a circle aound the central bit, and I think it was quite different in matter of doctrine. — kes

Response:

<damod…@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:25837-4251B2DB-359@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net… > Who ever is chosen the new Pope, it will effect history. > Simple fact. > http://community.webtv.net/damodara/MystoryasIseeit

That is something that troubles me. The catholic church has a lot of power at the top. There is a lot of distance between the top of the heirarchy and the common believer. — kes

Response:

> That is something that troubles me. The catholic church has a lot of power > at the top. There is a lot of distance between the top of the heirarchy and > the common believer.

i didn’t want to bring this issue up with Damo, but that’s my chief gripe about it.  it’s fine and all, but i like decentralization.  Baptist and Methodist have some order and hierarchy, but congregations have a lot of leeway in the way they conduct their services.  i’m actually Protestant, but from a lesser-known denomination. m.

Response:

The Catholics added very little, M If you think I don’t think the church is a dinosaur you are mistaken. It is a dinosaur. And it is irrevocasbley present. It is present. This is true. It also has immense socio-polical power besides being extremely rich. Catholisim is very real in the world. Myself? My faith is very weak. Damo http://community.webtv.net/damodara/MystoryasIseeit

Response:

Organized faiths/religions are scary. No doubt about it. It’s caused a lot of problems. http://community.webtv.net/damodara/MystoryasIseeit

Response:

<damod…@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:22666-4251662F-320@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net… > Answer all these families in extreme faith based distress and imagne you > are incapable of error and all powerful concerning the gates of heaven? > Sometimes, shit happens is all….. > http://community.webtv.net/damodara/MystoryasIseeit

Is this your answer?

Response:

YES, Judy. He had a traumatized "flock". He had to provide comfort. "The keys to the kingdom of heaven" "What you shall bind on earth will be bound in heaven. What you shall loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." He answered the distress of his "flock" by allowing infant baptism. And of course this rests on the question of papla infallibility which I am not ready to defend. As I said in an other post…. MANY, if not most Catholics have "umbrage" or variance , over the Popes "Ex Cathara" infallible statements. Its a major concern for Catholic Management…or it should be…. http://community.webtv.net/damodara/MystoryasIseeit

Response:

"Judy" <jal…@easynet.co.uk> wrote in message

news:42516e73$0$25553$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk… > <damod…@webtv.net> wrote in message > news:22666-4251662F-320@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net… > > Answer all these families in extreme faith based distress and imagne you > > are incapable of error and all powerful concerning the gates of heaven? > > Sometimes, shit happens is all….. > > http://community.webtv.net/damodara/MystoryasIseeit > Is this your answer?

don’t bother, you already answered, I missed it.

Response:

Yes Judy. The pope "made it so" that mothers could save their children from limbo. According to Catholic theology, he had the power. I, ME, DAMO, am not a good Catholic, but I know the faith. I consider myself a pan-religous personality. http://community.webtv.net/damodara/MystoryasIseeit

Response:

Judy, I want to say this in front of the insane group here, I love you and I worry for you often. What? over five years now? Your negative opinion of me would cause me great distress. We can talk, okay? Damo http://community.webtv.net/damodara/MystoryasIseeit

Response:

<damod…@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:1798-425172D2-82@storefull-3233.bay.webtv.net… > Judy, I want to say this in front of the insane group here, I love you > and I worry for you often. > What? over five years now? > Your negative opinion of me would cause me great distress. > We can talk, okay? > Damo > http://community.webtv.net/damodara/MystoryasIseeit

I apologise Damo. A personal thing. You always know stuff. Even if you don’t always talk about it. I was trying to make you talk, right? lol ( bully the information out of you) General. Yes, we go back all those years. And we’ve had a laugh or two. The sun is shining here now. But there is going to be a frost at the weekend. I think we get  your rain over the week. Judy

Response:

Of course, in the depths of the Black Plague the Pope gave an allowance for infant Baptism. And of course there is no "sentiment" on the part of the infant…… Unfortunately the church has yet to make an allowance for adult baptism when a person cosciously wants to enter the "church". I, personally, find it hard to defend against the protestants who argue against the infant baptism. Their point is well taken. But, they have no hstory when compared to Catholisim. Now I’ll get the flames from various fragmented christian belivers who lost the true callng due to the egoism of their founders. QUICK! Get my tinfoil helmet!!! http://community.webtv.net/damodara/MystoryasIseeit

Response:

<damod…@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:1798-425172D2-82@storefull-3233.bay.webtv.net… > Judy, I want to say this in front of the insane >group here, I love you

i’m glad you love Judy so much.  but isn’t it "Orthodox"? m.

Response:

> Now I’ll get the flames from various fragmented >christian belivers who > lost the true callng due to the egoism of their >founders.

please.  Catholicism is just one of many interpretations.  i bet the original churches were very different. the Catholics have added a lot of stuff.  so have Jehovah’s Witnesses and Church of Latter Day Saints. m.

Response:

I’m glad you enjoy my lovingJudy. What do you mean original? There was NOTHING but Catholic Christians for hundreds and hundreds of years. Direct descendants from the original. The only contestant is the Ethiopian Coptic Church. It wasn’t until the reformation that anybody was anything but Catholic Christian. For more then a century and a half,, Christianity was Catholic. Catholic means univeral. Open to all. http://community.webtv.net/damodara/MystoryasIseeit

Response:

See…when Rome was puttig up with varios throngs of masses of Barbarians from the stepps and Germany much sigificant contact was lost with Byzantium. Byzantium was the Eastern Center of the Roman empire and of the Church. Founded bythe emperor Justinian I believe. As the fates wold have it, Byzantium exsisted for a thousand years. One thousand years this militarized bastion of Catholicism withstood the tides of Change. As various "tribes"settled around them, heathens, al of em heathens, okay? They began to dress up ritual, art, pomp and circumstances in order to impress the "godless throngs". It DID work. Thus when both churches were able to regain contact, probably after the heathens had babies and decided to farm, they found that the orthadox had evolved in a different direction then the Church of Rome. 1000 years, this armed city on the straits of the Bospherous, stood impregnable. One day, after cannons were developed they hjad to eat a lot of shit as Moslim cannon and ships finally conquored Constantinople. They Called Byzantium Constinople in later years. That was another Roamn emperor. And the pathway to Europe was opened by the Islamic hoards crazed in blood lust. Then all honor has to be paid to the sacrifces of Austria and the serbs for stemming the godless rage of Islamic onslaught. Hay! The vistory of spain is GREAT. Unfortuately, since the Islamics baptized by the sword, "Hay, Bddy,You accept allah?" "Yes", you live, "No" you die. After these difficult times with Moslems celebrating God by killing people, the Church had many problems. One is the apostate issue. Once you "know" and then change your mind you are beyond all hope. Hell you get, forever stained through eternity. The church realized it had to become "flexible" on this issue because great numbers of eastern europeans and spanish went with having "God" save their lives, by declaring "ALLAH". It did. The Church I mean. It accepted "apostates" back into the Holy Roman See". MY my how things change. During the black plague many infants were dying. Great distress was occurring because withot Baptism all those infants were going to "Limbo’…..at east until the second comming. This was when the Catholic church (the pope) instituted infant baptism. Infant Baptism is an issue held against the church my many Christian congregations. It has to be done WILLINGLY. I know…. Answer all these families in extreme faith based distress and imagne you are incapable of error and all powerful concerning the gates of heaven? Sometimes, shit happens is all….. http://community.webtv.net/damodara/MystoryasIseeit

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  A Buddhist Nun’s Story As told by Dr.T.L.Osborn A 74 year-old Thai Buddhist Nun relates how The Lord Jesus Christ showed her the only way to true enlightenment, peace and happiness… "Now, in Jesus, I have finally discovered what I sought all of my life." Big Woo. Why don’t you tell us about the MILLIONS of Bhuddists that have sent your missionaries packing? No. That would be too honsest for you, wouldn’t it? There are as many Bhuddists in the world as there are Christians, more- or-less. Speaking as Catholic Christian who has studied Buddhism, the philosophies of the two faiths are VERY similar up to a point, a point at which they take two radically different directions. I’ve found meditation to be very useful, and I appreciate the practice of mindfulness very much, they’re something all Christians would benefit from. I asked myself how Buddhists would hold virtually the same moral values as Christians without a belief in God. The answer is a universal truth… a natural law, which written on our souls, waiting to be read. So, peace, everybody. H.

Well said, Hugh. I don’t think it is that the Bhuddists don’t recognize the existence of God, they just don’t see It as an over-sized violently sadistic White authoritarian with such a poor self-image that It needs to be worshipped by Its own creations. As for ‘peace’? Jesus was a serious trouble-maker "I come with a sword to cleave father from son…" who drove the money-changers from the Temple with a *whip*. But He never seriously harmed anyone, which is an important difference between Him and people of violence. He demonstrated that peace could be very aggressive indeed. AC

Response:

A Buddhist Nun’s Story As told by Dr.T.L.Osborn A 74 year-old Thai Buddhist Nun relates how The Lord Jesus Christ showed her the only way to true enlightenment, peace and happiness… "Now, in Jesus, I have finally discovered what I sought all of my life."

Big Woo. Why don’t you tell us about the MILLIONS of Bhuddists that have sent your missionaries packing? No. That would be too honsest for you, wouldn’t it? There are as many Bhuddists in the world as there are Christians, more- or-less. Which OUGHT to tell you something. It is also a religion that pre-dates Christianity by a considerable margin, and many of its teachings closely resemble those of Jesus. Though not YOUR teachings. <snip AC

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  A Buddhist Nun’s Story As told by Dr.T.L.Osborn A 74 year-old Thai Buddhist Nun relates how The Lord Jesus Christ showed her the only way to true enlightenment, peace and happiness… "Now, in Jesus, I have finally discovered what I sought all of my life." Big Woo. Why don’t you tell us about the MILLIONS of Bhuddists that have sent your missionaries packing? No. That would be too honsest for you, wouldn’t it? There are as many Bhuddists in the world as there are Christians, more- or-less.

Speaking as Catholic Christian who has studied Buddhism, the philosophies of the two faiths are VERY similar up to a point, a point at which they take two radically different directions. I’ve found meditation to be very useful, and I appreciate the practice of mindfulness very much, they’re something all Christians would benefit from. I asked myself how Buddhists would hold virtually the same moral values as Christians without a belief in God. The answer is a universal truth… a natural law, which written on our souls, waiting to be read. So, peace, everybody. H.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – These may be some really naive questions, but where in the bible does it say anything about a Pope and that faith has anything to do with the structure that exists in the catholic church? I know very little about the structure of the catholic church other than it seems to be quite elaborate. What’s the basis for that structure? If the bible doesn’t define what it should be, does that mean that someone just made the whole thing up? You are under the misconception that the Bible contains the complete and sole sum of revealed truth.  You’ll have to show me where in the Bible it says that everything is in the Bible. OK, what is/are the other mediums of revealed truth? Oral tradition, for one. For one… and the others? Catholics don’t follow the Bible, we follow the Apostles (much like they did immediately after Jesus’ Resurrection and Ascention into heaven.  Many "Bible Christians" seem to think that the Bible dropped bound from heaven about 1500AD. Don’t follow the Bible? Not even a little bit? What are the records from the Apostles that are used as guidance, and why are they so uncompelling to these "Bible Christians" you described that they choose to not follow them? I should have put it a different way.  Don’t follow JUST the Bible.  We follow everything in the Bible, we just don’t believe that’s where it ends. *You* don’t *believe* that’s where it ends. Sorry, but what makes that more right than what Bible Christians believe? Because "Bible Christians" can’t tell me where in the Bible is says that the Bible is the only source of God’s revealed truth. The short answer is: You don’t find it in the Bible.  So what? Another question: It seems like the catholic church made some really, really major errors over the course of its history and that many if not most of them were based on what turned out to be interpretations of the bible and the edicts of the church that, in retrospect, were at best way off base and at worse a self-serving exercise of power. How does anyone know whether what the catholic church authorities are saying now don’t fall in this same category? That is, if someone looks back at what the church is saying now, how do we know that everyone in the future won’t recognize that current positions are as absurd as those we now recognize to have been major errors in the past? The interesting part about all of this is that God reveals His Truth to us in His time.  That means that errors are correctable as God reveals more of His Truth to us. I suspect that the people who suffered because of these errors wouldn’t find it quite so "interesting." Man, back in the days when the Catholic chruch had real power the last place you’d want to find yourself is on the wrong end of a position that people would later find to be "interesting." In any case, it seems like you’re saying that yes, indeed, we could quite well later find out that current positions of the Catholic chuch might later be recognized as wrong because God will have revealed more Truth to us. It’s happened.  Note the problem with indulgences that bothered Martin Luther.  But the revealed truth is right and correct for *now*.  And God knows what He will reveal in the future. This sounds like pretty much a free pass for the chruch to do whatever they want. Sounds like that, doesn’t it.  If you believe in Apostolic succession it isn’t a problem. Yet another question. One often hears about an individual quoting the bible to justify a certain ethical/moral position (e.g. homosexuality), but then someone else quotes some other part of the bible that is so patently absurd in a modern society (stoning your neighbor to death for mowing his lawn on a Sunday, or something along those lines) that it demonstrates that using biblical quotes is so fraught with contradictions that doing so merely smacks of self-serving selectivity. So, do such contradictions exist, and if they do, who gets to decide which ones are supposed to apply to modern society? I’m sure there aren’t any expiration clauses attached to teachings in the bible, or are there? This is why we have 2000 years of Biblical scholarship helping us to interpret these so-called "inconsistencies".  We don’t run into the same problem that people who interpret their own Bible (already translated with the translator’s biases) to determine the Truth.  That’s why we come up with one truth, and other Christians come up with 33,000 different "Truths".  (If you think about it, 32,999 of those contradicting truths have to be wrong.) So, are you saying that these so called inconsistencies are all the result of misinterpretations? Inconsistencies between Bible verses?  One of the problems is that the Bible needs to be taken in totality, not snipped piece by piece.  What would happen if someone who only followed the Bible read only … say … Leviticus? So some parts of Leviticus are not appropriate but others are? And this line marks you as a troll.  Later. *Plonk*

I had to respond to this. First of all, I don’t know what it means to be marked as a troll, what a troll is, or what it means when someone says *Plonk*, but it certainly smacks of someone who conveniently catagorizes those who have different beliefs or those who are willing to challenge what a person says. Saying that "…the Bible needs to be taken in totality, not snipped piece by piece" is, in my opinion, just a euphemism for "my gestalt of the bible is right and your gestalt of the bible is wrong." My conclusion from this entire thread is that just about any beliefs or reasoning are not only possible, they are routinely indulged in whether or not the links are so tenuous as to be nearly non-existent, or are based merely on individual beliefs. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – -Tony

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jesus collected and taught a group of people, and of these He made Simon, renamed Peter, the leader.  He also said He would build His Church upon Peter. Sorry but he He didn’t say that. He said "upon this rock" not referring to Peter but to his statement "thou art the Christ the son of the living God". If it was based on the statement than why did He feel the need to rename Simon Peter? I don’t believe He renamed Him. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." I am curious as to how one could read this another way than him being called Peter. And note..your argument falters further in the next verse. The 2nd person pronoun is used and no evidence that Jesus has switched the person being addressed from Peter to someone/thing else. In case you didn’t know, Peter was his name. Matthew 4:18  And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. In other words..Peter was his nickname. Which Jesus turned into his actual name. At the same time Jesus said that Peter would be rock upn which He would build his Church..and who would receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Again..no sigin of a pronoun shift.

<G Because of his impulsive and bull-headed nature, I have often joked that Peter should be the patron saint of ADHD…I wonder if Simon was called "rock" because of his stubborn nature? Buny

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jesus collected and taught a group of people, and of these He made Simon, renamed Peter, the leader.  He also said He would build His Church upon Peter. Sorry but he He didn’t say that. He said "upon this rock" not referring to Peter but to his statement "thou art the Christ the son of the living God". If it was based on the statement than why did He feel the need to rename Simon Peter? I don’t believe He renamed Him. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." I am curious as to how one could read this another way than him being called Peter. And note..your argument falters further in the next verse. The 2nd person pronoun is used and no evidence that Jesus has switched the person being addressed from Peter to someone/thing else.

Not to mention that the name "Peter" (The Greek variation of the Aramaic Cephus–both of which…) means *ROCK*…if Jesus did not mean Simon to be the rock on which He was to build His church, then why re-name Simon "Rock"? Buny

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – These may be some really naive questions, but where in the bible does it say anything about a Pope and that faith has anything to do with the structure that exists in the catholic church? I know very little about the structure of the catholic church other than it seems to be quite elaborate. What’s the basis for that structure? If the bible doesn’t define what it should be, does that mean that someone just made the whole thing up? You are under the misconception that the Bible contains the complete and sole sum of revealed truth.  You’ll have to show me where in the Bible it says that everything is in the Bible. OK, what is/are the other mediums of revealed truth? Oral tradition, for one. For one… and the others? Catholics don’t follow the Bible, we follow the Apostles (much like they did immediately after Jesus’ Resurrection and Ascention into heaven.  Many "Bible Christians" seem to think that the Bible dropped bound from heaven about 1500AD. Don’t follow the Bible? Not even a little bit? What are the records from the Apostles that are used as guidance, and why are they so uncompelling to these "Bible Christians" you described that they choose to not follow them? I should have put it a different way.  Don’t follow JUST the Bible.  We follow everything in the Bible, we just don’t believe that’s where it ends. *You* don’t *believe* that’s where it ends. Sorry, but what makes that more right than what Bible Christians believe?

Because "Bible Christians" can’t tell me where in the Bible is says that the Bible is the only source of God’s revealed truth. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The short answer is: You don’t find it in the Bible.  So what? Another question: It seems like the catholic church made some really, really major errors over the course of its history and that many if not most of them were based on what turned out to be interpretations of the bible and the edicts of the church that, in retrospect, were at best way off base and at worse a self-serving exercise of power. How does anyone know whether what the catholic church authorities are saying now don’t fall in this same category? That is, if someone looks back at what the church is saying now, how do we know that everyone in the future won’t recognize that current positions are as absurd as those we now recognize to have been major errors in the past? The interesting part about all of this is that God reveals His Truth to us in His time.  That means that errors are correctable as God reveals more of His Truth to us. I suspect that the people who suffered because of these errors wouldn’t find it quite so "interesting." Man, back in the days when the Catholic chruch had real power the last place you’d want to find yourself is on the wrong end of a position that people would later find to be "interesting." In any case, it seems like you’re saying that yes, indeed, we could quite well later find out that current positions of the Catholic chuch might later be recognized as wrong because God will have revealed more Truth to us. It’s happened.  Note the problem with indulgences that bothered Martin Luther.  But the revealed truth is right and correct for *now*.  And God knows what He will reveal in the future. This sounds like pretty much a free pass for the chruch to do whatever they want.

Sounds like that, doesn’t it.  If you believe in Apostolic succession it isn’t a problem. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yet another question. One often hears about an individual quoting the bible to justify a certain ethical/moral position (e.g. homosexuality), but then someone else quotes some other part of the bible that is so patently absurd in a modern society (stoning your neighbor to death for mowing his lawn on a Sunday, or something along those lines) that it demonstrates that using biblical quotes is so fraught with contradictions that doing so merely smacks of self-serving selectivity. So, do such contradictions exist, and if they do, who gets to decide which ones are supposed to apply to modern society? I’m sure there aren’t any expiration clauses attached to teachings in the bible, or are there? This is why we have 2000 years of Biblical scholarship helping us to interpret these so-called "inconsistencies".  We don’t run into the same problem that people who interpret their own Bible (already translated with the translator’s biases) to determine the Truth.  That’s why we come up with one truth, and other Christians come up with 33,000 different "Truths".  (If you think about it, 32,999 of those contradicting truths have to be wrong.) So, are you saying that these so called inconsistencies are all the result of misinterpretations? Inconsistencies between Bible verses?  One of the problems is that the Bible needs to be taken in totality, not snipped piece by piece.  What would happen if someone who only followed the Bible read only … say … Leviticus? So some parts of Leviticus are not appropriate but others are?

