Catholics & Catholicism

Question:

Over the past 3 years I have sent hundreds of notes to these newgroups explaining that the Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead" is similar but not identical to the doctrine of  ’re-incarnation’ and that the Revelation of the "resurrection of the dead" includes the revelation of the memories of previous lives. And, periodically, a Jewish or a Christian or a Muslim *coward*, des- irous of killing as many children as possible, will lob a hand grenade at my explanations and then quickly run away, never to be heard from again–the reason for which, of course, being that, while they are quite willing to sacrifice the *lives* of others, they are unwilling to risk their own *beliefs* in the pursuit of the argument. So, for the purpose of hastening the development of the debate with S. Fortin [found under the thread "Nag Hammadi (debate on the Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead" with S. Fortin)"], I will summarize here the cowardly attacks upon the Truth concerning the Doctrine of the "res- urrection of the dead" by those who ‘argue’ on the basis of hearsay and readsay, imagination, and speculation rather than Knowledge. 1). The first, and probably most bizarre, argument advanced by Christians against the Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead" is that Jesus did not mean *literally* that John the Baptist was Elijah ‘raised from the dead’ when he stated: "And, if you will believe me, he is the Elijah who was to come. If anyone has ears to hear, let him listen." (Matthew 11:14-15) In other words, Jesus intended this as merely a trivial ‘figure of speech’ to be understood in a strictly metaphorical sense as meaning that John was merely ‘like’ Elijah or ’similar’ to Elijah. But there are a number of ‘prob- lems’ with such an ‘explanation’: A) Malachi Prophesied the arrival or return of *Elijah*–NOT the arrival of someone of whom it would be said that he was LIKE Elijah. Anyone can say that a person is "like" another person. Not only is it inapprop- riate to suggest that a matter so trivial as this would be considered as a Prophecy; but such an ‘explanation’ betrays  a fundamental lack of per- ception and appreciation for the seriousness of Prophecy in general. B) The second problem with such an ‘explanation’ is that it *completely* ignores the context of Matthew 17:10-13 in which Jesus confirms that ‘John is Elijah’ in direct response to a question of the apostles concern- ing the arrival of the messiah. Specifically, the *literal* return of Elijah was Prophesied as occurring *before* the ‘Great Day of the Lord’ and was understood as occurring *before* the arrival of the messiah. In other words, in order for Jesus to be understood as *literally* the messiah, it was *necessary* in terms of Prophecy that Elijah *literally* return. Thus, if John was only *metaphorically* Elijah, Jesus was only *metaphorically* the messiah–which, apparently, is a contradiction of the Christian doctrine that Jesus was the messiah. C) The third problem is that such an ‘explanation’ does not sufficiently explain why Jesus bracketed his statement about John by saying "And if you will believe me…." and "If anyone has the ears to hear, let him listen." Why would Jesus have thought that such a statement was so *difficult* to believe? Virtually ANYONE should be able to believe that John was merely ‘like’ Elijah; in fact this is why so many Christians believe this. In summary, then, these three hand grenades are merely for the purpose of distracting people from the PLAIN meaning of the statements of Jesus: It was at least possible for Jesus to be considered as *literally* the mes- siah because, as Prophesied by Malachi, Elijah had *literally* returned. So the Christian *cowards* have to scurry away to *another* ‘argument’. 2) The second ‘explanation’ as to why the plain meaning of the statements of Jesus concerning John the Baptist being Elijah ‘raised from the dead’ should be rejected is the denial by John in chapter 1 vs. 22 of the Gospel of John that he was Elijah–a statement taken by Christians on face value as *contradicting* the statements of Jesus. The problem here is that the identity of John the Baptist as Elijah had been Revealed to Jesus rather than John; thus, the question becomes what the reasons might be that John would deny the statements of Jesus: A) The first possibility here is that Jesus had not yet *informed* John that he had been Elijah in a previous life. This statement is made at the very begining of the Gospel of John; and, for that reason, is at least probable. B) The second reason here is that John was NOT Elijah. His name in a *previous* life was Elijah, but his name in *that* life was John. In other words, John chose to answer the question put to him in the most *trivial* manner possible *because* the question was put to him by those who had been sent by the Pharisees–*most* of whom did not even under- stand the Truth of the "resurrection of the dead" anyway and were only looking for ammunition to use against John because he was a threat to the Jewish religious establishment. C) But the third objection is even more to the point: Let’s say that Jesus *had* told John the Baptist that he was Elijah in a previous life, and that John adamantly *rejected* that statement as being the most *bizarre* thing he had ever heard; and, that when he was saying this, he was spec- ifically DENYING the statements of Jesus. WHO is a Christian to be- lieve: Jesus the messiah or John? In summary, to use the statements of John against Jesus to contradict the plain meaning of the statements of Jesus concerning John is to deny that Jesus is the messiah, or to affirm that, while Jesus was *metaphor- ically* the messiah, John knew MORE than Jesus concerning his own identity. 3) The third ‘argument’ detonated by Christians against children is the quotation from Paul that "It is appointed unto man ONCE to die, and after that the judgement", or something like that. And there are a num- ber of problems with this ‘explanation’ as well: A) According to chapter 11 of the Gospel of John, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead; according to Luke 7, Jesus raised from the dead the son of the widow of Nain; and someplace else it states that Jesus raised from the dead the daughter of Jairus; and, in addition, the prophet Elijah is said to have raised someone from the dead. Now, if it is "appointed unto men to die ONCE", WHERE are all of these people now living? (CERTAINLY they would be a "primary source" for all historians studying that particular time in history.) B) The second objection to such an ‘explanation’–not that I have ANY interest in defending the half-wit metaphysical philosopher Paul–is that most people DO die only once—in EACH LIFE (unless a Miracle is performed, or they receive CPR or something) 4) The fourth ‘argument’ against the Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead" employed as much by Jews as by Christians and Muslims is that "If this is the Truth, we would have been TOLD so by now." In other words, this has NEVER been taught by the Jewish or Christian or Muslim religious officials; and, for that reason, cannot POSSIBLY be the Truth. And this is usually accompanied by the corollary that people who claim that there is an ‘esoteric Truth’ known only by the few are merely heretics sent by Satan to destroy the fragile faith of the official religious establishment. And the objections to this ‘argument’ are entirely Scriptural: "I bind up this testimony. I seal this Revelation in the heart of my dis- ciples." (Isaiah 8:16) "These words will remain secret and sealed until the Time of the End." (Daniel 12:9) "…the wicked will NEVER understand; the wise will understand." (Daniel 12:10) "Enter by the narrow gate, since the road that leads to perdition is wide and spacious, and many take it; but it is a narrow gate and a hard road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14) "Then the disciples went up to him and asked, "Why do you talk to them in parables?" "Because", he replied, "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are Revealed to you, but they are not Revealed to them." (Matthew 13:10-11) "…those who are judged worthy of a place in the other world…are the same as the angels, and being children of the resurrection (i.e., having received the Revelation of the Creation of man and the rev- elation of the memories of previous lives) they are sons of God." (Luke 20:35-37) Michael