And this line marks you as a troll.  Later. *Plonk* -Tony — For fairly troll free Catholic discussion, join on the web at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/romancatholic/ "Or could it confirm that he’s [Joseph Geloso's] a locution short of a dogma?" – Daniel Hoehr

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jesus collected and taught a group of people, and of these He made Simon, renamed Peter, the leader.  He also said He would build His Church upon Peter. Sorry but he He didn’t say that. He said "upon this rock" not referring to Peter but to his statement "thou art the Christ the son of the living God". If it was based on the statement than why did He feel the need to rename Simon Peter? I don’t believe He renamed Him. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." I am curious as to how one could read this another way than him being called Peter. And note..your argument falters further in the next verse. The 2nd person pronoun is used and no evidence that Jesus has switched the person being addressed from Peter to someone/thing else. In case you didn’t know, Peter was his name. Matthew 4:18  And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.

In other words..Peter was his nickname. Which Jesus turned into his actual name. At the same time Jesus said that Peter would be rock upn which He would build his Church..and who would receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Again..no sigin of a pronoun shift. dnp bardi

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – These may be some really naive questions, but where in the bible does it say anything about a Pope and that faith has anything to do with the structure that exists in the catholic church? I know very little about the structure of the catholic church other than it seems to be quite elaborate. What’s the basis for that structure? If the bible doesn’t define what it should be, does that mean that someone just made the whole thing up? You are under the misconception that the Bible contains the complete and sole sum of revealed truth.  You’ll have to show me where in the Bible it says that everything is in the Bible. OK, what is/are the other mediums of revealed truth? Oral tradition, for one.

For one… and the others? Catholics don’t follow the Bible, we follow the Apostles (much like they did immediately after Jesus’ Resurrection and Ascention into heaven.  Many "Bible Christians" seem to think that the Bible dropped bound from heaven about 1500AD. Don’t follow the Bible? Not even a little bit? What are the records from the Apostles that are used as guidance, and why are they so uncompelling to these "Bible Christians" you described that they choose to not follow them? I should have put it a different way.  Don’t follow JUST the Bible.  We follow everything in the Bible, we just don’t believe that’s where it ends.

*You* don’t *believe* that’s where it ends. Sorry, but what makes that more right than what Bible Christians believe? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The short answer is: You don’t find it in the Bible.  So what? Another question: It seems like the catholic church made some really, really major errors over the course of its history and that many if not most of them were based on what turned out to be interpretations of the bible and the edicts of the church that, in retrospect, were at best way off base and at worse a self-serving exercise of power. How does anyone know whether what the catholic church authorities are saying now don’t fall in this same category? That is, if someone looks back at what the church is saying now, how do we know that everyone in the future won’t recognize that current positions are as absurd as those we now recognize to have been major errors in the past? The interesting part about all of this is that God reveals His Truth to us in His time.  That means that errors are correctable as God reveals more of His Truth to us. I suspect that the people who suffered because of these errors wouldn’t find it quite so "interesting." Man, back in the days when the Catholic chruch had real power the last place you’d want to find yourself is on the wrong end of a position that people would later find to be "interesting." In any case, it seems like you’re saying that yes, indeed, we could quite well later find out that current positions of the Catholic chuch might later be recognized as wrong because God will have revealed more Truth to us. It’s happened.  Note the problem with indulgences that bothered Martin Luther.  But the revealed truth is right and correct for *now*.  And God knows what He will reveal in the future.

This sounds like pretty much a free pass for the chruch to do whatever they want. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yet another question. One often hears about an individual quoting the bible to justify a certain ethical/moral position (e.g. homosexuality), but then someone else quotes some other part of the bible that is so patently absurd in a modern society (stoning your neighbor to death for mowing his lawn on a Sunday, or something along those lines) that it demonstrates that using biblical quotes is so fraught with contradictions that doing so merely smacks of self-serving selectivity. So, do such contradictions exist, and if they do, who gets to decide which ones are supposed to apply to modern society? I’m sure there aren’t any expiration clauses attached to teachings in the bible, or are there? This is why we have 2000 years of Biblical scholarship helping us to interpret these so-called "inconsistencies".  We don’t run into the same problem that people who interpret their own Bible (already translated with the translator’s biases) to determine the Truth.  That’s why we come up with one truth, and other Christians come up with 33,000 different "Truths".  (If you think about it, 32,999 of those contradicting truths have to be wrong.) So, are you saying that these so called inconsistencies are all the result of misinterpretations? Inconsistencies between Bible verses?  One of the problems is that the Bible needs to be taken in totality, not snipped piece by piece.  What would happen if someone who only followed the Bible read only … say … Leviticus?

So some parts of Leviticus are not appropriate but others are? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I read recently that the concept of the Pope being infallible is a fairly recent decision (late 1800s or so). How does something like that get decided? Was there something in the bible about papal infalibility that the church scholars missed all those years before the decision? Does infallibility apply retrospectively? That is, if a modern Pope is infallible, then weren’t all prior Popes also infallible, even if they didn’t realize it at the time? Aren’t there a lot of "pre-infallibility" edicts (or whatever you call them) made by early Popes that we now recognized as being patently absurd, and if so, what does that say about actual infallibility of the Pope? It gets decided by an Ecumenical Council, just like all Catholic Dogma.   And the Pope has always been infallible, we just had it revealed to us by Almighty God fairly recently. Was it "decided" by the Council or revealed by God? And, how did Almighty God reveal this? Not to sound mocking, but this seems pretty important, so any idea of why He waited so long to let the Church know about it? Both.  And as to why He waited so long, why don’t you ask *him*?

In other words, just take it on faith? Many misunderstand infallibility.  If the Pope likes Raisin Bran, it doesn’t automatically become the official breakfast cereal of the Catholic Church.  Infallibility only applies to matters of faith and morals. Also, "infallibility" (ex-cathedra pronouncement) has only been invoked twice in the history of the Church.  If you’re interested, I’ll tell you which two those were. Yes. I’m interested in hearing about them. The immaculate conception of the Blessed mother (Mary being conceived without sin to be the perfect vessel for our Savior) The bodily assumption of Mary to heaven.

That it? That was sure anticlimatic. I thought they might be something that actually had something to do with how people live their lives. What are the criteria for invoking infallibility? As I asked the other poster, if infallibility isn’t invoked then does that mean that a pronouncment *might* be wrong? If not, why not? Am I safe in assumming that infallibility has not been declared for any church positions that resulted in somebody on the wrong end of an "interesting" situation? You’re safe in that assumption, unless you can find me a case where someone was on the wrong end of the above two situations.

I don’t see how. These aren’t exactly declarations that really have much consequence, like many of the other things on which the Catholic church takes stances and that actually affect people’s lives. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – -Tony

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jesus collected and taught a group of people, and of these He made Simon, renamed Peter, the leader.  He also said He would build His Church upon Peter. Sorry but he He didn’t say that. He said "upon this rock" not referring to Peter but to his statement "thou art the Christ the son of the living God". If it was based on the statement than why did He feel the need to rename Simon Peter? I don’t believe He renamed Him.

18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." I am curious as to how one could read this another way than him being called Peter. And note..your argument falters further in the next verse. The 2nd person pronoun is used and no evidence that Jesus has switched the person being addressed from Peter to someone/thing else. Even so, how much is tea in China these days?

In what currency. dnp bardi who is beginning to get used to attempts at changing the subject.

Response:

Jesus collected and taught a group of people, and of these He made Simon, renamed Peter, the leader.  He also said He would build His Church upon Peter. Sorry but he He didn’t say that. He said "upon this rock" not referring to Peter but to his statement "thou art the Christ the son of the living God".

If it was based on the statement than why did He feel the need to rename Simon Peter? dnp bardi

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [snip] anything about a Pope [snip] The Catholic answer is that the papacy we see now is a development of the Petrine office created by Jesus. So, are you saying that there isn’t anything in the bible that is the basis for the Catholic church, but that it is based on this non-biblical "Petrine Office"? I’ve never heard of the Petrine Office. You say Jesus started this? Were there some sort of written records about how that helped people organize the church in accordance with what Jesus wanted? I thought the entire written history of Jesus’ teachings was all in the bible. I’ve never heard of any other record.

Scripture citations are problematic if the nature and authority of Scripture aren’t clearly understood and agreed to in advance. For that reason I didn’t give you any *proof-texts* of the special authority and responsibility of Peter (which is sometimes called *the Petrine office*). You yourself adverted to difficulty in reconciling differing interpretations of Scripture in your first post. So my first point was, maybe we should discuss the nature, source and authority of Scripture before discussing specific interpretion issues. Put another way: do you insist on some Scriptural evidence and, if so, why? A proper discussion of the Scriptural basis for the continuing office of Peter should be book-length. So I’ll start by recommending a couple of books that go into the kind of detail that would do justice to the issue:     Stephen K. Ray, Upon This Rock, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999. and     Scott Butler , Norman Dahlgren , David Hess, Jesus, Peter and the     Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, Queenship Publishing     Company, Santa Barbara, 1997. The, again, short-and-sweet version is that there is a lot of Scriptural evidence of the special position of Peter amongst Jesus’ first followers and in the Church after the Resurrection. The idea of continuing authority, including Petrine, in the Church is also evidenced in Scripture (including the Matthew citation I gave you previously) and in the Church Fathers. [snip] Wow! Are you saying that the entire structure of the Catholic church is predicated on this? I guess I can see where *a* church could be construed, but I don’t see where it specifies *the* church, and I don’t see where it dictates any particular structure nor any concept of the current hierarchy.

It’s not clear to me what you’re surprised about. Jesus founded *a* *church* not many churches or He founded no *church* at all. I see no evidence to the contrary. If that church still exists then it is *the* church not simple *a* church in the context of Jesus. It is *His* Church, His *Body* as Paul wrote in the mid-First Century. Any Church that departs from the Apostolic, Jesus-founded one is, to that extent, not *the* church. (And maybe not even *a* church). [snip] And so the "correctness" of this development is based on the many years of proper interpretation of what Jesus and his Apostles would have wanted? Are there sufficient teachings to actually justify what the church eventially became? Where are the records of that, and what do all of the non-Catholic Christian religions have to say about those records? If such records exist, I don’t see how they can justify their existence as church’s.

There are a multiplicity of communities that call themselves a *church* and some may even describe themselves as being or being in *the* *church*. The community founded by Jesus (called *ecclesia* in Greek and *church* in English) is the normative, seminal community. Few Christians reject that community and still consider themselves fully *Christian*. With thousands of competitors for this title (*the* church) you have some heavy lifting to do. This is not a drive-through window type of operation (*two big macs and the identity of the *true* church founded by Jesus Christ, please*). Again, the short answer is that the correctness or falsity is based on what the Holy Spirit (and Jesus) *wants* (present tense). (see Acts citation below). [snip] For someone who *doesn’t know much* you sure have a closet full of *information* you’re not sharing. Could you be more specific? Not really, and I didn’t want to be specific because my point wasn’t to debate the details of any one event. I’m referring to things like persecution of people for saying that the Earth isn’t the center of the universe, the atrocities of the crusades (I’m not trying to start a Christina vs. Islam debate–I’m just making a point that some pretty awful things that were done in the name of Jesus), pretty much the whole dark ages, condoning the burning of Joan of Arc at the stake and then later "Sainting" her, things like that.

Again, I’m concerned that you want an easy, simple, every-agrees-that kind of answer. This is Big Stuff. Lots of people will present initially plausible kinds of answers. Some of those answers will contain falsehoods (*the Church persecuted people who denied the earth is at the center of the universe*), half-truths (*the Church killed Joan of Arc and then sainted her*) and poorly understood truths (*there were atrocities committed by Christians during the Crusades*). The net effect of using poorly understood premises (as above) is to lead to false conclusions. Thinking correctly is hard work. But don’t despair, practice makes you better! [snip] But doesn’t that contradict the authority of the Catholic church? It seems like you’re saying that the Catholic church might indeed be wrong and an individual would know it’s wrong because of a living relationship with Jesus. Isn’t that exactly what the Catholic church says you can’t do and the entire reason for the Protestant religions?

*If* Jesus was the extraordinary person He claimed to be and *if* He founded a continuing community (let’s call it the *church*) and *if* Jesus promised to protect that church until the end of time and *if* His church is most completely respresented in the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, *then* a person in communion with Jesus on a personal level will (eventually) recognize Jesus in His Body, the Church. What part of the Church teaching might be *wrong* that you’re concerned about? It’s teachings about Jesus and His Resurrection? If those are false, then the Church is false and you have nothing to be worried about. It’s teaching that it is *the* Church founded by Jesus? Where is that Church? Quick, go find it! It’s teaching about the meaning and application of Scripture? If not the Church guided and protected by Jesus, then whom? It’s teachings about the meaning of the Moral Law? If you’ve already identified the Catholic Church as that founded and protected by Jesus then you’ve got a problem. Either Jesus lied or you have to listen to His Body when it explains the ramifications of the Law of God in our lives. No middle ground here that I can see. What’s left to worry about?   [snip] Another Wow! So the Catholic church has the competence to "weigh" teachings from the bible because it was founded by Christ? What are the guiding principles for the church’s weightings other than it’s origins? What you said sounds an awful lot like they have final authority simply because they say they should.

Listen to the conclusion of the first controversial gathering of the Apostles after the Resurrection:         For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…                         Acts 15:28 Note there are no Scripture citatons: *the Holy Spirit and we got together and decided that…* You’re right: Wow! That is the Church I would be looking for today if I wanted to find the Church founded by Christ: not simply a system of logic and documentation, but a living relationship with God through Jesus; a teaching with authority, just like Jesus (cf. Matthew 7:28f). That’s why I’m Catholic. [snip] You didn’t address the main point: Are the any examples of a past pope making decisions of the faith that have been later recognized as off base? Maybe not?

Your question is very good. The answer is that the Catholic Church is unaware of previously *infallible* teachings being later found to be erroneous. *Erroneous infallible* statements are oxymoronic. To assert such a thing is to deny infallibility in the first place. Affirming infallibility, I deny that any infallible teaching of the Church was later found or might later be found to be erroneous. If you’re aware of such a thing, you would be doing me a favour by pointing it out. The problem, for the logicians I would think, is that a simple, definitive list of such teachings has not been gathered together by the *Church* (some theologians have tried). But start with the Creeds (Apostolic and Nicene anyway): if anything in these is materially false, then the Church has erred and is *not* infallible in any meaningful sense. Anything taught by *all* the bishops in communion with Rome as binding in faith (not simple a common opinion, but something that being contradicted would result in expulsion from the Church) at a given time (and theoretically, then, forever after) is (or should be) infallible according to the Second Vatican Council. Find a profess-this-or-be- excommunicated (world-wide) type of teaching that has since been *dropped* as compulsory and you’ve defeated the claim to infallibility of the Church (never mind the Pope). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [snip] That a pope, fulfilling the criteria recognized by the Vatican I, has taught error in the past is a simple refutation of the Council’s teaching. Do you have an example? No. It seems like excercising this infallibiliy is far less common that I

… read more »

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – These may be some really naive questions, but where in the bible does it say anything about a Pope and that faith has anything to do with the structure that exists in the catholic church? I know very little about the structure of the catholic church other than it seems to be quite elaborate. What’s the basis for that structure? If the bible doesn’t define what it should be, does that mean that someone just made the whole thing up? You are under the misconception that the Bible contains the complete and sole sum of revealed truth.  You’ll have to show me where in the Bible it says that everything is in the Bible. OK, what is/are the other mediums of revealed truth?

Oral tradition, for one. Catholics don’t follow the Bible, we follow the Apostles (much like they did immediately after Jesus’ Resurrection and Ascention into heaven.  Many "Bible Christians" seem to think that the Bible dropped bound from heaven about 1500AD. Don’t follow the Bible? Not even a little bit? What are the records from the Apostles that are used as guidance, and why are they so uncompelling to these "Bible Christians" you described that they choose to not follow them?

I should have put it a different way.  Don’t follow JUST the Bible.  We follow everything in the Bible, we just don’t believe that’s where it ends. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The short answer is: You don’t find it in the Bible.  So what? Another question: It seems like the catholic church made some really, really major errors over the course of its history and that many if not most of them were based on what turned out to be interpretations of the bible and the edicts of the church that, in retrospect, were at best way off base and at worse a self-serving exercise of power. How does anyone know whether what the catholic church authorities are saying now don’t fall in this same category? That is, if someone looks back at what the church is saying now, how do we know that everyone in the future won’t recognize that current positions are as absurd as those we now recognize to have been major errors in the past? The interesting part about all of this is that God reveals His Truth to us in His time.  That means that errors are correctable as God reveals more of His Truth to us. I suspect that the people who suffered because of these errors wouldn’t find it quite so "interesting." Man, back in the days when the Catholic chruch had real power the last place you’d want to find yourself is on the wrong end of a position that people would later find to be "interesting." In any case, it seems like you’re saying that yes, indeed, we could quite well later find out that current positions of the Catholic chuch might later be recognized as wrong because God will have revealed more Truth to us.

It’s happened.  Note the problem with indulgences that bothered Martin Luther.  But the revealed truth is right and correct for *now*.  And God knows what He will reveal in the future. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yet another question. One often hears about an individual quoting the bible to justify a certain ethical/moral position (e.g. homosexuality), but then someone else quotes some other part of the bible that is so patently absurd in a modern society (stoning your neighbor to death for mowing his lawn on a Sunday, or something along those lines) that it demonstrates that using biblical quotes is so fraught with contradictions that doing so merely smacks of self-serving selectivity. So, do such contradictions exist, and if they do, who gets to decide which ones are supposed to apply to modern society? I’m sure there aren’t any expiration clauses attached to teachings in the bible, or are there? This is why we have 2000 years of Biblical scholarship helping us to interpret these so-called "inconsistencies".  We don’t run into the same problem that people who interpret their own Bible (already translated with the translator’s biases) to determine the Truth.  That’s why we come up with one truth, and other Christians come up with 33,000 different "Truths".  (If you think about it, 32,999 of those contradicting truths have to be wrong.) So, are you saying that these so called inconsistencies are all the result of misinterpretations?

Inconsistencies between Bible verses?  One of the problems is that the Bible needs to be taken in totality, not snipped piece by piece.  What would happen if someone who only followed the Bible read only … say … Leviticus? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I read recently that the concept of the Pope being infallible is a fairly recent decision (late 1800s or so). How does something like that get decided? Was there something in the bible about papal infalibility that the church scholars missed all those years before the decision? Does infallibility apply retrospectively? That is, if a modern Pope is infallible, then weren’t all prior Popes also infallible, even if they didn’t realize it at the time? Aren’t there a lot of "pre-infallibility" edicts (or whatever you call them) made by early Popes that we now recognized as being patently absurd, and if so, what does that say about actual infallibility of the Pope? It gets decided by an Ecumenical Council, just like all Catholic Dogma.   And the Pope has always been infallible, we just had it revealed to us by Almighty God fairly recently. Was it "decided" by the Council or revealed by God? And, how did Almighty God reveal this? Not to sound mocking, but this seems pretty important, so any idea of why He waited so long to let the Church know about it?

Both.  And as to why He waited so long, why don’t you ask *him*? Many misunderstand infallibility.  If the Pope likes Raisin Bran, it doesn’t automatically become the official breakfast cereal of the Catholic Church.  Infallibility only applies to matters of faith and morals. Also, "infallibility" (ex-cathedra pronouncement) has only been invoked twice in the history of the Church.  If you’re interested, I’ll tell you which two those were. Yes. I’m interested in hearing about them.

The immaculate conception of the Blessed mother (Mary being conceived without sin to be the perfect vessel for our Savior) The bodily assumption of Mary to heaven. What are the criteria for invoking infallibility? As I asked the other poster, if infallibility isn’t invoked then does that mean that a pronouncment *might* be wrong? If not, why not? Am I safe in assumming that infallibility has not been declared for any church positions that resulted in somebody on the wrong end of an "interesting" situation?

You’re safe in that assumption, unless you can find me a case where someone was on the wrong end of the above two situations. -Tony — For fairly troll free Catholic discussion, join on the web at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/romancatholic/ "Rome has spoken, the debate is ended." — St. Augustine

Response:

These may be some really naive questions, but where in the bible does it say anything about a Pope and that faith has anything to do with the structure that exists in the catholic church? I know very little about the structure of the catholic church other than it seems to be quite elaborate. What’s the basis for that structure? If the bible doesn’t define what it should be, does that mean that someone just made the whole thing up? You are under the misconception that the Bible contains the complete and sole sum of revealed truth.  You’ll have to show me where in the Bible it says that everything is in the Bible.

OK, what is/are the other mediums of revealed truth? Catholics don’t follow the Bible, we follow the Apostles (much like they did immediately after Jesus’ Resurrection and Ascention into heaven.  Many "Bible Christians" seem to think that the Bible dropped bound from heaven about 1500AD.

Don’t follow the Bible? Not even a little bit? What are the records from the Apostles that are used as guidance, and why are they so uncompelling to these "Bible Christians" you described that they choose to not follow them? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The short answer is: You don’t find it in the Bible.  So what? Another question: It seems like the catholic church made some really, really major errors over the course of its history and that many if not most of them were based on what turned out to be interpretations of the bible and the edicts of the church that, in retrospect, were at best way off base and at worse a self-serving exercise of power. How does anyone know whether what the catholic church authorities are saying now don’t fall in this same category? That is, if someone looks back at what the church is saying now, how do we know that everyone in the future won’t recognize that current positions are as absurd as those we now recognize to have been major errors in the past? The interesting part about all of this is that God reveals His Truth to us in His time.  That means that errors are correctable as God reveals more of His Truth to us.

I suspect that the people who suffered because of these errors wouldn’t find it quite so "interesting." Man, back in the days when the Catholic chruch had real power the last place you’d want to find yourself is on the wrong end of a position that people would later find to be "interesting." In any case, it seems like you’re saying that yes, indeed, we could quite well later find out that current positions of the Catholic chuch might later be recognized as wrong because God will have revealed more Truth to us. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yet another question. One often hears about an individual quoting the bible to justify a certain ethical/moral position (e.g. homosexuality), but then someone else quotes some other part of the bible that is so patently absurd in a modern society (stoning your neighbor to death for mowing his lawn on a Sunday, or something along those lines) that it demonstrates that using biblical quotes is so fraught with contradictions that doing so merely smacks of self-serving selectivity. So, do such contradictions exist, and if they do, who gets to decide which ones are supposed to apply to modern society? I’m sure there aren’t any expiration clauses attached to teachings in the bible, or are there? This is why we have 2000 years of Biblical scholarship helping us to interpret these so-called "inconsistencies".  We don’t run into the same problem that people who interpret their own Bible (already translated with the translator’s biases) to determine the Truth.  That’s why we come up with one truth, and other Christians come up with 33,000 different "Truths".  (If you think about it, 32,999 of those contradicting truths have to be wrong.)

So, are you saying that these so called inconsistencies are all the result of misinterpretations? I read recently that the concept of the Pope being infallible is a fairly recent decision (late 1800s or so). How does something like that get decided? Was there something in the bible about papal infalibility that the church scholars missed all those years before the decision? Does infallibility apply retrospectively? That is, if a modern Pope is infallible, then weren’t all prior Popes also infallible, even if they didn’t realize it at the time? Aren’t there a lot of "pre-infallibility" edicts (or whatever you call them) made by early Popes that we now recognized as being patently absurd, and if so, what does that say about actual infallibility of the Pope? It gets decided by an Ecumenical Council, just like all Catholic Dogma.   And the Pope has always been infallible, we just had it revealed to us by Almighty God fairly recently.

Was it "decided" by the Council or revealed by God? And, how did Almighty God reveal this? Not to sound mocking, but this seems pretty important, so any idea of why He waited so long to let the Church know about it? Many misunderstand infallibility.  If the Pope likes Raisin Bran, it doesn’t automatically become the official breakfast cereal of the Catholic Church.  Infallibility only applies to matters of faith and morals. Also, "infallibility" (ex-cathedra pronouncement) has only been invoked twice in the history of the Church.  If you’re interested, I’ll tell you which two those were.

Yes. I’m interested in hearing about them. What are the criteria for invoking infallibility? As I asked the other poster, if infallibility isn’t invoked then does that mean that a pronouncment *might* be wrong? If not, why not? Am I safe in assumming that infallibility has not been declared for any church positions that resulted in somebody on the wrong end of an "interesting" situation? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – -Tony

Response:

These may be some really naive questions, but where in the bible does it say anything about a Pope and that faith has anything to do with the structure that exists in the catholic church? I know very little about the structure of the catholic church other than it seems to be quite elaborate. What’s the basis for that structure? If the bible doesn’t define what it should be, does that mean that someone just made the whole thing up?

Jesus collected and taught a group of people, and of these He made Simon, renamed Peter, the leader.  He also said He would build His Church upon Peter.  Thus the Church, until Jesus’ return, has had a visible leader. As far as structure, it developed as needs required.  The NT tells us that there were various offices, Apostles (bishops), Presbyters, deacons.  We see in Acts the election of someone to replace Judas, and know through history that the process continued.  Bishops were in charge of areas, and as the faith spread, they needed more than the original 12.  It grew by the actions of men, but we also believe that it grew with the leadership of the Holy Spirit. Another question: It seems like the catholic church made some really, really major errors over the course of its history and that many if not most of them were based on what turned out to be interpretations of the bible and the edicts of the church that, in retrospect, were at best way off base and at worse a self-serving exercise of power.

Unless you’re talking about some of the favorite anti-Catholic attacks like Galileo, then I’m not sure what incidents you mean.  Want to give an example? How does anyone know whether what the catholic church authorities are saying now don’t fall in this same category? That is, if someone looks back at what the church is saying now, how do we know that everyone in the future won’t recognize that current positions are as absurd as those we now recognize to have been major errors in the past?

The Catholic Church (unlike just about any other church that I’ve heard of) knows the difference between what it teaches, what it just says, and what rules it enforces upon itself.  The rule grew up (supported, but not required by Scripture) that bishops and priests should be unmarried.   It is a rule imposed upon itself for certain reasons (again, both scriptural and social), but the Church doesn’t profess any "truth" to that ruling.  When the Church decides questions of morality or faith – there are rules for how these things are decided.  For example, the Personhood of the Holy Spirit – there were questions on that in the early Church and so a coucil was called, and the matter decided under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Abortion has been taught as immoral back to the time of the apostles.  And there’s another part of the Catholic faith – that truth is not time dependant; if it was immoral in the first century, it is still immoral. Yet another question. One often hears about an individual quoting the bible to justify a certain ethical/moral position (e.g. homosexuality), but then someone else quotes some other part of the bible that is so patently absurd in a modern society (stoning your neighbor to death for mowing his lawn on a Sunday, or something along those lines) that it demonstrates that using biblical quotes is so fraught with contradictions that doing so merely smacks of self-serving selectivity. So, do such contradictions exist, and if they do, who gets to decide which ones are supposed to apply to modern society? I’m sure there aren’t any expiration clauses attached to teachings in the bible, or are there?

Jesus said "I will send the Holy Spirit to lead you to all truth, and to remind you of all I have said."  Catholics believe the faith lives in the Church, that the Bible is part of it, but not the whole thing.  The deposit of faith contains the Bible, the Bible doesn’t contain the whole deposit of faith handed down by the apostles (after all, the Church existed for 15-20 years before the first book of the NT was written, and   almost 50 years before the last one was written).  There are contradictions in the Bible (just read the first two chapters of Genisus, was humanity created first or last in the order of creation.) But the contradictions don’t matter too much because the Church does not read the Bible literally – we read it in context including the cultural context it was written in.  Also, we have the example in Acts of Peter acting as interpreter of the Bible, so we have the Church to decide questions that arise. As to expiration clauses, yes.  The Law (the rules of the Old Testatement) have been shown to be unable to save; they have been replaced by the Law of Love enacted by Jesus through His death and ressurrection. I read recently that the concept of the Pope being infallible is a fairly recent decision (late 1800s or so). How does something like that get decided? Was there something in the bible about papal infalibility that the church scholars missed all those years before the decision? Does infallibility apply retrospectively? That is, if a modern Pope is infallible, then weren’t all prior Popes also infallible, even if they didn’t realize it at the time? Aren’t there a lot of "pre-infallibility" edicts (or whatever you call them) made by early Popes that we now recognized as being patently absurd, and if so, what does that say about actual infallibility of the Pope?

Lots of questions.  The definition of papal infallibility was made at Vatican I, but the question wasn’t raised before then.  Until a question is raised, it can’t be answered  If it’s an important enough question, a Church Council is called and the bishops decide the answer under the authority given by Jesus, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.   As to papal infallibility in the Bible – it is part of the infallibility given to the Church – "Who hears you, hears me", and the quote about the Holy Spirit given above.  It is this infallibility of the Church in her job of going into all the world and preaching the Gospel.  This infallibility applies only in matters of faith and morals, and yes, this is a definition of what was always there.  I’ve heard that schollars have gone back through the words of the popes from the begining and have found only six instances of where the popes met the conditions for their words to be considered infallible.  And none of them are patently absurd.  After all, by definition, the pope only speaks infallibly when he addresses the whole Church as leader, and is speaking about a matter of faith or morals. Tom A.

Response:

These may be some really naive questions, but where in the bible does it say This is an odd way to start. What *has* to be in the *Bible*? Why? Who decides what the *Bible* is? These seem to be more fundamental questions than the *why isn’t x in the Bible* type.

I don’t understand your point. anything about a Pope Some Christians are offended that other Christians organize themselves and worship in ways that cannot be directly and unambiguously attributed to Jesus’ words in the New Testament (as defined by?). This is a strange problem that people create for themselves. Where in the *Bible* does Jesus say *Thou shalt only organize in the manner I presribe and all others forms of organization are false*? Or did He say *The Church I found shall never change or develop*? Or *My Church shall always be perfectly simple and *never* become elaborate in any way*? The Catholic answer is that the papacy we see now is a development of the Petrine office created by Jesus.

So, are you saying that there isn’t anything in the bible that is the basis for the Catholic church, but that it is based on this non-biblical "Petrine Office"? I’ve never heard of the Petrine Office. You say Jesus started this? Were there some sort of written records about how that helped people organize the church in accordance with what Jesus wanted? I thought the entire written history of Jesus’ teachings was all in the bible. I’ve never heard of any other record. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – and that faith has anything to do with the structure that exists in the catholic church? Do you believe in a *faith* that is utterly opposed to or at least totally unrelated to other people and the structures we use to elaborate our relationships with them? Did Jesus teach this?         "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault,         between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained         your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others         along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence         of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell         it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the         church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.         Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound         in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in         heaven."                Matt 18:15-18 There you have it: structure, authority, established relationships; all from the First Century witnesses and attributed directly to Jesus Himself.

Wow! Are you saying that the entire structure of the Catholic church is predicated on this? I guess I can see where *a* church could be construed, but I don’t see where it specifies *the* church, and I don’t see where it dictates any particular structure nor any concept of the current hierarchy. I know very little about the structure of the catholic church other than it seems to be quite elaborate. What’s the basis for that structure? If the bible doesn’t define what it should be, does that mean that someone just made the whole thing up? This is a false choice. There are other possibilities, one of which is that the Church’s *elaboration* is an organic development of the primitive structures created by Jesus and His Apostles. Just as the zygote doesn’t look anything like the mature adult, yet has all those possibilites within it.

And so the "correctness" of this development is based on the many years of proper interpretation of what Jesus and his Apostles would have wanted? Are there sufficient teachings to actually justify what the church eventially became? Where are the records of that, and what do all of the non-Catholic Christian religions have to say about those records? If such records exist, I don’t see how they can justify their existence as church’s. Another question: It seems like the catholic church made some really, really major errors over the course of its history and that many if not most of them were based on what turned out to be interpretations of the bible and the edicts of the church that, in retrospect, were at best way off base and at worse a self-serving exercise of power. For someone who *doesn’t know much* you sure have a closet full of *information* you’re not sharing. Could you be more specific?

Not really, and I didn’t want to be specific because my point wasn’t to debate the details of any one event. I’m referring to things like persecution of people for saying that the Earth isn’t the center of the universe, the atrocities of the crusades (I’m not trying to start a Christina vs. Islam debate–I’m just making a point that some pretty awful things that were done in the name of Jesus), pretty much the whole dark ages, condoning the burning of Joan of Arc at the stake and then later "Sainting" her, things like that. How does anyone know whether what the catholic church authorities are saying now don’t fall in this same category? Without a living relationship with Jesus you can’t know. The whole exercise is futile: Jesus first, then His Church.

But doesn’t that contradict the authority of the Catholic church? It seems like you’re saying that the Catholic church might indeed be wrong and an individual would know it’s wrong because of a living relationship with Jesus. Isn’t that exactly what the Catholic church says you can’t do and the entire reason for the Protestant religions? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – That is, if someone looks back at what the church is saying now, how do we know that everyone in the future won’t recognize that current positions are as absurd as those we now recognize to have been major errors in the past? Some specifics on the *major errors* would be helpful. It’s difficult to read you mind over my connection. I hope to upgrade next year. Yet another question. One often hears about an individual quoting the bible to justify a certain ethical/moral position (e.g. homosexuality), but then someone else quotes some other part of the bible that is so patently absurd in a modern society (stoning your neighbor to death for mowing his lawn on a Sunday, or something along those lines) that it demonstrates that using biblical quotes is so fraught with contradictions that doing so merely smacks of self-serving selectivity. So, do such contradictions exist, and if they do, who gets to decide which ones are supposed to apply to modern society? I’m sure there aren’t any expiration clauses attached to teachings in the bible, or are there? Whoever defined the *Bible* for Christians is entitled to interpret it imho. Historically that would be the Catholic Church or so I would argue. (I love the stoning-people-for-mowing-lawns-on-Sunday bit. Maybe I could start a petition.) Seriously, not every word of the Bible has exactly the same *weight*. And weighing each word, phrase and so on is finally in the competence of the Church. If that Church is not founded by Christ or if He isn’t who He says He is, then this whole discussion is moot.

Another Wow! So the Catholic church has the competence to "weigh" teachings from the bible because it was founded by Christ? What are the guiding principles for the church’s weightings other than it’s origins? What you said sounds an awful lot like they have final authority simply because they say they should. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I read recently that the concept of the Pope being infallible is a fairly recent decision (late 1800s or so). How does something like that get decided? Was there something in the bible about papal infalibility that the church scholars missed all those years before the decision? Does infallibility apply retrospectively? That is, if a modern Pope is infallible, then weren’t all prior Popes also infallible, even if they didn’t realize it at the time? Aren’t there a lot of "pre-infallibility" edicts (or whatever you call them) made by early Popes that we now recognized as being patently absurd, and if so, what does that say about actual infallibility of the Pope? This seems to be a hypothetical problem for you. What if…? If Jesus is who He said He was; if He gave His authority to His Apostles and especially to Peter; if they, in turn, passed that authority on to their successors; then those successors have Jesus’ authority to decide questions for the faithful.

OK, fair enough. This infallibility is derived from the long line of succession from Jesus. Then the fact that one person inherits infallibility based on how a group of people happened to vote when a pope needs to be selected is, I guess, the product of some divine guidance? I’m not mocking what happens, I’m just trying to extend the concept you described to an interpretation of what the process is of bestowing infallibility upon a normal human. You didn’t address the main point: Are the any examples of a past pope making decisions of the faith that have been later recognized as off base? Maybe not? The history of the discussion of *papal* infallibility is far older and more interesting that your summary. Suffice it to say that the Church actually has some intellectual credendentials and has a coherent, logical understanding of it’s own teaching.

That doesn’t really say much. The church understands what it teaches. I would hope so! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Briefly: the special infallibility of the petrine office (papacy) having been declared, the Church simultaneously and logically declared that it always existed. The first unabiguous use of this office recognized by all Catholics, including those

… read more »

Response:

These may be some really naive questions, but where in the bible does it say anything about a Pope and that faith has anything to do with the structure that exists in the catholic church? I know very little about the structure of the catholic church other than it seems to be quite elaborate. What’s the basis for that structure? If the bible doesn’t define what it should be, does that mean that someone just made the whole thing up? Another question: It seems like the catholic church made some really, really major errors over the course of its history and that many if not most of them were based on what turned out to be interpretations of the bible and the edicts of the church that, in retrospect, were at best way off base and at worse a self-serving exercise of power. How does anyone know whether what the catholic church authorities are saying now don’t fall in this same category? That is, if someone looks back at what the church is saying now, how do we know that everyone in the future won’t recognize that current positions are as absurd as those we now recognize to have been major errors in the past? Yet another question. One often hears about an individual quoting the bible to justify a certain ethical/moral position (e.g. homosexuality), but then someone else quotes some other part of the bible that is so patently absurd in a modern society (stoning your neighbor to death for mowing his lawn on a Sunday, or something along those lines) that it demonstrates that using biblical quotes is so fraught with contradictions that doing so merely smacks of self-serving selectivity. So, do such contradictions exist, and if they do, who gets to decide which ones are supposed to apply to modern society? I’m sure there aren’t any expiration clauses attached to teachings in the bible, or are there? I read recently that the concept of the Pope being infallible is a fairly recent decision (late 1800s or so). How does something like that get decided? Was there something in the bible about papal infalibility that the church scholars missed all those years before the decision? Does infallibility apply retrospectively? That is, if a modern Pope is infallible, then weren’t all prior Popes also infallible, even if they didn’t realize it at the time? Aren’t there a lot of "pre-infallibility" edicts (or whatever you call them) made by early Popes that we now recognized as being patently absurd, and if so, what does that say about actual infallibility of the Pope?

Response:

These may be some really naive questions, but where in the bible does it say

This is an odd way to start. What *has* to be in the *Bible*? Why? Who decides what the *Bible* is? These seem to be more fundamental questions than the *why isn’t x in the Bible* type. anything about a Pope

Some Christians are offended that other Christians organize themselves and worship in ways that cannot be directly and unambiguously attributed to Jesus’ words in the New Testament (as defined by?). This is a strange problem that people create for themselves. Where in the *Bible* does Jesus say *Thou shalt only organize in the manner I presribe and all others forms of organization are false*? Or did He say *The Church I found shall never change or develop*? Or *My Church shall always be perfectly simple and *never* become elaborate in any way*? The Catholic answer is that the papacy we see now is a development of the Petrine office created by Jesus. and that faith has anything to do with the structure that exists in the catholic church?

Do you believe in a *faith* that is utterly opposed to or at least totally unrelated to other people and the structures we use to elaborate our relationships with them? Did Jesus teach this?         "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault,         between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained         your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others         along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence         of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell         it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the         church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.         Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound         in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in         heaven."                Matt 18:15-18 There you have it: structure, authority, established relationships; all from the First Century witnesses and attributed directly to Jesus Himself. I know very little about the structure of the catholic church other than it seems to be quite elaborate. What’s the basis for that structure? If the bible doesn’t define what it should be, does that mean that someone just made the whole thing up?

This is a false choice. There are other possibilities, one of which is that the Church’s *elaboration* is an organic development of the primitive structures created by Jesus and His Apostles. Just as the zygote doesn’t look anything like the mature adult, yet has all those possibilites within it. Another question: It seems like the catholic church made some really, really major errors over the course of its history and that many if not most of them were based on what turned out to be interpretations of the bible and the edicts of the church that, in retrospect, were at best way off base and at worse a self-serving exercise of power.

For someone who *doesn’t know much* you sure have a closet full of *information* you’re not sharing. Could you be more specific? How does anyone know whether what the catholic church authorities are saying now don’t fall in this same category?

Without a living relationship with Jesus you can’t know. The whole exercise is futile: Jesus first, then His Church. That is, if someone looks back at what the church is saying now, how do we know that everyone in the future won’t recognize that current positions are as absurd as those we now recognize to have been major errors in the past?

Some specifics on the *major errors* would be helpful. It’s difficult to read you mind over my connection. I hope to upgrade next year. Yet another question. One often hears about an individual quoting the bible to justify a certain ethical/moral position (e.g. homosexuality), but then someone else quotes some other part of the bible that is so patently absurd in a modern society (stoning your neighbor to death for mowing his lawn on a Sunday, or something along those lines) that it demonstrates that using biblical quotes is so fraught with contradictions that doing so merely smacks of self-serving selectivity. So, do such contradictions exist, and if they do, who gets to decide which ones are supposed to apply to modern society? I’m sure there aren’t any expiration clauses attached to teachings in the bible, or are there?