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Over the past 3 years I have sent hundreds of notes to these newgroups explaining that the Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead" is similar but not identical to the doctrine of  ’re-incarnation’ and that the Revelation of the "resurrection of the dead" includes the revelation of the memories of previous lives. Michael, I would not consider the "resurrection of the dead" as having anything to do with reincarnation.

They are similar. A soul that is reincarnating has not died.

The soul is a pagan metaphysical concept with no basis in the Torah, the Prophets, the Gospels or the Koran. The only way a soul can die is by sinning (transgressing Cosmic Law) and that is the unpardonable – unforgivable sin.

The soul does not even exist in the first place.  Ezekiel 18:4  Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

A better term here would be spirit or consciousness rather than soul. Ezekiel emphatically did NOT mean by this word what the metaphysical philosophers mean. The soul does not actually die, it just loses its personality. The blank soul will start out again at some future time and develop a new personality.

This is a figment of your imagination. Death on the other hand can refer to several things – body, mind or soul. The story of Easter is a good analogy of the ability of man to be resurrected, if he so desires. It is also known as The Great Work – the transformation of the mortal man into an immortal which we all may

According to the Koran, only the Creator is Immortal. accomplish. To accomplish The Great Work we must transmute our carnal nature into that which is righteous and in harmony with Cosmic Law. We must crucify all the negative passions and emotions. When we have laid the carnal body to rest and are no longer its slave, then will the veil be lifted and the stone be rolled away and we will become a spiritualized being. This is the resurrection of a mortal (dead) into an immortal (alive).