Whoever defined the *Bible* for Christians is entitled to interpret it imho. Historically that would be the Catholic Church or so I would argue. (I love the stoning-people-for-mowing-lawns-on-Sunday bit. Maybe I could start a petition.) Seriously, not every word of the Bible has exactly the same *weight*. And weighing each word, phrase and so on is finally in the competence of the Church. If that Church is not founded by Christ or if He isn’t who He says He is, then this whole discussion is moot. I read recently that the concept of the Pope being infallible is a fairly recent decision (late 1800s or so). How does something like that get decided? Was there something in the bible about papal infalibility that the church scholars missed all those years before the decision? Does infallibility apply retrospectively? That is, if a modern Pope is infallible, then weren’t all prior Popes also infallible, even if they didn’t realize it at the time? Aren’t there a lot of "pre-infallibility" edicts (or whatever you call them) made by early Popes that we now recognized as being patently absurd, and if so, what does that say about actual infallibility of the Pope?

This seems to be a hypothetical problem for you. What if…? If Jesus is who He said He was; if He gave His authority to His Apostles and especially to Peter; if they, in turn, passed that authority on to their successors; then those successors have Jesus’ authority to decide questions for the faithful. The history of the discussion of *papal* infallibility is far older and more interesting that your summary. Suffice it to say that the Church actually has some intellectual credendentials and has a coherent, logical understanding of it’s own teaching. Briefly: the special infallibility of the petrine office (papacy) having been declared, the Church simultaneously and logically declared that it always existed. The first unabiguous use of this office recognized by all Catholics, including those who demur from this teaching, is the papal declaration of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in 1854. What’s interested about this is that it is sixteen years *before* the Vatican I Council recognized papal infallibility per se. That a pope, fulfilling the criteria recognized by the Vatican I, has taught error in the past is a simple refutation of the Council’s teaching. Do you have an example?   — The people who hanged Christ never…accused Him of being a bore…It has been left for later generations to muffle up that shattering person- ality…as a fitting household pet… Dorothy L. Sayers, Creed or Chaos?

Response:

These may be some really naive questions, but where in the bible does it say anything about a Pope and that faith has anything to do with the structure that exists in the catholic church? I know very little about the structure of the catholic church other than it seems to be quite elaborate. What’s the basis for that structure? If the bible doesn’t define what it should be, does that mean that someone just made the whole thing up?

You are under the misconception that the Bible contains the complete and sole sum of revealed truth.  You’ll have to show me where in the Bible it says that everything is in the Bible. Catholics don’t follow the Bible, we follow the Apostles (much like they did immediately after Jesus’ Resurrection and Ascention into heaven.  Many "Bible Christians" seem to think that the Bible dropped bound from heaven about 1500AD. The short answer is: You don’t find it in the Bible.  So what? Another question: It seems like the catholic church made some really, really major errors over the course of its history and that many if not most of them were based on what turned out to be interpretations of the bible and the edicts of the church that, in retrospect, were at best way off base and at worse a self-serving exercise of power. How does anyone know whether what the catholic church authorities are saying now don’t fall in this same category? That is, if someone looks back at what the church is saying now, how do we know that everyone in the future won’t recognize that current positions are as absurd as those we now recognize to have been major errors in the past?

The interesting part about all of this is that God reveals His Truth to us in His time.  That means that errors are correctable as God reveals more of His Truth to us. Yet another question. One often hears about an individual quoting the bible to justify a certain ethical/moral position (e.g. homosexuality), but then someone else quotes some other part of the bible that is so patently absurd in a modern society (stoning your neighbor to death for mowing his lawn on a Sunday, or something along those lines) that it demonstrates that using biblical quotes is so fraught with contradictions that doing so merely smacks of self-serving selectivity. So, do such contradictions exist, and if they do, who gets to decide which ones are supposed to apply to modern society? I’m sure there aren’t any expiration clauses attached to teachings in the bible, or are there?

This is why we have 2000 years of Biblical scholarship helping us to interpret these so-called "inconsistencies".  We don’t run into the same problem that people who interpret their own Bible (already translated with the translator’s biases) to determine the Truth.  That’s why we come up with one truth, and other Christians come up with 33,000 different "Truths".  (If you think about it, 32,999 of those contradicting truths have to be wrong.) I read recently that the concept of the Pope being infallible is a fairly recent decision (late 1800s or so). How does something like that get decided? Was there something in the bible about papal infalibility that the church scholars missed all those years before the decision? Does infallibility apply retrospectively? That is, if a modern Pope is infallible, then weren’t all prior Popes also infallible, even if they didn’t realize it at the time? Aren’t there a lot of "pre-infallibility" edicts (or whatever you call them) made by early Popes that we now recognized as being patently absurd, and if so, what does that say about actual infallibility of the Pope?

It gets decided by an Ecumenical Council, just like all Catholic Dogma.   And the Pope has always been infallible, we just had it revealed to us by Almighty God fairly recently. Many misunderstand infallibility.  If the Pope likes Raisin Bran, it doesn’t automatically become the official breakfast cereal of the Catholic Church.  Infallibility only applies to matters of faith and morals. Also, "infallibility" (ex-cathedra pronouncement) has only been invoked twice in the history of the Church.  If you’re interested, I’ll tell you which two those were. -Tony — For fairly troll free Catholic discussion, join on the web at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/romancatholic/ "Rome has spoken, the debate is ended." — St. Augustine

Response:

He won’t make many serious economic reforms. In areas other than the environment, he is in support of the status quo, or possibly returning to what the status quo was before Bush (making him a reactionary).

I disagree. Kerry will do two things that are serious economic reforms.     He will provide for a permanent payroll tax relief so that consumerists like us will buy more.     He will rollback tax cuts on those 1% of the people that make over $200,000 and make most of the Gross National Product earnings. Corporations will no longer be shielded from paying no taxes at all.     This is just what Clinton did to reverse the damage done by Bush Sr. History will repeat itself.

Response:

But then flip-flopping is nothing new.   George Bush the father set the standard years before Bush Jr. and Clinton.   Bush Sr. flip flopped on just about every issue throughout his career.   The son is just following in dads footsteps.     —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

I’m tired of hearing what a great candidate this jackass is. He’s a fucking conservative claiming to be a democrat.

Kerry is not a coservative.   The republicans charge him as being more liberal than Ted Kennedy.  There is no way you can call Kerry conservative.   —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

I’m tired of hearing what a great candidate this jackass is. He’s a fucking conservative claiming to be a democrat. Kerry is not a coservative.   The republicans charge him as being more liberal than Ted Kennedy.  There is no way you can call Kerry conservative.  

The Republicans charge EVERY Democrat presidential candidate with being more liberal than Ted Kennedy. It is STANDARD for presidential campaigns, and was said about Gore, about Clinton, about Dukakis, and so on. It’s one of their favorite tactics. Doesn’t in any way make it true. He is a conservative. He won’t make many serious economic reforms. In areas other than the environment, he is in support of the status quo, or possibly returning to what the status quo was before Bush (making him a reactionary). – theoneflasehaddock

Response:

I LOVE this article.  I read it a few days ago.  Thanks for posting it, Fang.  =) MB, SW — "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter" ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Urban VIII,  "Sparrow’s Wench" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Errr…Flase…you know Newsmax is a hardcore conservative site?  There’s alot of talk right now about Kerry being a "flip flopper".  That’s EXACTLY what the Bush campaign is trying to do.  And, sadly, too many people are believing it.  Buzz words work.  The Bushites know that. Regarding "flip flopping". Here’s an interesting article from Slate.com, addressing certain flip-floppers in goverment: http://slate.msn.com/id/2098177 All the President’s Suckers Flip-flopping is the last stage of trusting Bush. By William Saletan Posted Friday, April 2, 2004, at 12:41 PM PT "The [Democratic] candidates are an interesting group, with diverse

opinions: For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA, and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act, and against the Patriot Act. In

favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that’s just one senator from Massachusetts." I laughed the first time I heard President Bush tell that joke. Then, as

he told it again and again, I began to think I’d heard it before. Not from Bush, but from somebody else. Finally I

remembered: It’s the litany Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich kept repeating in the Democratic presidential primaries. Here’s

the version Dean delivered on Feb. 17: A year ago, the Democrats were falling all over each other to vote for the

war in Iraq. They sure don’t talk like that now. A year ago, the Democrats were accepting reckless budget deficits and

huge tax cuts that mortgage our children’s futures. They don’t talk like that any more. A year ago, they were

adopting the president’s education policies, which leave every child behind. They all voted for it, but they don’t support it

anymore. Some of them even adopted the phony Medicare bill, which gives more money to HMOs and insurance companies and

drug companies than it does to seniors. But they don’t talk like that anymore. Kucinich made the same points, throwing in NAFTA and the Patriot Act.

What’s interesting about this critique, in retrospect, is that it didn’t apply just to John Kerry. Dean was talking

about John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, and lots of other congressional Democrats. They were all flip-floppers. What’s with all the weak backbones? Is it a Democratic establishment

disease? No, that can’t be it. John DiIulio has the same problem. He’s the guy the White House recruited to run the

"faith-based and community initiatives" Bush promised in 2000. DiIulio quit in August 2001. A year later, he faulted the

administration for caring more about politics than policy. "In eight months, I heard many, many staff discussions, but not

three meaningful, substantive policy discussions," he recalled. The result was "a virtual absence as yet of any

policy accomplishments that might, to a fair-minded nonpartisan, count as the flesh on the bones of so-called

compassionate conservatism." In short, DiIulio felt conned. How did the White House respond? According to Newsweek,

"Officials cast aspersions on . DiIulio’s truthfulness." DiIulio had a credibility problem: He had helped the

administration but now criticized it. He was a flip-flopper. Then came Paul O’Neill. He was fired as Bush’s Treasury secretary in 2002

after opposing the administration’s third package of budget-busting tax cuts. In Ron Suskind’s The Price of Loyalty,

O’Neill described his dismay as an administration he had expected to practice sound economics indulged

instead in political protectionism and runaway deficits. He felt conned. How did the White House respond? Bush noted that

O’Neill had "worked together" with him for two years on economic policy. Meanwhile, Bush’s spokesman shrugged that

the disgruntled ex-secretary was retroactively "trying to justify personal views." O’Neill had a credibility problem: He

had helped the administration but now criticized it. He was a flip-flopper. Now comes Richard Clarke. He decided to leave his post as U.S.

counterterrorism coordinator three months before 9/11 because the White House, despite assurances to the contrary, wasn’t

treating al-Qaida as an urgent threat. In a book and in public testimony last week, he said so. He felt conned. How did the

White House respond? It outed Clarke for having defended Bush’s counterterrorism policies, as instructed, in a 2002

briefing that the White House had declared off the record at the time. Bush’s national security adviser asked reporters

"which of [Clarke's] stories is he going to stand by," since "he’s got a record of having said something very different."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., noting that Clarke had praised Bush in congressional testimony when he

still worked for the administration, charged that Clarke had "told two entirely different stories under oath." In the words

of Bush’s spokesman, Clarke had a "credibility problem." He had helped the administration but now criticized it. He was a flip-flopper. What do all these flip-floppers have in common? Not subject matter:

DiIulio worked on social policy, O’Neill on economics, Clarke on national security. Not party: Kerry, Edwards, and

Gephardt are Democrats; O’Neill is a Republican; Clarke worked for President Reagan and both Bushes as well as for

President Clinton. The only thing they have in common is that they all cooperated with this administration before deciding

they’d been conned. Flip-flopping, it turns out, is the final stage of trusting George W. Bush. That’s how Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt got whiplash. They supported tax

cuts in 2001 when Bush challenged them to give back some of the surplus. Then the surplus vanished, Bush demanded more

tax cuts, and they decided they’d been conned. They supported Bush’s "No Child Left Behind" education bill in 2001. Then

the administration withheld money for it, and they decided they’d been conned. They supported the Patriot Act after 9/11

when Bush urged them to trust law enforcement. Then the Justice Department took liberties with its new

powers, and they decided they’d been conned. They voted for a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq after the

administration promised to use the resolution as leverage toward U.N. action, reserving unilateral war as a last resort.

Then Bush ditched the United Nations and went to war, and they decided they’d been conned. When the administration offered them a supposedly $400 billion Medicare

bill stuffed with goodies for health insurers and drug companies, they said no. But lots of fiscally conservative House

Republicans said yes. Now, thanks to yet another flip-flopping Bush administration whistleblower, those Republicans

have discovered that the real bill, concealed by the White House, will be $150 billion higher than advertised. You don’t

have to be a Democrat to feel conned. Once you vote with Bush, serve in his cabinet, or spin for him in a

classified briefing, you’re trapped. If you change your mind, he’ll dredge up your friendly vote or testimony and use it to

discredit you. That’s what he’s doing now to all the politicians at home and abroad who fell for his exaggerations

about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. "In Iraq, my administration looked at the intelligence information, and we saw a

threat," he tells audiences. "Members of Congress looked at the intelligence information, and they saw a threat. The United

Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence information, and it saw a threat." It’s too late to admit

that Bush is wrong and that you were fooled. You’re on record agreeing with him. He doesn’t even look dishonest when he

rebukes you, because, unlike the people who run his administration’s scams, he can’t tell the difference between what

he promised and what he delivered. Maybe the White House will get away with this chicanery. Maybe people will

believe its spin that flip-flopping is Kerry’s idiosyncrasy, not the Bush administration’s design. Or maybe some

of the folks who voted for Bush last time around will decide they were conned and throw him out. Flip-floppers, every one of them. William Saletan is Slate’s chief political correspondent and author of

Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – War.      War is Peace       Freedom is Slavery        Ignorance is Strength         Bush is President

Response:

Errr…Flase…you know Newsmax is a hardcore conservative site? The one thing conservative sites always seem to get right, are the faults of the democrats.    And the thing the liberal sites always seem to get right, are the faults of the republicans. But when it comes to defending themselves, both groups fail and lie.

Very true. I have seen almost no defending of ones beliefs in this election. Instead, nobody foccusses on Kerry. Either you’re for Bush, or you’re against him, seems the only consideration, and neither candidate has discussed what they support. – theoneflasehaddock

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – By all means, please, thoroughly examine potential Presidential candidates. They are, after all, going to be leading us for the next 4 years.  But please look at ALL the information.  Not just what the opposition to a candidate WANTS you to think.  Saying something nasty about someone is easy. Undoing the damage by telling the truth isn’t as exciting or scandalous as the 1/2 truth was.  It is in all our interests that we question everything in front of us though.  Especially right now.  Dig into it, examine it, research it.  Only then will the truth come shining through.  Not as exciting as the lies.  But the truth rarely is.  Thanks. Seriously, Kerry has done nothing of use. I’m sorry I chose a conservative site as a source. He’s been pretty quiet about what he’s done.  Np on the site.  Just didn’t know if you knew is all.  ;) I would love to see people post links to articles highlighting things he has done. Done.  ;) My criticism is how similar he is to Bush. He voted for many Bush initiatives… how stupid is he, saying after each one that he didn’t have the facts? They only get what information is presented to them.  Unfortunately.  And I’m thinking that after the stunts Bush has pulled, they’re not gonna be taking just his word for things in the future. He’s for the war in Iraq. Maybe he wants the U.N. involved, but he still has been for it from the start. He criticizes Bush not for attacking Iraq, but for making a deadline to start handing over power. I’ve actually read he is against the war, now that no WMD have been found. That war is based on lies.  Even Kerry’s speech (below) shows he was misinformed on the basis of this war.  He speaks of nuclear weapons and WMD, which we all know now was a lie: http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html Here’s how Kerry feels about the war now: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37751 He’s not for the war now that the truth has come out.  Can only base our decisions on the information at hand sometimes.

He says he’s against the war, but then when he explains that, he is for keeping the troops there for probably at least another year, I don’t really see that as against the war. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, Bush has been the worst president in the history of the U.S. I am not debating that. In fact, I will be voting for Kerry to get Bush out of power. But I refuse to be happy about Kerry. Yes, it could be worse, and after Kerry fucks everything up, we’ll have yet another Republican, after the backlash of his failed CONSERVATIVE policies. I hear you.  We’ll have to wait and see how this all goes. Personally, I don’t hate Kerry for wafting back and forth. I think it’s good when politicians reconsider based on more information being available. That’s actually one of the few things I like about him. Agree completely.  =) He’s #1 in the senate for money from special interests, and by the end of a 4 year term, he will probably trail only Bush in money taken from special interests. He’s not any more interested in the public than Bush is. He’ll be a lousy president, and I don’t think he’ll seriously repeal much of the harm Bush has done. I’m not too surprised about the money.  He’s running for Prez, after all. That’s going to bring in larger contributors than, say, a Senate race will. I’m not seeing anything in his previous voting record to indicate he’s beholding to special interests though?

Before he ran for president, he had taken the most money from special interests in the senate over the last 15 years. That’s from BEFORE, not even including the presidential race. – theoneflasehaddock

Response:

Very true. I have seen almost no defending of ones beliefs in this election. Instead, nobody foccusses on Kerry. Either you’re for Bush, or you’re against him, seems the only consideration, and neither candidate has discussed what they support.

He talks about it all the time. It’s just that the Bush controlled media never shows his speeches. For a detailed outline of Kerry on the issues visit his website. http://www.johnkerry.com

Response:

Errr…Flase…you know Newsmax is a hardcore conservative site? The one thing conservative sites always seem to get right, are the faults of the democrats.    And the thing the liberal sites always seem to get right, are the faults of the republicans. But when it comes to defending themselves, both groups fail and lie.

Perhaps then you might want to check out this non-partisan website: http://www.factcheck.org They give both sides hell.      War is Peace       Freedom is Slavery        Ignorance is Strength         Bush is President

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 Errr…Flase…you know Newsmax is a hardcore conservative site? The one thing conservative sites always seem to get right, are the faults of the democrats.    And the thing the liberal sites always seem to get right, are the faults of the republicans. But when it comes to defending themselves, both groups fail and lie.

That’s called "politics", and it occurs outside of the government arena as well.  That’s the great thing about the US, in my opinion — our media is biased as hell, but you can get a pretty accurate picture of what’s going on by balancing the biases. Blessings, Radiant – — Please help me pay for school: <http://radiantmatrix.org Rarely do people communicate; they just take turns talking. remove ‘.spam’ to send e-mail. —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAiKVf2s0ajpab/PkRAjsYAJ4tn5PifE5p5iSkHT2KNSHcOHOOtgCfaATX G6RBgFDSsrnO+eLnHDoAuWo= =EFPZ —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

I’m tired of hearing what a great candidate this jackass is. He’s a fucking conservative claiming to be a democrat. Some info and links on this hypocritical moron.

You ALMOST got it right.    There is no difference between the democrats and republicans, they are both members of the Government Party. Say Bush is Coke,  Kerry is Pepsi and Russo is Milk.       If you want to bake a cake, you can’t do it with either Bush or Kerry, you need someone from a completely different party. See how Kerry should run as Bush’s Vice President…..

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Islam Or RCC? What is the difference between Islam and the RCC? 1. Both have extra biblical writings more important than God’s Word the Bible. 2. Both operate on man-made traditions. 3. Both have hierarchies of orgnization with powerful, despotic men at the top. 4. Both have a great desire for absolute power and control in this world. 5. Both will not suffer any disagreement or challange. 6. Both have and will destroy by torture and murder any and all who are not in agreement with them even seeking war on whole nations. 7. Both have the same father Satan not Almighy God the Lord Jesus Christ.  So what is the difference between these two two man-made systems calling themselves the ONLY religion? None. If you are a member of either of these religions you can escape by surrendering to the Lord Jesus Christ now before it is too late.

Interesting enough, I actually agree with you.

Response:

Hey asshole, you’re back. Folks, this poster, for those of you who don’t know him, is the infamous Mark Johnson. Mark is a known liar and cheat. He will change your posts to suit his limited intellectual capacity. Watch out for this lying cheat!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The RCC is Christian. The Catholic Church is Catholic. Christian is a term that once meant only Catholic. Now it is understandable that Protestants would also call themselves this. But that doesn’t put them in the one, true Church. And their use of the term makes it appear as if: Cristianity is split in two. But it’s not. You have God and His Church. And you have those who are outside, clinging to their own heretical sects – such as the new Reformed Catholics, which are clearly the majority in the pews and the chanceries. 1 Billion united Catholics Most are Reformed Catholics. They are Protestants. The actual number of Catholics is likely far less than the number of what you call: 1 Billion seperated Protestants. Who probably don’t number half of that. Catholicism believes Christ is God, one in being with the Father and Holy Spirit. Consubstantial, Who proceeds from both Father and Son, as it reads in the Creed. Muslims belive Jesus was but a Prophet and man predating Muhammad. That’s also masonic/’new age’ belief. Our Lord is their ‘risen master’ – no more. Then there is the vain Atheists who have faith that there is no God. They do have faith, it’s true, based on God’s grace and being under His grace in this life, which forest they can’t see as they chop down the trees. So ‘enlightenment’ becomes a substitute which ultimately fails to move people after a few generations. they are lucky, they will be granted oblivion instead of eternity in the lake of fire.  It takes as much faith not to believe in God as it does to believe in him.  Eternal life, or decaying back into dust?  You decide…. Thaddeus, Scientist, but foremost Catholic They would quarrel over the definition of the word, faith. Would the ACLU put in for gubment support as a ‘faith-based organization’? Peace. . . . "art" inspired by nothing fades to nothingness soon enough. [Michelle Malkin, 24 NOV 2000 (discussing Marilyn Manson)]

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Organization: Enemies of Intentional Ignorance Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian. rom an-catholic,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.religion.christianity,alt .at heism The RCC is Christian. They use to be.

How did the catholics change? Mombasha – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Islam is Muslim. True Cristianity is split in two. 1 Billion united Catholics Yes you may join the 1 third of angels that fell 1 Billion seperated Protestants. But equal Actually there are about 400 million protestants in the world… about 1/3 oc christianity…. like the 1/3 of the angels… hmm interesting. Zealots don’t worry about facts. These seem to have no idea who the Orthodox are.

Response:

says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So, how much faith does it take for you to disbelieve in Wodin?

Response:

So, how much faith does it take for you to disbelieve in Wodin?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The RCC is Christian. Islam is Muslim. Cristianity is split in two. 1 Billion united Catholics 1 Billion seperated Protestants. Islam is Split in two as well less than a billion Shiite less than a billion Sunni Catholicism believes Christ is God, one in being with the Father and Holy Spirit. Muslims belive Jesus was but a Prophet and man predating Muhammad. Then there is the vain Atheists who have faith that there is no God.

So, how much faith does it take for you to disbelieve in Wodin? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If they are lucky, they will be granted oblivion instead of eternity in the lake of fire.  It takes as much faith not to believe in God as it does to believe in him.  Eternal life, or decaying back into dust?  You decide…. Thaddeus, Scientist, but foremost Catholic Islam Or RCC? What is the difference between Islam and the RCC? 1. Both have extra biblical writings more important than God’s Word the  Bible. 2. Both operate on man-made traditions. 3. Both have hierarchies of orgnization with powerful, despotic men at the  top. 4. Both have a great desire for absolute power and control in this world. 5. Both will not suffer any disagreement or challange. 6. Both have and will destroy by torture and murder any and all who are not in agreement with them even seeking war on whole nations. 7. Both have the same father Satan not Almighy God the Lord Jesus Christ.  So what is the difference between these two two man-made systems calling themselves the ONLY religion? None. If you are a member of either of these religions you can escape by surrendering to the Lord Jesus Christ now before it is too late.

Kermit Not claiming to be a scientist for over 50 years.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The RCC is Christian. Islam is Muslim. Cristianity is split in two. 1 Billion united Catholics 1 Billion seperated Protestants. Islam is Split in two as well less than a billion Shiite less than a billion Sunni Catholicism believes Christ is God, one in being with the Father and Holy Spirit. Muslims belive Jesus was but a Prophet and man predating Muhammad. Then there is the vain Atheists who have faith that there is no God.  If they are lucky, they will be granted oblivion instead of eternity in the lake of fire.  It takes as much faith not to believe in God as it does to believe in him.  Eternal life, or decaying back into dust?  You decide….

As a vain Atheist I would like to say we have more in common then you might think. There are many Gods out there, and you have faith that all but one is false. I just took that final step.

Response:

Islam is Muslim. True Cristianity is split in two. 1 Billion united Catholics Yes you may join the 1 third of angels that fell Perhaps I will, but do you judge me? You Thaddeus, are not Christian, you are RC. And you sir, are an oxymoron. Thaddeus

 Oxymorons for Christ ! Give glory to God.

Response:

The RCC is Christian. The Catholic Church is Catholic. Christian is a term that once meant only Catholic.

Oh?  When was that? Now it is understandable that Protestants would also call themselves this. But that doesn’t put them in the one, true Church. And their use of the term makes it appear as if:

Nor does the claim to be the "one true Church" mean that there is any such thing.  Catholic bigotry and ignorance are just as bad as the Protestant variety. snip Thomas P. None of the Emperor’s clothes had been so successful before. "But he has got nothing on," said a little child.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The RCC is Christian. They use to be. Islam is Muslim. True Cristianity is split in two. 1 Billion united Catholics Yes you may join the 1 third of angels that fell 1 Billion seperated Protestants. But equal Actually there are about 400 million protestants in the world… about 1/3 oc christianity…. like the 1/3 of the angels… hmm interesting.

Zealots don’t worry about facts. These seem to have no idea who the Orthodox are.

Response:

Islam is Muslim. True Cristianity is split in two. 1 Billion united Catholics Yes you may join the 1 third of angels that fell

Perhaps I will, but do you judge me? You Thaddeus, are not Christian, you are RC.

And you sir, are an oxymoron. Thaddeus

Response:

The RCC is Christian. The Catholic Church is Catholic. Christian is a term that once meant only Catholic. Now it is understandable that Protestants would also call themselves this. But that doesn’t put them in the one, true Church. And their use of the term makes it appear as if:

Christianity is a general term that includes Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox.  The definition of Christianity is starting to get blurry as more and more non-Christian faiths give themselves the name, like the Mormons. All true Christians have roots to the RCC church as well.  That bible that they thump was organized and put together by Catholic Bishops, in communion with the Holy Spirit, after all.  It is hate that drives Christianity apart, not the Love of Christ. Christianity is split in two. But it’s not. You have God and His Church. And you have those who are outside, clinging to their own heretical sects – such as the new Reformed Catholics, which are clearly the majority in the pews and the chanceries.

I would agree on this point that Christianity is not split in two.  I categorized it simply to respond to the original ridiculous statement. Christianity is fundamentally united, but have differences of beliefs on certain issues.  Ultimately, Christ is our master and our judge.  Woe to any Christian who dares judge another Christian. 1 Billion united Catholics Most are Reformed Catholics. They are Protestants. The actual number of Catholics is likely far less than the number of what you call:

The Pope unites us and our church is Universal.  There may be some political differences among the clergy and not all Catholics adhere to the Pope but they are still Catholics.  There is room for some serious complications though if the next Pope is Liberal.  In addition to that, Saint Malachy prophesied only two more Popes after JPII.  Whether he meant the next two Popes, or the next two True Popes is yet to be determined. 1 Billion separated Protestants. Who probably don’t number half of that.

Okay, so I grouped the Orthodox among the Protestants, my mistake.  They are also all separated either. Catholicism believes Christ is God, one in being with the Father and Holy Spirit. Consubstantial, Who proceeds from both Father and Son, as it reads in the Creed.

Agreed. Muslims believe Jesus was but a Prophet and man predating Muhammad. That’s also masonic/’new age’ belief. Our Lord is their ‘risen master’ – no more. Then there is the vain Atheists who have faith that there is no God. They do have faith, it’s true, based on God’s grace and being under His grace in this life, which forest they can’t see as they chop down the trees. So ‘enlightenment’ becomes a substitute which ultimately fails to move people after a few generations.

Agreed. They would quarrel over the definition of the word, faith. Would the ACLU put in for gubment support as a ‘faith-based organization’?

I doubt it. Peace, Thaddeus

Response:

The RCC is Christian. They use to be. Islam is Muslim. True Cristianity is split in two. 1 Billion united Catholics Yes you may join the 1 third of angels that fell 1 Billion seperated Protestants. But equal

Actually there are about 400 million protestants in the world… about 1/3 oc christianity…. like the 1/3 of the angels… hmm interesting. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thaddeus, Scientist, but foremost Catholic You Thaddeus, are not Christian, you are RC.

Response:

The RCC is Christian.

They use to be. Islam is Muslim. True Cristianity is split in two. 1 Billion united Catholics

Yes you may join the 1 third of angels that fell 1 Billion seperated Protestants. But equal Thaddeus, Scientist, but foremost Catholic

You Thaddeus, are not Christian, you are RC.

Response:

The RCC is Christian. Then there is the vain Atheists who have faith that there is no God.

The vanity belongs to those who think they are so important, that they invent fantasies that they are going to live forever !!! I mean how fucking VAIN is that !!! — Jez "The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious, of being out of one’s mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years." R.D. Laing

Response:

The RCC is Christian.

The Catholic Church is Catholic. Christian is a term that once meant only Catholic. Now it is understandable that Protestants would also call themselves this. But that doesn’t put them in the one, true Church. And their use of the term makes it appear as if: Cristianity is split in two.

But it’s not. You have God and His Church. And you have those who are outside, clinging to their own heretical sects – such as the new Reformed Catholics, which are clearly the majority in the pews and the chanceries. 1 Billion united Catholics

Most are Reformed Catholics. They are Protestants. The actual number of Catholics is likely far less than the number of what you call: 1 Billion seperated Protestants.

Who probably don’t number half of that. Catholicism believes Christ is God, one in being with the Father and Holy Spirit.

Consubstantial, Who proceeds from both Father and Son, as it reads in the Creed. Muslims belive Jesus was but a Prophet and man predating Muhammad.

That’s also masonic/’new age’ belief. Our Lord is their ‘risen master’ – no more. Then there is the vain Atheists who have faith that there is no God.

They do have faith, it’s true, based on God’s grace and being under His grace in this life, which forest they can’t see as they chop down the trees. So ‘enlightenment’ becomes a substitute which ultimately fails to move people after a few generations. they are lucky, they will be granted oblivion instead of eternity in the lake of fire.  It takes as much faith not to believe in God as it does to believe in him.  Eternal life, or decaying back into dust?  You decide…. Thaddeus, Scientist, but foremost Catholic

They would quarrel over the definition of the word, faith. Would the ACLU put in for gubment support as a ‘faith-based organization’? Peace. . . . "art" inspired by nothing fades to nothingness soon enough. [Michelle Malkin, 24 NOV 2000 (discussing Marilyn Manson)]

Response:

the following discourse: Islam Or RCC?

Replying here as I have this idiot killfiled and missed the original What is the difference between Islam and the RCC? 1. Both have extra biblical writings more important than God’s Word the Bible.

Wrong no such animal in the Catholic Church. 2. Both operate on man-made traditions.

Man made traditions are in every organization, but there is no such Tradition in the Catholic Church that rises to the level of Scripture. 3. Both have hierarchies of orgnization with powerful, despotic men at the top.

No the Pope is not despotic and there is no real heirarchy to Islam there are local leaders that rise to prominance because they attract followers. 4. Both have a great desire for absolute power and control in this world.

Nope not the Catholic Church. 5. Both will not suffer any disagreement or challange.

Plenty have challenged the Church through the years and as a rule she has responded in kind.  Of late though the response ahs been only verbal. 6. Both have and will destroy by torture and murder any and all who are not in agreement with them even seeking war on whole nations.

In response the Church has done this… but not for centuries. 7. Both have the same father Satan not Almighy God the Lord Jesus Christ.

You are calling Jesus satan(for Catholics)?  you are sick

Response:

Then there is the vain Atheists who have faith that there is no God

Wrong. But thanks for playing! — Mark K. Bilbo  -  a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism, because it is a merger of State and corporate power." – Mussolini

Response:

The RCC is Christian. Islam is Muslim. Cristianity is split in two. 1 Billion united Catholics 1 Billion seperated Protestants. Islam is Split in two as well less than a billion Shiite less than a billion Sunni Catholicism believes Christ is God, one in being with the Father and Holy Spirit. Muslims belive Jesus was but a Prophet and man predating Muhammad. Then there is the vain Atheists who have faith that there is no God.  If they are lucky, they will be granted oblivion instead of eternity in the lake of fire.  It takes as much faith not to believe in God as it does to believe in him.  Eternal life, or decaying back into dust?  You decide…. Thaddeus, Scientist, but foremost Catholic

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Islam Or RCC? What is the difference between Islam and the RCC? 1. Both have extra biblical writings more important than God’s Word the Bible. 2. Both operate on man-made traditions. 3. Both have hierarchies of orgnization with powerful, despotic men at the top. 4. Both have a great desire for absolute power and control in this world. 5. Both will not suffer any disagreement or challange. 6. Both have and will destroy by torture and murder any and all who are not in agreement with them even seeking war on whole nations. 7. Both have the same father Satan not Almighy God the Lord Jesus Christ.  So what is the difference between these two two man-made systems calling themselves the ONLY religion? None. If you are a member of either of these religions you can escape by surrendering to the Lord Jesus Christ now before it is too late.

Response:

Islam Or RCC? What is the difference between Islam and the RCC?

What’s the difference between pixies and fairies? Why are you posting this nonsense to alt.atheism?

Response:

the following discourse: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Islam Or RCC? What is the difference between Islam and the RCC? 1. Both have extra biblical writings more important than God’s Word the Bible. 2. Both operate on man-made traditions. 3. Both have hierarchies of orgnization with powerful, despotic men at the top. 4. Both have a great desire for absolute power and control in this world. 5. Both will not suffer any disagreement or challange. 6. Both have and will destroy by torture and murder any and all who are not in agreement with them even seeking war on whole nations. 7. Both have the same father Satan not Almighy God the Lord Jesus Christ.  So what is the difference between these two two man-made systems  calling themselves the ONLY religion? None. If you are a member of either of these religions you can escape by surrendering to the Lord Jesus Christ now before it is too late.

Isn’t interesting how few real differences there are between these two fantasies? But then that’s also apparent in the actions of their viscious followers. — Woden "religion is a socio-political institution for the control of people’s thoughts, lives, and actions; based on ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."

Response:

Islam Or RCC? What is the difference between Islam and the RCC?

The RCC is insane, and islam is more so.

Response:

Islam Or RCC?

Neither. — John Hachmann aa #1782 "Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt." – H. L. Mencken

Response:

Islam Or RCC? What is the difference between Islam and the RCC? The RCC is insane, and islam is more so.

Although at this point and time you could say the RCC is more the happy kind of insane and Islam is more of the psycotic insane. Don’t be fooled though RCC has shown it’s truely psycotic side in the past, it has merely mellowed with age and the times.

Response:

Islam Or RCC? What is the difference between Islam and the RCC? 1. Both have extra biblical writings more important than God’s Word the Bible. 2. Both operate on man-made traditions. 3. Both have hierarchies of orgnization with powerful, despotic men at the top. 4. Both have a great desire for absolute power and control in this world. 5. Both will not suffer any disagreement or challange. 6. Both have and will destroy by torture and murder any and all who are not in agreement with them even seeking war on whole nations. 7. Both have the same father Satan not Almighy God the Lord Jesus Christ.  So what is the difference between these two two man-made systems calling themselves the ONLY religion? None. If you are a member of either of these religions you can escape by surrendering to the Lord Jesus Christ now before it is too late.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Did Jesus Christ with His own mouth instruct any of His disciples to "write down" any of His teachings?  No.  With the exception of the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) by St. John the Apostle, Jesus Christ gives no such instructions to any of His disciples or Apostles.  In fact, only the Apostles Peter, John, James, Jude and Matthew were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture.  Why were the other seven not inspired of the Holy Spirit to "write" if the "written" Word of God is the only authority to be followed in the Christian religion? Some did:  their gospels just did not make it into the canon. Does the Bible state It is the sole or final authority of Christianity?  No.  Neither this statement nor anything even close to it appears anywhere in the New Testament.  In fact, Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture (Matthew 18:17). This is scary . . . . .it is reasonable. What did Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, state about the Bible?  In his "Commentary On St. John," he stated the following: "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all."  Regardless of what non-Catholic Christians may think or say, according to secular, objective historians, the Catholic Church alone preserved Sacred Scripture throughout the persecution of the Roman Empire and during the Dark Ages.  All non-Catholic Christian denominations owe the existence of the Bible to the Catholic Church alone.  Why did God choose the Catholic Church to preserve Scripture if It is not His Church? A good question . . . . But actually copies of Christian scripture were lost or thrown out and survived in caves, waste pits,and other locations where the churches had no control over the manuscripts. The Catholic Church was the first Christian denomination to commission a mass printing of the Bible by asking Johannes Gutenberg, the inventor of the printing press, to do so in 1447.  Non-Catholic Christians may accuse the Catholic Church of not allowing the common people to read the Bible before the Reformation, but what good would it have done for the Catholic Church to widely distribute the Bible to the masses when over 90% of the common people were illiterate and couldn’t read anyway?  The Catholic Mass has always included Scriptural readings from both the Old and New Testaments and Catholic priests have always "preached" the Word of God to the common people throughout history. I must admit I am confused by this post.  It is perfectly reasonable, does not take excessive liberties with facts . . . what gives? Perhaps you have the poster confused with someone else! Axel Well, I checked the expanded headers, and they are mostly the same for this post and most of the other posts by IKHDY.  Spooky, isn’t it?  Do you think there might be hope for reasonable debate?

I may be mistaken, but I think IKHDY (IKnowHimDoYou) is not the same poster as IKMTY (IKnowMoreThanYou). In comparison; IKHDY is a Catholic basher, while IKMTY is a Catholic missionary. Axel

Response:

Well, I checked the expanded headers, and they are mostly the same for this post and most of the other posts by IKHDY.  Spooky, isn’t it?  Do you think there might be hope for reasonable debate?

Probably not, since IKHDY is clearly a troll. — Tiger [Insert humorous, clever or profound quote here]

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Did Jesus Christ with His own mouth instruct any of His disciples to "write down" any of His teachings?  No.  With the exception of the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) by St. John the Apostle, Jesus Christ gives no such instructions to any of His disciples or Apostles.  In fact, only the Apostles Peter, John, James, Jude and Matthew were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture.  Why were the other seven not inspired of the Holy Spirit to "write" if the "written" Word of God is the only authority to be followed in the Christian religion? Some did:  their gospels just did not make it into the canon. Does the Bible state It is the sole or final authority of Christianity?  No.  Neither this statement nor anything even close to it appears anywhere in the New Testament.  In fact, Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture (Matthew 18:17). This is scary . . . . .it is reasonable. What did Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, state about the Bible?  In his "Commentary On St. John," he stated the following:  "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all."  Regardless of what non-Catholic Christians may think or say, according to secular, objective historians, the Catholic Church alone preserved Sacred Scripture throughout the persecution of the Roman Empire and during the Dark Ages.  All non-Catholic Christian denominations owe the existence of the Bible to the Catholic Church alone.  Why did God choose the Catholic Church to preserve Scripture if It is not His Church? A good question . . . . But actually copies of Christian scripture were lost or thrown out and survived in caves, waste pits,and other locations where the churches had no control over the manuscripts. The Catholic Church was the first Christian denomination to commission a mass printing of the Bible by asking Johannes Gutenberg, the inventor of the printing press, to do so in 1447.  Non-Catholic Christians may accuse the Catholic Church of not allowing the common people to read the Bible before the Reformation, but what good would it have done for the Catholic Church to widely distribute the Bible to the masses when over 90% of the common people were illiterate and couldn’t read anyway?  The Catholic Mass has always included Scriptural readings from both the Old and New Testaments and Catholic priests have always "preached" the Word of God to the common people throughout history. I must admit I am confused by this post.  It is perfectly reasonable, does not take excessive liberties with facts . . . what gives? Perhaps you have the poster confused with someone else! Axel

Well, I checked the expanded headers, and they are mostly the same for this post and most of the other posts by IKHDY.  Spooky, isn’t it?  Do you think there might be hope for reasonable debate? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Did Jesus Christ with His own mouth instruct any of His disciples to "write down" any of His teachings?  No.  With the exception of the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) by St. John the Apostle, Jesus Christ gives no such instructions to any of His disciples or Apostles.  In fact, only the Apostles Peter, John, James, Jude and Matthew were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture.  Why were the other seven not inspired of the Holy Spirit to "write" if the "written" Word of God is the only authority to be followed in the Christian religion? Some did:  their gospels just did not make it into the canon. Does the Bible state It is the sole or final authority of Christianity?  No.  Neither this statement nor anything even close to it appears anywhere in the New Testament.  In fact, Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture (Matthew 18:17). This is scary . . . . .it is reasonable. What did Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, state about the Bible?  In his "Commentary On St. John," he stated the following:  "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all."  Regardless of what non-Catholic Christians may think or say, according to secular, objective historians, the Catholic Church alone preserved Sacred Scripture throughout the persecution of the Roman Empire and during the Dark Ages.  All non-Catholic Christian denominations owe the existence of the Bible to the Catholic Church alone.  Why did God choose the Catholic Church to preserve Scripture if It is not His Church? A good question . . . . But actually copies of Christian scripture were lost or thrown out and survived in caves, waste pits,and other locations where the churches had no control over the manuscripts. The Catholic Church was the first Christian denomination to commission a mass printing of the Bible by asking Johannes Gutenberg, the inventor of the printing press, to do so in 1447.  Non-Catholic Christians may accuse the Catholic Church of not allowing the common people to read the Bible before the Reformation, but what good would it have done for the Catholic Church to widely distribute the Bible to the masses when over 90% of the common people were illiterate and couldn’t read anyway?  The Catholic Mass has always included Scriptural readings from both the Old and New Testaments and Catholic priests have always "preached" the Word of God to the common people throughout history. I must admit I am confused by this post.  It is perfectly reasonable, does not take excessive liberties with facts . . . what gives?