This is a figment of metaphysical philosophy. Michael

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Over the past 3 years I have sent hundreds of notes to these newgroups explaining that the Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead" is similar but not identical to the doctrine of  ’re-incarnation’ and that the Revelation of the "resurrection of the dead" includes the revelation of the memories of previous lives. Michael, I would not consider the "resurrection of the dead" as having anything to do with reincarnation. A soul that is reincarnating has not died. The only way a soul can die is by sinning (transgressing Cosmic Law) and that is the unpardonable – unforgivable sin.  Ezekiel 18:4  Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. The soul does not actually die, it just loses its personality. The blank soul will start out again at some future time and develop a new personality. Death on the other hand can refer to several things – body, mind or soul. The story of Easter is a good analogy of the ability of man to be resurrected, if he so desires. It is also known as The Great Work – the transformation of the mortal man into an immortal which we all may accomplish. To accomplish The Great Work we must transmute our carnal nature into that which is righteous and in harmony with Cosmic Law. We must crucify all the negative passions and emotions. When we have laid the carnal body to rest and are no longer its slave, then will the veil be lifted and the stone be rolled away and we will become a spiritualized being. This is the resurrection of a mortal (dead) into an immortal (alive). To understand The Great Work, I recommend the book "Mastership; The Divine Law". I can e-mail a copy to anyone who would like it. Harold — Harold Send e-mail to: Just remove the underscore.

The only "re-incarnation" is the re-incarnation of the mind and spirit which is the mind and spirit Created by God in Adam; as this spirit was incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth. All who receive the promise of God, receive the new mind and spirit which is this "New Creation" of God in His image and likeness; which was first in Adam. There is but one time man has opportunity to ask for and receive this from God; "now."                   "Mere belief is to not know for sure."

Response:

Over the past 3 years I have sent hundreds of notes to these newgroups explaining that the Doctrine of the "resurrection of the dead" is similar but not identical to the doctrine of  ’re-incarnation’ and that the Revelation of the "resurrection of the dead" includes the revelation of the memories of previous lives. And, periodically, a Jewish or a Christian or a Muslim *coward*, des- irous of killing as many children as possible, will lob a hand grenade at my explanations and then quickly run away, never to be heard from again–the reason for which, of course, being that, while they are quite willing to sacrifice the *lives* of others, they are unwilling to risk their own *beliefs* in the pursuit of the argument.

Or maybe it’s because you don’t know how to debate. You can’t debate someone who doesn’t know how to contruct, analyze and break down an argument. I know you *think* you do. But you don’t. Your essay was a big yawn because you prooftexted. And prooftexting to me is useless so long as there isn’t some manner to test the prooftext– e.g. some exterior yardstick. You don’t want to discuss this yardstick. All you want to do is prooftext without a yardstick. Yawn. Epistemologically, therefore, your whole religion is a shambles. It’s based on nothing. No evidence. You’re asked to park your brains at the door and believe whatever you "feel" is divine– whether it actually corresponds or not is irrelevant. It’s one big fraudulent mind-game. You said you knew the debate about the resurrection of the dead very well. This essay goes to show that you postively nothing of the Catholic perspective on Church doctrine and how it is defended or developed. You pride yourself on your human knowledge, but you know absolutely nothing about the Catholic perspective. You think you do, you want to think you do, but you don’t. You do not know the debate inside out, not from a Catholic perspective. Which is why you can’t get anywhere in a debate with me. You want to prooftext like a Protestant, but Catholics don’t start by prooftexting. If you knew anything about Catholicism, you’d know that. If you ever want to debate with a knowledgeable Catholic, I highly recommend you learn how the Catholic faith "works". That is, if you have any intellectual humility, i.e. the ability to admit you are wrong or know very little about a subject. Somehow, I think you just want to parade around with your air of moral superiority and pose as a victim without having to actually demonstrate anything in a meaningful manner– that is in a manner which corresponds to reality. Until you