Perhaps you have the poster confused with someone else! Axel

Response:

Did Jesus Christ with His own mouth instruct any of His disciples to "write down" any of His teachings?  No.  With the exception of the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) by St. John the Apostle, Jesus Christ gives no such instructions to any of His disciples or Apostles.  In fact, only the Apostles Peter, John, James, Jude and Matthew were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture.  Why were the other seven not inspired of the Holy Spirit to "write" if the "written" Word of God is the only authority to be followed in the Christian religion?

Some did:  their gospels just did not make it into the canon. Does the Bible state It is the sole or final authority of Christianity?  No.  Neither this statement nor anything even close to it appears anywhere in the New Testament.  In fact, Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture (Matthew 18:17).

This is scary . . . . .it is reasonable. What did Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, state about the Bible?  In his "Commentary On St. John," he stated the following:  "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all."  Regardless of what non-Catholic Christians may think or say, according to secular, objective historians, the Catholic Church alone preserved Sacred Scripture throughout the persecution of the Roman Empire and during the Dark Ages.  All non-Catholic Christian denominations owe the existence of the Bible to the Catholic Church alone.  Why did God choose the Catholic Church to preserve Scripture if It is not His Church?

A good question . . . . But actually copies of Christian scripture were lost or thrown out and survived in caves, waste pits,and other locations where the churches had no control over the manuscripts. The Catholic Church was the first Christian denomination to commission a mass printing of the Bible by asking Johannes Gutenberg, the inventor of the printing press, to do so in 1447.  Non-Catholic Christians may accuse the Catholic Church of not allowing the common people to read the Bible before the Reformation, but what good would it have done for the Catholic Church to widely distribute the Bible to the masses when over 90% of the common people were illiterate and couldn’t read anyway?  The Catholic Mass has always included Scriptural readings from both the Old and New Testaments and Catholic priests have always "preached" the Word of God to the common people throughout history.

I must admit I am confused by this post.  It is perfectly reasonable, does not take excessive liberties with facts . . . what gives?

Response:

Did Jesus Christ with His own mouth instruct any of His disciples to "write down" any of His teachings?  No.  With the exception of the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) by St. John the Apostle, Jesus Christ gives no such instructions to any of His disciples or Apostles.  In fact, only the Apostles Peter, John, James, Jude and Matthew were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture.  Why were the other seven not inspired of the Holy Spirit to "write" if the "written" Word of God is the only authority to be followed in the Christian religion? Does the Bible state It is the sole or final authority of Christianity?  No.  Neither this statement nor anything even close to it appears anywhere in the New Testament.  In fact, Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture (Matthew 18:17). What did Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, state about the Bible?  In his "Commentary On St. John," he stated the following:  "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all."  Regardless of what non-Catholic Christians may think or say, according to secular, objective historians, the Catholic Church alone preserved Sacred Scripture throughout the persecution of the Roman Empire and during the Dark Ages.  All non-Catholic Christian denominations owe the existence of the Bible to the Catholic Church alone.  Why did God choose the Catholic Church to preserve Scripture if It is not His Church? The Catholic Church was the first Christian denomination to commission a mass printing of the Bible by asking Johannes Gutenberg, the inventor of the printing press, to do so in 1447.  Non-Catholic Christians may accuse the Catholic Church of not allowing the common people to read the Bible before the Reformation, but what good would it have done for the Catholic Church to widely distribute the Bible to the masses when over 90% of the common people were illiterate and couldn’t read anyway?  The Catholic Mass has always included Scriptural readings from both the Old and New Testaments and Catholic priests have always "preached" the Word of God to the common people throughout history.

Response:

Passionate About the Passion By Deacon Keith A. Fournier Founder Viewing "The Passion" is an encounter with Love Incarnate http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID5339|CHID14|CIID1615818,00.html same story  ;) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (op ed … trip is that the hands nailing Jesus to the cross in the movie is that of Mel Gibson … read on and find out why …)   Paul Harvey Comments on "The Passion" by Mel Gibson   Paul Harvey’s words:   I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been   invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson’s film "The Passion," but I   had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish   town and owe much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a   life long, deeply held aversion to anything that might even indirectly   encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions.   I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion," held in Washington,   DC and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically   Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look   beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly   introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened. From the   gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human   and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the   betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the encounter   with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in   the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike   anything I have ever experienced.   In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic   triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional   reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the   birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film   concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in   Washington, DC were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not   sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been   glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak   because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art   that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.   One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A   brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the   cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Della Rosa. As she ran   to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the   dirt road outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from   the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face. Jesus   looked at her with intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and   at all of us through the   screen) and said "Behold I make all things new." These are words taken   from the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelations.   Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that   earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in His face, His back,   indeed all over His body, became intensely beautiful. They had been   borne voluntarily for love.   At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a   question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film,   from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were   effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow   this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this   film considered by some to be ‘anti- Semitic?" Frankly, having now   experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion" it is a question   that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front   of me. He raised his hand and responded "After watching this film, I do   not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents   that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn’t." He continued "It made me   realize that my sins killed Jesus" I agree. There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were,   I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel   story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging   way. Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or   have another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a   "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who   identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human,   beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a   profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and   thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no   longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands   that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to tell   it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and   that its message is for all men and women. The greatest right is the right to hear the truth.   We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to   which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who   followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the   history of the world. The problem is not the message but those who have   distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not   to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love   that is Mel Gibson’s filmmaking masterpiece, "The Passion." It should be   seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do everything I can to   make sure that is the case. I am passionate about "The Passion."   P.S. : Mel Gilbson stated he did not appear in his own movie, by his   choice, with one exception: It is Gibson’s hands seen nailing Jesus to   the cross. Gibson said he wanted to do that because it was indeed his   own hands that nailed Jesus to the cross (along with all of ours.)   Please copy this and send it on to all your friends to let them know

Response:

(op ed … trip is that the hands nailing Jesus to the cross in the movie is that of Mel Gibson … read on and find out why …)   Paul Harvey Comments on "The Passion" by Mel Gibson   Paul Harvey’s words:   I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been   invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson’s film "The Passion," but I   had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish   town and owe much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a   life long, deeply held aversion to anything that might even indirectly   encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions.   I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion," held in Washington,   DC and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically   Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look   beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly   introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened. From the   gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human   and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the   betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the encounter   with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in   the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike   anything I have ever experienced.   In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic   triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional   reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the   birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film   concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in   Washington, DC were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not   sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been   glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak   because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art   that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.   One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A   brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the   cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Della Rosa. As she ran   to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the   dirt road outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from   the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face. Jesus   looked at her with intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and   at all of us through the   screen) and said "Behold I make all things new." These are words taken   from the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelations.   Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that   earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in His face, His back,   indeed all over His body, became intensely beautiful. They had been   borne voluntarily for love.   At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a   question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film,   from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were   effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow   this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this   film considered by some to be ‘anti-Semitic?" Frankly, having now   experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion" it is a question   that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front   of me. He raised his hand and responded "After watching this film, I do   not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents   that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn’t." He continued "It made me   realize that my sins killed Jesus" I agree. There is not a scintilla of   anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were,   I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel   story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging   way. Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or   have another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a   "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who   identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human,   beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a   profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and   thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no   longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands   that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to tell   it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and   that its message is for all men and women. The greatest right is the   right to hear the truth.   We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to   which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who   followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the   history of the world. The problem is not the message but those who have   distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not   to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love   that is Mel Gibson’s filmmaking masterpiece, "The Passion." It should be   seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do everything I can to   make sure that is the case. I am passionate about "The Passion."   P.S. : Mel Gilbson stated he did not appear in his own movie, by his   choice, with one exception: It is Gibson’s hands seen nailing Jesus to   the cross. Gibson said he wanted to do that because it was indeed his   own hands that nailed Jesus to the cross (along with all of ours.)   Please copy this and send it on to all your friends to let them know

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my  body … this is my blood. Please describe how the disciples ran up to the cross and literally drank the blood that poured out of Christ’s wounds, and literally ate gobbets of his flesh before they buried the remains. After all, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood are not "symbolic", that is exactly what the disciples should have done. Or else explain how, although Christ was sitting in front of them, visibly intact, not bleeding, not missing any parts, at the last supper, nevertheless his actual, literal body and blood were in a cup and on a plate, which his intact hand was holding out to them. "Not symbolic", my ass! You know when antichrists make this kind of attack on the Eucharist, it becomes obvious to any catholic Christian who has actually studied the teachings of the Church that their claims to have been members of the RCC are generally lies.  Moreover, so are their claims to have any understanding of catholic Christian teaching.  Making them TOTALLY incompetent to render any opinion whatsoever on these matters. You do not know what you believe, as it changes from year to year. And how can you POSSIBLY with a straight face worship a "church" whose leadership rapes little boys?

Thanks for proving yet more ignorance John.  Catholics don’t worship a "church"  Catholics worship Jesus Christ. Let’s not forget another nice fact – LESS THAN 2% of priests were accused of any wrongdoing.

Response:

I do not worship a church.  And the RCC is not the Church, merely one of a number of catholic rites and one which is in some need of guidance and correction.

It needed much more than that when it was burning innocent human beings alive in public squares.  It was once one of the world’s foremost terrorist organizations, historical records are very clear on this. But you stand outside the Church altogether, slamming all of it by taking issue, not only with the immorality of the Roman clergy but with the actual deposit of faith.

All of it vague and subject to interpretation, resulting in the sort of endless squabbling we see going on here.  How do you think you clowns appear to outsiders? First of all, the RCC is not a pedophile cult.

It’s an established fact that the RCC priesthood is infested with closet gays and pedophiles, and the leadership refused to take action on any of it.  The RCC has been full of criminals throughout history, and it’s still partially that way today, only this time, its the very lowest, the filthiest type of criminals – criminals who must be housed separately from regular incarcerated street thugs, because not even thugs would tolerate them in their midst. It is a branch of God’s Church which has happened to fall prey to some rather nasty people due to administrative errors on the part of its leaders.

Administrative errors my ass!  Harboring criminals of the lowest caliber is an administrative error? But that does not give YOU the excuse to trash the traditional doctrines of the Christian faith and then call that parody of holiness you espouse, the only real thing.

Doctrines and traditions, cult crap of the highest order. So every time someone believes one of your lies, that’s one more hot coal in your part of the lake of fire!

You’re all full of shite, the lot of you!  Hot coals indeed!  That would be appropriate for one of your pedophile priests, a hot coal up the butt! Now that would be justice!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: So explain to me how Yeshua, who was sinless, did not violate the law about eating/drinking blood? Explain why God then revealed to Peter that there are no unclean animals. Jesus came and fulfilled the Law… Christ came and fulfilled the PENALTY of the law. He also canceled the Old Law. Jesus then gave us a whole  new set, and a few (9 of the 10 Commandments) from the Old Testament (tithing) were renewed.

Then your complaint about blood is quite ignorant, if Jesus canceled the Old Law – the forbidding to drink blood was an aspect of the Old Law.

Response:

The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: So explain to me how Yeshua, who was sinless, did not violate the law about eating/drinking blood?

That’s something *you* have to resolve. We don’t care. Jesus is God. Jesus told us to do it, so we do. This practice has been confirmed from the earliest days of Christendom by men much closer to the Old Law and Jesus, and the Jewish culture than we: 1 Cor 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. St. Ignatius of Antioch – who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle, A.D. 110: "those who hold heterodox opinions … abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the Romans 6:2; 7:1). St. Justin Martyr, A.D. 150: "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1-20). Origen: A.D. 244 "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3). St. Cyril of Jerusalem: 4th century: "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4, 22:9). Theodore of Mopsuestia, 5th Century: "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood’, but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1). BAM

Response:

You do not know what you believe, as it changes from year to year. And how can you POSSIBLY with a straight face worship a "church" whose leadership rapes little boys? Get serious. You aren’t a Christian. Jesus said those who hurt children would dearly! You’re about to. (You defend the pedophile cult)

Yes, I think Jesus said something to the effect that it were better that a millstone be wrapped about the offenders necks and they be dumped in the ocean, or something such.  I’d like to see the RCC purchase some millstones (we still have a lot of them around down here in the southern US) and drown a few bishops.  That might be scriptural, would it not? But no, everyone else gets punished, not them!

Response:

The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.:

We have here some very old rites of canibalism, anchored in the pagan past, along with ritual sacrifice.  Nothing new. Some ancient tribesmen practiced canibalism, thinking that they would then have for themselves the powers or abilities of the person they’re chowing down on.  A few unfortunate African colonialists found this out first hand. 2 Kings 2:23-25 Elisha left Jericho and went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, a group of boys from the town began mocking and making fun of him. "Go away, you baldhead!" they chanted. "Go away, you baldhead!" Elisha turned around and looked at them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of them. From there Elisha went to Mount Carmel and finally returned to Samaria. (Moral of the story: Do not mess with a man of God)

Yeah, boys messing around with priests can find themselves at the very least raped, and at worst, eaten by bears.

Response:

Or else explain how, although Christ was sitting in front of them, visibly intact, not bleeding, not missing any parts, at the last supper, nevertheless his actual, literal body and blood were in a cup and on a plate, which his intact hand was holding out to them.

To a Christian, literally anything is possible, no matter how far-fetched it may seem.  Cult members in general are not limited by reality.

Response:

Flame on, brothers in Christ! You should take your ignorance and either enlighten it or put it back in your box of tricks and give it back to the devil who gave it to you. You CANNOT serve God by lying about other people, son.  The only master you serve with that behavior is the father of lies.  I’m sure he’s delighted with your actions!

As us heathens take great delight when Christians fight among themselves. The churches started in contentions and schisms, and it’s been that way ever since!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: So explain to me how Yeshua, who was sinless, did not violate the law about eating/drinking blood? I’ve been asking that very question for years. I haven’t yet got an answer. And to be sure we didn’t  miss it, the same commandment in the OT is repeated in the epistles. Have you stopped beating your wife? Note all t hat Dave O is quite capable of "quips" that amuse him and no one else, but nothing of substance to say, as usual.

You asked a silly question.  What did you expect, a Brittanica article? — Dave Oldridge ICQ 1800667 Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my  body … this is my blood. Please describe how the disciples ran up to the cross and literally drank the blood that poured out of Christ’s wounds, and literally ate gobbets of his flesh before they buried the remains. After all, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood are not "symbolic", that is exactly what the disciples should have done. Or else explain how, although Christ was sitting in front of them, visibly intact, not bleeding, not missing any parts, at the last supper, nevertheless his actual, literal body and blood were in a cup and on a plate, which his intact hand was holding out to them. "Not symbolic", my ass! You know when antichrists make this kind of attack on the Eucharist, it becomes obvious to any catholic Christian who has actually studied the teachings of the Church that their claims to have been members of the RCC are generally lies.  Moreover, so are their claims to have any understanding of catholic Christian teaching.  Making them TOTALLY incompetent to render any opinion whatsoever on these matters. You do not know what you believe, as it changes from year to year. And how can you POSSIBLY with a straight face worship a "church" whose leadership rapes little boys?

I do not worship a church.  And the RCC is not the Church, merely one of a number of catholic rites and one which is in some need of guidance and correction.  But you stand outside the Church altogether, slamming all of it by taking issue, not only with the immorality of the Roman clergy but with the actual deposit of faith. Get serious. You aren’t a Christian. Jesus said those who hurt

Look at what is talking, antichrist! children would dearly! You’re about to. (You defend the pedophile cult)

First of all, the RCC is not a pedophile cult.  It is a branch of God’s Church which has happened to fall prey to some rather nasty people due to administrative errors on the part of its leaders.  But that does not give YOU the excuse to trash the traditional doctrines of the Christian faith and then call that parody of holiness you espouse, the only real thing. When you learn to distinguish truth from propaganda and to deal in reason instead of childish appeals to emotions, you may actually be ready to repent your sins against God and against man and come to the cross.  But in the meantime, the only person you are deceiving is yourself. So every time someone believes one of your lies, that’s one more hot coal in your part of the lake of fire! — Dave Oldridge ICQ 1800667 Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: So explain to me how Yeshua, who was sinless, did not violate the law about eating/drinking blood? I’ve been asking that very question for years. I haven’t yet got an answer. And to be sure we didn’t  miss it, the same commandment in the OT is repeated in the epistles. Have you stopped beating your wife?

Note all t hat Dave O is quite capable of "quips" that amuse him and no one else, but nothing of substance to say, as usual. John W Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com       <<<<<<<   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <<<<<<<<

Response:

The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: So explain to me how Yeshua, who was sinless, did not violate the law about eating/drinking blood? Explain why God then revealed to Peter that there are no unclean animals. Jesus came and fulfilled the Law…

Christ came and fulfilled the PENALTY of the law. He also canceled the Old Law. Jesus then gave us a whole  new set, and a few (9 of the 10 Commandments) from the Old Testament (tithing) were renewed. One of the Old Testament laws that was revived in the New was the prohibition of eating /drinking  blood. No way would the New Testament re-iterate the prohibition of earing/drinking blood, and then Jesus break the new law. And do not say it wasn’t in force before Paul wrote about it. There is no linear time in God’s mind. It’s all a continuum. Just as the Old Testament Jews who were "born again" pre-Christ were NOT saved by rejecting the idea of the coming Messiah. They were saved by believing in the FUTURE Coming. Jesus didn’t give us the command to not eat blood TWICE, then force the disciples (us) to "make an exception." It didn’t happen. And bear in mind that the "church" that teaches this "exception" to God’s laws disregards God’s laws left and right. The blood feast is not the ONLY exception to God’s laws they teach. They worship idols, they create gods and goddesses out of people, they sell forgiveness. God bless, John  W Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com       <<<<<<<   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <<<<<<<<

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my  body … this is my blood. Please describe how the disciples ran up to the cross and literally drank the blood that poured out of Christ’s wounds, and literally ate gobbets of his flesh before they buried the remains. After all, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood are not "symbolic", that is exactly what the disciples should have done. Or else explain how, although Christ was sitting in front of them, visibly intact, not bleeding, not missing any parts, at the last supper, nevertheless his actual, literal body and blood were in a cup and on a plate, which his intact hand was holding out to them. "Not symbolic", my ass! You know when antichrists make this kind of attack on the Eucharist, it becomes obvious to any catholic Christian who has actually studied the teachings of the Church that their claims to have been members of the RCC are generally lies.  Moreover, so are their claims to have any understanding of catholic Christian teaching.  Making them TOTALLY incompetent to render any opinion whatsoever on these matters.

You do not know what you believe, as it changes from year to year. And how can you POSSIBLY with a straight face worship a "church" whose leadership rapes little boys? Get serious. You aren’t a Christian. Jesus said those who hurt children would dearly! You’re about to. (You defend the pedophile cult) John W You should take your ignorance and either enlighten it or put it back in your box of tricks and give it back to the devil who gave it to you. You CANNOT serve God by lying about other people, son.  The only master you serve with that behavior is the father of lies.  I’m sure he’s delighted with your actions!

Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com       <<<<<<<   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <<<<<<<<

Response:

The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my  body … this is my blood. 1 Cor 11:26-30 … sinning against the body and blood. Jn 6:32-58 … long discourse on Eucharist. Gen 14:18; Ps 110:4; Heb 7:1-17 … Melchizedek. Acts 2:42 … breaking of bread. Ps 27:1-2; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Micah 3:3; Rev 17:6,16 … symbolic  interpretation of Jn 6 inappropriate.

Response:

The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.:

So explain to me how Yeshua, who was sinless, did not violate the law about eating/drinking blood? Ciao, Falcon — To reply via email remove "7" from address 2 Kings 2:23-25 Elisha left Jericho and went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, a group of boys from the town began mocking and making fun of him. "Go away, you baldhead!" they chanted. "Go away, you baldhead!" Elisha turned around and looked at them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of them. From there Elisha went to Mount Carmel and finally returned to Samaria. (Moral of the story: Do not mess with a man of God)

Response:

The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my  body … this is my blood.

Please describe how the disciples ran up to the cross and literally drank the blood that poured out of Christ’s wounds, and literally ate gobbets of his flesh before they buried the remains. After all, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood are not "symbolic", that is exactly what the disciples should have done. Or else explain how, although Christ was sitting in front of them, visibly intact, not bleeding, not missing any parts, at the last supper, nevertheless his actual, literal body and blood were in a cup and on a plate, which his intact hand was holding out to them. "Not symbolic", my ass!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my  body … this is my blood. Please describe how the disciples ran up to the cross and literally drank the blood that poured out of Christ’s wounds, and literally ate gobbets of his flesh before they buried the remains. After all, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood are not "symbolic", that is exactly what the disciples should have done. Or else explain how, although Christ was sitting in front of them, visibly intact, not bleeding, not missing any parts, at the last supper, nevertheless his actual, literal body and blood were in a cup and on a plate, which his intact hand was holding out to them. "Not symbolic", my ass!

Isn’t it remarkable how the fundamentalists who believe in an omnipotent God suddenly lose all their imagination when decrying a doctrine they disagree with and insist that he literally *couldn’t* have done it that way? — "We have loved the stars too fondly     | a.a. #2001 to be fearful of the night."            | http://www.ebonmusings.org –Tombstone epitaph of                  | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com   two amateur astronomers,              | ICQ: 8777843   quoted in Carl Sagan’s _Cosmos_       | PGP Key ID: 0×5C66F737

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my  body … this is my blood. Please describe how the disciples ran up to the cross and literally drank the blood that poured out of Christ’s wounds, and literally ate gobbets of his flesh before they buried the remains. After all, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood are not "symbolic", that is exactly what the disciples should have done. Or else explain how, although Christ was sitting in front of them, visibly intact, not bleeding, not missing any parts, at the last supper, nevertheless his actual, literal body and blood were in a cup and on a plate, which his intact hand was holding out to them. "Not symbolic", my ass! Isn’t it remarkable how the fundamentalists who believe in an omnipotent God suddenly lose all their imagination when decrying a doctrine they disagree with and insist that he literally *couldn’t* have done it that way? — "We have loved the stars too fondly     | a.a. #2001 to be fearful of the night."            | http://www.ebonmusings.org –Tombstone epitaph of                  | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com   two amateur astronomers,              | ICQ: 8777843   quoted in Carl Sagan’s _Cosmos_       | PGP Key ID: 0×5C66F737

You are obviously missing the point… galia

Response:

The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my  body … this is my blood. 1 Cor 11:26-30 … sinning against the body and blood. Jn 6:32-58 … long discourse on Eucharist. Gen 14:18; Ps 110:4; Heb 7:1-17 … Melchizedek. Acts 2:42 … breaking of bread. Ps 27:1-2; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Micah 3:3; Rev 17:6,16 … symbolic  interpretation of Jn 6 inappropriate.

There is no Eucharist and you do not practice the last supper (Seder) as Jesus commanded, so what is your point?

Response:

The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: So explain to me how Yeshua, who was sinless, did not violate the law about eating/drinking blood?

I’ve been asking that very question for years. I haven’t yet got an answer. And to be sure we didn’t  miss it, the same commandment in the OT is repeated in the epistles. John W Ciao, Falcon

Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com       <<<<<<<   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <<<<<<<<

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my  body … this is my blood. Please describe how the disciples ran up to the cross and literally drank the blood that poured out of Christ’s wounds, and literally ate gobbets of his flesh before they buried the remains. After all, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood are not "symbolic", that is exactly what the disciples should have done. Or else explain how, although Christ was sitting in front of them, visibly intact, not bleeding, not missing any parts, at the last supper, nevertheless his actual, literal body and blood were in a cup and on a plate, which his intact hand was holding out to them. "Not symbolic", my ass! Isn’t it remarkable how the fundamentalists who believe in an omnipotent God suddenly lose all their imagination when decrying a doctrine they disagree with and insist that he literally *couldn’t* have done it that way?

If one is capable of doing a systematic theology and some exegesis (to be sure you are digging  out any hidden meaning), as is done with ALL doctrine/theology, it becomes obvious that the Lord’s Supper, as the Seder it consisted of, was symbolic. The Old Testament Seder was symbolic, and the New Testament Seder was as well. In fact, if you really study the Seder meal (too many; with opinions haven’t bothered) the symbolism becomes more and more clear. Those who insist on taking the LITERAL interpretation at this juncture, forget one thing. In this case, the literal makes no sense. They NEVER LITERALLY ate His flesh, or drank His blood. If they never LITERALLY did that, the Seder MUST have been symbolic. When one examines the symbolism, the wine that  had meant "deliverance" or "passover" was now the blood of the Paschal Lamb. The pierced, burned bread that HAD represented the Exodus (liberation) now represented His body, given for our liberation from sin/sickness. How many pieces of bread are in the sack used for the Seder meal are also symbolic. John W Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com       <<<<<<<   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <<<<<<<<

Response:

The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: So explain to me how Yeshua, who was sinless, did not violate the law about eating/drinking blood?

Explain why God then revealed to Peter that there are no unclean animals. Jesus came and fulfilled the Law…

Response:

The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: So explain to me how Yeshua, who was sinless, did not violate the law about eating/drinking blood? I’ve been asking that very question for years. I haven’t yet got an answer. And to be sure we didn’t  miss it, the same commandment in the OT is repeated in the epistles.

Have you stopped beating your wife? — Dave Oldridge ICQ 1800667 Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my  body … this is my blood. Please describe how the disciples ran up to the cross and literally drank the blood that poured out of Christ’s wounds, and literally ate gobbets of his flesh before they buried the remains. After all, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood are not "symbolic", that is exactly what the disciples should have done. Or else explain how, although Christ was sitting in front of them, visibly intact, not bleeding, not missing any parts, at the last supper, nevertheless his actual, literal body and blood were in a cup and on a plate, which his intact hand was holding out to them. "Not symbolic", my ass!

You know when antichrists make this kind of attack on the Eucharist, it becomes obvious to any catholic Christian who has actually studied the teachings of the Church that their claims to have been members of the RCC are generally lies.  Moreover, so are their claims to have any understanding of catholic Christian teaching.  Making them TOTALLY incompetent to render any opinion whatsoever on these matters. You should take your ignorance and either enlighten it or put it back in your box of tricks and give it back to the devil who gave it to you. You CANNOT serve God by lying about other people, son.  The only master you serve with that behavior is the father of lies.  I’m sure he’s delighted with your actions! — Dave Oldridge ICQ 1800667 Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Bible is clear that the Eucharist is Not symbolic, i.e.: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 … this is my  body … this is my blood. Please describe how the disciples ran up to the cross and literally drank the blood that poured out of Christ’s wounds, and literally ate gobbets of his flesh before they buried the remains. After all, if eating his flesh and drinking his blood are not "symbolic", that is exactly what the disciples should have done. Or else explain how, although Christ was sitting in front of them, visibly intact, not bleeding, not missing any parts, at the last supper, nevertheless his actual, literal body and blood were in a cup and on a plate, which his intact hand was holding out to them. "Not symbolic", my ass! Isn’t it remarkable how the fundamentalists who believe in an omnipotent God suddenly lose all their imagination when decrying a doctrine they disagree with and insist that he literally *couldn’t* have done it that way? If one is capable of doing a systematic theology and some exegesis (to be sure you are digging  out any hidden meaning), as is done with ALL doctrine/theology, it becomes obvious that the Lord’s Supper, as the Seder it consisted of, was symbolic.

There are certainly levels on which it may be considered symbolic, but the actual doctrine of transubstantiation is not cancelled by that fact. The Old Testament Seder was symbolic, and the New Testament Seder was as well.

Except this is the blood of the New Covenant and you would do well to recognize it.  But I have the feeling that you are too far gone into deviltry to be of much use to God. In fact, if you really study the Seder meal (too many; with opinions haven’t bothered) the symbolism becomes more and more clear. Those who insist on taking the LITERAL interpretation at this juncture, forget one thing. In this case, the literal makes no sense. They NEVER LITERALLY ate His flesh, or drank His blood. If they never LITERALLY did that, the Seder MUST have been symbolic. When one examines the symbolism, the wine that  had meant "deliverance" or "passover" was now the blood of the Paschal Lamb.

So we’re back to YOU (and your spiritual mentors who are all in total rebellion against any part of the Church) making up doctrine to suit yourselves (or maybe some devil you worship?). The pierced, burned bread that HAD represented the Exodus (liberation) now represented His body, given for our liberation from sin/sickness. How many pieces of bread are in the sack used for the Seder meal are also symbolic.

That’s nice.  Are you now telling us we should all be Jewish? No, I suspect you just want to peddle your own private "gospel." — Dave Oldridge ICQ 1800667 Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi there, Does anyoneknow if you have to be a Catholic to be a Catholic’s godmother? How long does the process take?  What’s involved? Angela You don’t have to be Catholic if the baby’s godfather is a practicing Catholic.  You go to classes to prepare for the obligations of bringing up a child in the Catholic faith–in our case, the classes were done in a single weekend.

In other words there is little responsibility in the position and is merely another catholic ritual that has no spiritual benefit! If you want to feel close to the child and family host some family get togethers were you may have an oppurtunity to do good and plant seeds.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi there, Does anyoneknow if you have to be a Catholic to be a Catholic’s godmother? How long does the process take?  What’s involved? Angela I would flat out decline the invitation! Pity that you would decline the invitation to play an important role in a child’s life. An important role?

Yep. Try to get it away from the church, that’s my advice.

The advice of an idiot.  Just what people always want. Let the child live in peace and in safety.

Then you should keep the child away from teachers, coaches, neighbors, relatives…  Because any of them have as much, or greater chance of molesting the child than anyone in a Catholic School. We already have enough confusion in our lives without trying to be nice and welcoming more! Wait until the child gets older and teach him or her the proper way to worship God if you feel you may be qualified at that time! You still aren’t qualified Skii. That’s giving the poster a defeatest attitude. AJ I’m sure can do a fine

job with the help of God! Sure, but not with your help.  You’re way to ignorant. You might be jeapordizing the future of this child since there is a

great liklihood that it will be placed in danger in a Catholic school. Danger of what?  Being exposed to idiots like yourself? Being *tinkeled* with mentally, physically and spiritually.

Not really… mentally – children are educated (students in Catholic Education here in America score highly on national tests, most go on to college, earning millions in scholarship money). physically – more chance of being *tinkeled* physically by a relative, or coach. spiritually – raised in faith in Jesus Christ isn’t *tinkeled* As we all know there is a influx of perversion and  manipulation that has been going on for quite some time and will not go away soon. Yep… your perversion and manipulation of the truth isn’t likely to disappear anytime soon. I was never a catholic priest!

No, you aren’t… nor ever were.  But you are perverting and manipulating the truth Don’t be foolish and promote your acceptance of the parents decision to place their child in danger! The child is in more danger from neighbors and coaches. Most car accidents happen around the home. Should you stay away from home?

By your logic, probably. Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com       <<<<<<<   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <<<<<<<<

Response:

Hi there, Does anyoneknow if you have to be a Catholic to be a Catholic’s godmother? How long does the process take?  What’s involved? Angela I would flat out decline the invitation!

Pity that you would decline the invitation to play an important role in a child’s life. We already have enough confusion in our lives without trying to be nice and welcoming more! Wait until the child gets older and teach him or her the proper way to worship God if you feel you may be

qualified at that time! You still aren’t qualified Skii. You might be jeapordizing the future of this child since there is a great

liklihood that it will be placed in danger in a Catholic school.

Danger of what?  Being exposed to idiots like yourself? As we all know there is a influx of perversion and  manipulation that has been going on for quite some time and will not go

away soon. Yep… your perversion and manipulation of the truth isn’t likely to disappear anytime soon. Don’t be foolish and promote your acceptance of the parents decision to

place their child in danger! The child is in more danger from neighbors and coaches. Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com       <<<<<<<   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <<<<<<<<

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi there, Does anyoneknow if you have to be a Catholic to be a Catholic’s godmother? How long does the process take?  What’s involved? Angela I would flat out decline the invitation! Pity that you would decline the invitation to play an important role in a child’s life.

An important role? Try to get it away from the church, that’s my advice. Let the child live in peace and in safety. We already have enough confusion in our lives without trying to be nice and welcoming more! Wait until the child gets older and teach him or her the proper way to worship God if you feel you may be qualified at that time! You still aren’t qualified Skii.

That’s giving the poster a defeatest attitude. AJ I’m sure can do a fine job with the help of God! You might be jeapordizing the future of this child since there is a great liklihood that it will be placed in danger in a Catholic school. Danger of what?  Being exposed to idiots like yourself?

Being *tinkeled* with mentally, physically and spiritually. As we all know there is a influx of perversion and  manipulation that has been going on for quite some time and will not go away soon. Yep… your perversion and manipulation of the truth isn’t likely to disappear anytime soon.

I was never a catholic priest! Don’t be foolish and promote your acceptance of the parents decision to place their child in danger! The child is in more danger from neighbors and coaches.

Most car accidents happen around the home. Should you stay away from home?

Response:

Hi there, Does anyoneknow if you have to be a Catholic to be a Catholic’s godmother? How long does the process take?  What’s involved? Angela

I would flat out decline the invitation! We already have enough confusion in our lives without trying to be nice and welcoming more! Wait until the child gets older and teach him or her the proper way to worship God if you feel you may be qualified at that time! You might be jeapordizing the future of this child since there is a great liklihood that it will be placed in danger in a Catholic school. As we all know there is a influx of perversion and manipulation that has been going on for quite some time and will not go away soon. Don’t be foolish and promote your acceptance of the parents decision to place their child in danger! Stand firm against their stupidity and lack of caring!

Response:

Hi there, Does anyoneknow if you have to be a Catholic to be a Catholic’s godmother? How long does the process take?  What’s involved? Angela

You don’t have to be Catholic if the baby’s godfather is a practicing Catholic.  You go to classes to prepare for the obligations of bringing up a child in the Catholic faith–in our case, the classes were done in a single weekend. Good luck! LittleBit

Response:

Hi there, Does anyoneknow if you have to be a Catholic to be a Catholic’s godmother? How long does the process take?  What’s involved? Angela

Response:

Hi there, Does anyoneknow if you have to be a Catholic to be a Catholic’s godmother? How long does the process take?  What’s involved?

If the godfather is Catholic you don’t have to be, you do have to be a Christian.  Although the Church considers the non-Catholic Christian to be a witness rather than a sponsor (the Church speaks of sponsors rather than godparents), that doesn’t change anything as far as the child and the family are concerned. There is no set time span for becoming a Catholic.  It all depends on where you already are on your faith journey.  Ideally it is a process, rather than a program.  For some it may last a year, for some many years and some never get to that point in their journey.  An Anglican Christian who has been catechized and active in his/her church for years will most likely reach that point fairly quickly where a non-Christian may take considerably longer.  But there are no set rules.  It all depends on you.   Your best bet would be to contact a Catholic church near you and inquire about the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults.  It is a process that starts with discernment to help you decide if this is something you really want to pursue and then helps you along your journey. Suzanne

Response:

Wrong again. You have proven many times over you have no desire for Truth.

We pray over and over you will come to the Truth, not that fools gold you’ve been peddling here for years.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — "Facts interest me less than the trailing smoke of stories" Naomi Shihab Nye Hi, I’ve been attending and Anglican Church for all my life. I attended a Catholic School and had many Religious Instructions about the Catholic Church while attending the school. I’ve being baptised and confirmed as an Anglican at my church. My question is that now that I have married my wife in her church, Catholic I too would want to become Catholic. I do understand most of the Catholics views as such but according to the Parish Preist I must be confirmed in the Catholic church again. My understanding of Confirmation is the you are confirming your Christian Faith and excepting that you are a member of the Body of Christ. If I have done this in a previous Church, that of the Anglican Religion why then should I do it again in the Catholic Church? I do believe that baptism and confirmation is something that is done once in your lifetime. I need some guidance Lorenzo, As you may know, the Catholic Church is doubtful about the validity of Anglican Orders and therefore about the complete apostolicity of Anglican bishops. The ancient tradition in a case like that is to re-confirm but not to re-baptize. Look on it as completing your (Anglican) baptism in a (Catholic) confirmation and Eucharist. I got out my copy of the Catechism and looked through it. I think,and I could be wrong, that another reason for the seperate Confirmation (not rebaptism) is that one of the things that Confirmation does is admit you, and you admit responsibility, to the Community of Faith that is the Church. Hope that helps That idea of what confirmation is is changing, especially now that confirmation is being returned to its proper place — before first communion where it was until 1910.   The church doesn’t require ‘maturity’ for this sacrament, it requires nothing more than the ‘age of reason’ same as first communion.  We are confirming 6 year olds who have more faith and understand more than many of the teens who were being confirmed because they had reached "confirmation age" in a Catholic school and were taught as part of the curriculum. There is no requirement that anyone reach the age of reason either.

Canon Law says to confirm at the "age of reason" but also says to confirm infants in danger of dying, so obviously age is not a crucial factor. Suzanne

Response:

Here’s some guidance: Stay away from the rcc and seek the truth.

Here’s some better guidence . . . .Keep seeking the Truth . . . You are well on your way . . . God Bless Randy

Response:

This answer will be right to the point:     The Anglican Church which is also the church of England.  Lost all of her power during WW2, when their Archbishop was killed by the Germans during the battle of Briton.     Unless you where confirmed by an 90+ bishop he most likely don’t have the power.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, I’ve been attending and Anglican Church for all my life. I attended a Catholic School and had many Religious Instructions about the Catholic Church while attending the school. I’ve being baptised and confirmed as an Anglican at my church. My question is that now that I have married my wife in her church, Catholic I too would want to become Catholic. I do understand most of the Catholics views as such but according to the Parish Preist I must be confirmed in the Catholic church again. My understanding of Confirmation is the you are confirming your Christian Faith and excepting that you are a member of the Body of Christ. If I have done this in a previous Church, that of the Anglican Religion why then should I do it again in the Catholic Church? I do believe that baptism and confirmation is something that is done once in your lifetime. I need some guidance Here’s some guidance: Stay away from the rcc and seek the truth. Ah, he says stay away from the Catholic Church and seek the truth–but cannot give direction to where the truth is…. …ever wonder why? Been there, done that. …the "why" is asking why you always say "keep away from them and seek the truth", yet you never give any clue to where the truth is….why is it that you never give any clue to where you believe the truth to be? Wrong again. You have proven many times over you have no desire for Truth. Nice try.. Buny

Response:

– "Facts interest me less than the trailing smoke of stories" Naomi Shihab Nye

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, I’ve been attending and Anglican Church for all my life. I attended a Catholic School and had many Religious Instructions about the Catholic Church while attending the school. I’ve being baptised and confirmed as an Anglican at my church. My question is that now that I have married my wife in her church, Catholic I too would want to become Catholic. I do understand most of the Catholics views as such but according to the Parish Preist I must be confirmed in the Catholic church again. My understanding of Confirmation is the you are confirming your Christian Faith and excepting that you are a member of the Body of Christ. If I have done this in a previous Church, that of the Anglican Religion why then should I do it again in the Catholic Church? I do believe that baptism and confirmation is something that is done once in your lifetime. I need some guidance Lorenzo, As you may know, the Catholic Church is doubtful about the validity of Anglican Orders and therefore about the complete apostolicity of Anglican bishops. The ancient tradition in a case like that is to re-confirm but not to re-baptize. Look on it as completing your (Anglican) baptism in a (Catholic) confirmation and Eucharist.

I got out my copy of the Catechism and looked through it. I think,and I could be wrong, that another reason for the seperate Confirmation (not rebaptism) is that one of the things that Confirmation does is admit you, and you admit responsibility, to the Community of Faith that is the Church. Hope that helps slainte Bardi

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — "Facts interest me less than the trailing smoke of stories" Naomi Shihab Nye Hi, I’ve been attending and Anglican Church for all my life. I attended a Catholic School and had many Religious Instructions about the Catholic Church while attending the school. I’ve being baptised and confirmed as an Anglican at my church. My question is that now that I have married my wife in her church, Catholic I too would want to become Catholic. I do understand most of the Catholics views as such but according to the Parish Preist I must be confirmed in the Catholic church again. My understanding of Confirmation is the you are confirming your Christian Faith and excepting that you are a member of the Body of Christ. If I have done this in a previous Church, that of the Anglican Religion why then should I do it again in the Catholic Church? I do believe that baptism and confirmation is something that is done once in your lifetime. I need some guidance Lorenzo, As you may know, the Catholic Church is doubtful about the validity of Anglican Orders and therefore about the complete apostolicity of Anglican bishops. The ancient tradition in a case like that is to re-confirm but not to re-baptize. Look on it as completing your (Anglican) baptism in a (Catholic) confirmation and Eucharist. I got out my copy of the Catechism and looked through it. I think,and I could be wrong, that another reason for the seperate Confirmation (not rebaptism) is that one of the things that Confirmation does is admit you, and you admit responsibility, to the Community of Faith that is the Church. Hope that helps

That idea of what confirmation is is changing, especially now that confirmation is being returned to its proper place — before first communion where it was until 1910.   The church doesn’t require ‘maturity’ for this sacrament, it requires nothing more than the ‘age of reason’ same as first communion.  We are confirming 6 year olds who have more faith and understand more than many of the teens who were being confirmed because they had reached "confirmation age" in a Catholic school and were taught as part of the curriculum. Suzanne

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, I’ve been attending and Anglican Church for all my life. I attended a Catholic School and had many Religious Instructions about the Catholic Church while attending the school. I’ve being baptised and confirmed as an Anglican at my church. My question is that now that I have married my wife in her church, Catholic I too would want to become Catholic. I do understand most of the Catholics views as such but according to the Parish Preist I must be confirmed in the Catholic church again. My understanding of Confirmation is the you are confirming your Christian Faith and excepting that you are a member of the Body of Christ. If I have done this in a previous Church, that of the Anglican Religion why then should I do it again in the Catholic Church? I do believe that baptism and confirmation is something that is done once in your lifetime. I need some guidance Here’s some guidance: Stay away from the rcc and seek the truth. Ah, he says stay away from the Catholic Church and seek the truth–but cannot give direction to where the truth is…. …ever wonder why? Been there, done that. …the "why" is asking why you always say "keep away from them and seek the truth", yet you never give any clue to where the truth is….why is it that you never give any clue to where you believe the truth to be?

Wrong again. You have proven many times over you have no desire for Truth. Nice try.. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Buny

Response:

                                                               JMJ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, I’ve been attending and Anglican Church for all my life. I attended a Catholic School and had many Religious Instructions about the Catholic Church while attending the school. I’ve being baptized and confirmed as an Anglican at my church. My question is that now that I have married my wife in her church, Catholic I too would want to become Catholic. I do understand most of the Catholics views as such but according to the Parish Priest I must be confirmed in the Catholic church again. My understanding of Confirmation is the you are confirming your Christian Faith and excepting that you are a member of the Body of Christ. If I have done this in a previous Church, that of the Anglican Religion why then should I do it again in the Catholic Church? I do believe that baptism and confirmation is something that is done once in your lifetime. I need some guidance I hope you have a nice conversion, there are many resources on the net that explain the reason for Re-confirmation, but not re baptism. Something about Anglican orders not being valid or may not be valid. I hope it goes well for you.

The Catholic Church recognizes Anglican Baptisms, but because of the problem with Anglican "Holy Orders" does not recognizes Anglican "confirmation" His Holiness Pope Leo XIII on Anglican Orders Apostolicae Curae On the Nullity of Anglican Orders September 15, 1896 snip<

36. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by Our authority, of Our own initiative and certain knowledge, We pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void. snip<

In the tenth year of Our Pontificate. LEO PP. XIII For a complete online copy in english of the Apostolicae Curae See: http://www.newadvent.org/docs/le13ac.htm Jim Carew sfo

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, I’ve been attending and Anglican Church for all my life. I attended a Catholic School and had many Religious Instructions about the Catholic Church while attending the school. I’ve being baptised and confirmed as an Anglican at my church. My question is that now that I have married my wife in her church, Catholic I too would want to become Catholic. I do understand most of the Catholics views as such but according to the Parish Preist I must be confirmed in the Catholic church again. My understanding of Confirmation is the you are confirming your Christian Faith and excepting that you are a member of the Body of Christ. If I have done this in a previous Church, that of the Anglican Religion why then should I do it again in the Catholic Church? I do believe that baptism and confirmation is something that is done once in your lifetime. I need some guidance Here’s some guidance: Stay away from the rcc and seek the truth. Ah, he says stay away from the Catholic Church and seek the truth–but cannot give direction to where the truth is…. …ever wonder why? Been there, done that.

…the "why" is asking why you always say "keep away from them and seek the truth", yet you never give any clue to where the truth is….why is it that you never give any clue to where you believe the truth to be? Buny

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, I’ve been attending and Anglican Church for all my life. I attended a Catholic School and had many Religious Instructions about the Catholic Church while attending the school. I’ve being baptised and confirmed as an Anglican at my church. My question is that now that I have married my wife in her church, Catholic I too would want to become Catholic. I do understand most of the Catholics views as such but according to the Parish Preist I must be confirmed in the Catholic church again. My understanding of Confirmation is the you are confirming your Christian Faith and excepting that you are a member of the Body of Christ. If I have done this in a previous Church, that of the Anglican Religion why then should I do it again in the Catholic Church? I do believe that baptism and confirmation is something that is done once in your lifetime. I need some guidance God Bless Lorenzo

I hope you have a nice conversion, there are many resources on the net that explain the reason for Re-confirmation, but not re baptism. Something about Anglican orders not being valid or may not be valid. I hope it goes well for you.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, I’ve been attending and Anglican Church for all my life. I attended a Catholic School and had many Religious Instructions about the Catholic Church while attending the school. I’ve being baptised and confirmed as an Anglican at my church. My question is that now that I have married my wife in her church, Catholic I too would want to become Catholic. I do understand most of the Catholics views as such but according to the Parish Preist I must be confirmed in the Catholic church again. My understanding of Confirmation is the you are confirming your Christian Faith and excepting that you are a member of the Body of Christ. If I have done this in a previous Church, that of the Anglican Religion why then should I do it again in the Catholic Church? I do believe that baptism and confirmation is something that is done once in your lifetime. I need some guidance Here’s some guidance: Stay away from the rcc and seek the truth. Ah, he says stay away from the Catholic Church and seek the truth–but cannot give direction to where the truth is…. …ever wonder why?

Been there, done that. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, I’ve been attending and Anglican Church for all my life. I attended a Catholic School and had many Religious Instructions about the Catholic Church while attending the school. I’ve being baptised and confirmed as an Anglican at my church. My question is that now that I have married my wife in her church, Catholic I too would want to become Catholic. I do understand most of the Catholics views as such but according to the Parish Preist I must be confirmed in the Catholic church again. My understanding of Confirmation is the you are confirming your Christian Faith and excepting that you are a member of the Body of Christ. If I have done this in a previous Church, that of the Anglican Religion why then should I do it again in the Catholic Church? I do believe that baptism and confirmation is something that is done once in your lifetime. I need some guidance Here’s some guidance: Stay away from the rcc and seek the truth.

Ah, he says stay away from the Catholic Church and seek the truth–but cannot give direction to where the truth is…. …ever wonder why? Buny

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hi, I’ve been attending and Anglican Church for all my life. I attended a Catholic School and had many Religious Instructions about the Catholic Church while attending the school. I’ve being baptised and confirmed as an Anglican at my church. My question is that now that I have married my wife in her church, Catholic I too would want to become Catholic. I do understand most of the Catholics views as such but according to the Parish Preist I must be confirmed in the Catholic church again. My understanding of Confirmation is the you are confirming your Christian Faith and excepting that you are a member of the Body of Christ. If I have done this in a previous Church, that of the Anglican Religion why then should I do it again in the Catholic Church? I do believe that baptism and confirmation is something that is done once in your lifetime. I need some guidance

Lorenzo, As you may know, the Catholic Church is doubtful about the validity of Anglican Orders and therefore about the complete apostolicity of Anglican bishops.  The ancient tradition in a case like that is to re-confirm but not to re-baptize. Look on it as completing your (Anglican) baptism in a (Catholic) confirmation and Eucharist.

Response:

Hi, I’ve been attending and Anglican Church for all my life. I attended a Catholic School and had many Religious Instructions about the Catholic Church while attending the school. I’ve being baptised and confirmed as an Anglican at my church. My question is that now that I have married my wife in her church, Catholic I too would want to become Catholic. I do understand most of the Catholics views as such but according to the Parish Preist I must be confirmed in the Catholic church again. My understanding of Confirmation is the you are confirming your Christian Faith and excepting that you are a member of the Body of Christ. If I have done this in a previous Church, that of the Anglican Religion why then should I do it again in the Catholic Church? I do believe that baptism and confirmation is something that is done once in your lifetime. I need some guidance God Bless Lorenzo

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, I’ve been attending and Anglican Church for all my life. I attended a Catholic School and had many Religious Instructions about the Catholic Church while attending the school. I’ve being baptised and confirmed as an Anglican at my church. My question is that now that I have married my wife in her church, Catholic I too would want to become Catholic. I do understand most of the Catholics views as such but according to the Parish Preist I must be confirmed in the Catholic church again. My understanding of Confirmation is the you are confirming your Christian Faith and excepting that you are a member of the Body of Christ. If I have done this in a previous Church, that of the Anglican Religion why then should I do it again in the Catholic Church? I do believe that baptism and confirmation is something that is done once in your lifetime. I need some guidance

Here’s some guidance: Stay away from the rcc and seek the truth. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -God Bless Lorenzo

Response:

The Alien Grip on Our News and Entertainment Media Must Be Broken There is no greater power in the world today than that wielded by the manipulators of public opinion in America. No king or pope of old, no conquering general or high priest ever disposed of a power even remotely approaching that of the few dozen men who control America’s mass media of news and entertainment. Their power is not distant and impersonal; it reaches into every home in America, and it works its will during nearly every waking hour. It is the power that shapes and molds the mind of virtually every citizen, young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated. The mass media form for us our image of the world and then tell us what to think about that image. Essentially everything we know — or think we know — about events outside our own neighborhood or circle of acquaintances comes to us via our daily newspaper, our weekly news magazine, our radio, or our television. It is not just the heavy-handed suppression of certain news stories from our newspapers or the blatant propagandizing of history-distorting TV "docudramas" that characterizes the opinion-manipulating techniques of the media masters. They exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in their management of the news and the entertainment that they present to us. For example, the way in which the news is covered: which items are emphasized and which are played down; the reporter’s choice of words, tone of voice, and facial expressions; the wording of headlines; the choice of illustrations — all of these things subliminally and yet profoundly affect the way in which we interpret what we see or hear. On top of this, of course, the columnists and editors remove any remaining doubt from our minds as to just what we are to think about it all. Employing carefully developed psychological techniques, they guide our thought and opinion so that we can be in tune with the "in" crowd, the "beautiful people," the "smart money." They let us know exactly what our attitudes should be toward various types of people and behavior by placing those people or that behavior in the context of a TV drama or situation comedy and having the other TV characters react in the Politically Correct way. Molding American Minds For example, a racially mixed couple will be respected, liked, and socially sought after by other characters, as will a "take charge" Black scholar or businessman, or a sensitive and talented homosexual, or a poor but honest and hardworking illegal alien from Mexico. On the other hand, a White racist — that is, any racially conscious White person who looks askance at miscegenation or at the rapidly darkening racial situation in America — is portrayed, at best, as a despicable bigot who is reviled by the other characters, or, at worst, as a dangerous psychopath who is fascinated by firearms and is a menace to all law-abiding citizens. The White racist "gun nut," in fact, has become a familiar stereotype on TV shows. The average American, of whose daily life TV-watching takes such an unhealthy portion, distinguishes between these fictional situations and reality only with difficulty, if at all. He responds to the televised actions, statements, and attitudes of TV actors much as he does to his own peers in real life. For all too many Americans the real world has been replaced by the false reality of the TV environment, and it is to this false reality that his urge to conform responds. Thus, when a TV scriptwriter expresses approval of some ideas and actions through the TV characters for whom he is writing, and disapproval of others, he exerts a powerful pressure on millions of viewers toward conformity with his own views. And as it is with TV entertainment, so it is also with the news, whether televised or printed. The insidious thing about this form of thought control is that even when we realize that entertainment or news is biased, the media masters still are able to manipulate most of us. This is because they not only slant what they present, but they establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion. As an example, consider the media treatment of Middle East news. Some editors or commentators are slavishly pro-Israel in their every utterance, while others seem nearly neutral. No one, however, dares suggest that the U.S. government is backing the wrong side in the Arab-Jewish conflict and that it served Jewish interests, rather than American interests, to send U.S. forces to cripple Iraq, Israel’s principal rival in the Middle East. Thus, a spectrum of permissible opinion, from pro-Israel to nearly neutral, is established. Another example is the media treatment of racial issues in the United States. Some commentators seem almost dispassionate in reporting news of racial strife, while others are emotionally partisan — with the partisanship always on the non-White side. All of the media spokesmen without exception, however, take the position that "multiculturalism" and racial mixing are here to stay, and that they are good things. Because there are differences in degree, however, most Americans fail to realize that they are being manipulated. Even the citizen who complains about "managed news" falls into the trap of thinking that because he is presented with an apparent spectrum of opinion he can escape the thought controllers’ influence by believing the editor or commentator of his choice. It’s a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. Every point on the permissible spectrum of public opinion is acceptable to the media masters — and no impermissible fact or viewpoint is allowed any exposure at all, if they can prevent it. The control of the opinion-molding media is nearly monolithic. All of the controlled media — television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, motion pictures — speak with a single voice, each reinforcing the other. Despite the appearance of variety, there is no real dissent, no alternative source of facts or ideas accessible to the great mass of people that might allow them to form opinions at odds with those of the media masters. They are presented with a single view of the world — a world in which every voice proclaims the equality of the races, the inerrant nature of the Jewish "Holocaust" tale, the wickedness of attempting to halt the flood of non-White aliens pouring across our borders, the danger of permitting citizens to keep and bear arms, the moral equivalence of all sexual orientations, and the desirability of a "pluralistic," cosmopolitan society rather than a homogeneous, White one. It is a view of the world designed by the media masters to suit their own ends — and the pressure to conform to that view is overwhelming. People adapt their opinions to it, vote in accord with it, and shape their lives to fit it. And who are these all-powerful masters of the media? As we shall see, to a very large extent they are Jews. It isn’t simply a matter of the media being controlled by profit-hungry capitalists, some of whom happen to be Jews. If that were the case, the ethnicity of the media masters would reflect, at least approximately, the ratio of rich gentiles to rich Jews. Despite a few prominent exceptions, the preponderance of Jews in the media is so overwhelming that we are obliged to assume that it is due to more than mere happenstance. Electronic News & Entertainment Media Continuing government deregulation of the telecommunications industry has resulted, not in the touted increased competition, but rather in an accelerating wave of corporate mergers and acquisitions that have produced a handful of multi-billion-dollar media conglomerates. The largest of these conglomerates are rapidly growing even bigger by consuming their competition, almost tripling in size during the 1990s. Whenever you watch television, whether from a local broadcasting station or via cable or a satellite dish; whenever you see a feature film in a theater or at home; whenever you listen to the radio or to recorded music; whenever you read a newspaper, book, or magazine — it is very likely that the information or entertainment you receive was produced and/or distributed by one of these megamedia companies. AOL-TW. The largest media conglomerate today is AOL-Time Warner, created when America Online bought Time Warner for $160 billion in 2000. The merger brought together Steve Case, a White gentile, as chairman of AOL-TW, and Gerald Levin, a Jew, as the CEO. A brief history of the company is in order. The four (gentile) Warner brothers founded their movie company in 1907 and had their first major success ten years later with My 4 Years in Germany. WB incorporated in 1923 and went on to cartoon success with Porky Pig and Bugs Bunny. In 1944, a court ruled that WB must release Olivia de Havilland after her seven-year contract. This decision prevented any one company from controlling a pool of creative talent, but it did nothing to stop the Jews from controlling the entire industry with which that talent was obliged to work. In 1948, WB sold its film library to MGM. In 1949, another court ruling forced WB to sell its cinema chain, obstructing vertical integration by a single movie-making company, while doing nothing to prevent the Jews from establishing such integration through an ethnic collaboration. In 1958, WB created Warner Brothers Records, which was later renamed WEA. In 1968, Jack Warner sold his shares to Seven Arts, while DC and All-American Comics were bought by Kinney National Services (a funeral parlor conglomerate). Kinney turned around and bought a talent agency, then turned around again and bought Warner-Seven Arts, becoming Warner Communications. Warner Communications bought Elektra Records in 1970, the same year that Jew David Geffen started the Asylum label. (The name is synonymous with crazy-house.) Time bought HBO from Charles Dolan in 1972. Ironically, 1972 was also the year when Money … read more »

Response:

of course!

Response:

of course! Most definitely. One has to wonder what people would think if the Catholics controlled the media. Hey…..wait a minute, they would think whatever we wanted them to think.

And you are living proof. Steve Zodiac

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – of course! Most definitely. One has to wonder what people would think if the Catholics controlled the media. Hey…..wait a minute, they would think whatever we wanted them to think. And you are living proof. Falls flat since Catholics don’t control the media. But…..antiCatholicism is politically correct because the Jews say it is. Now roll over and play dead like a good programmed American.

        Until you cough up the fake respect the Scout Ladies of this country demand for being Catholic. Paul

Response:

"Scout Lady" Falls flat since Catholics don’t control the media.

But…..antiCatholicism is politically correct because the Jews say it is. Now roll over and play dead like a good programmed American.

"My Kingdom is not of this world."  It seems to "me" that says it.  This construct people live by and proclaim our allegence to – whatever "national" construct that may be, and here it appears to be defined by the label "American" – is a delusion.  The nationalist construct is a delusion that separates us from the fundamental truth that we are ONE in Christ as He is ONE with the Father of Process. This is not a reasonable truth; it is an experiential truth. It is all too simple to grasp for so many.  This grave and morbid game of "America" vs "Iraq" is wasted time for the dinizens of the world.  "My Kingdom is not of this world;"  "It is among you."  What is this? A koan? Since the dawn of consciousness we have engaged the fundamental thinking error involving "the knowledge of ‘good’ and ‘evil.’"  This is the fundamental dialectic that reinforces our separation from the world itself. For isn’t it true that "world" is "object" to us rather than "subject."  We have juxtapositioned ourselves into an essential estrangement from God and from each other. It began with the discovery of the cerebral cortex. We took it out and played with it! Each time we see Protestant vs Catholic, Christian vs Jew, Jew vs Moslem, Bosnian vs Serb, American vs French, we see our world devided into fiefdoms of self-interest when there is no real "self" to agrandize.  Self is a totally constructed delusion that separates us from oneness that is. It is a thought. The Buddhist say, "All form is emptiness; all emptiness is form." This "secret" is incomprehensible to those lost in the dialectic between "self" vs "other"; subject beholding object and desiring to contain, control, or consume it.  The very object of our "individual" wills is this esential oneness. "I am the New Adam;" "My Kingdom is not of this world;" "The god of this world is mannon; you will love the one and rebuke the other, or serve the one god and abandon the other;" "If you would follow me, sell all that you have and give it to the poor then come along." Is this not non-attachment? Not? Open gate; closed gate! This is not complicated.  It only gets complicated when I believe that Billy Graham is God’s Voice arming America with righteousness.  These are lies of course; they separate me from the divine.

Response: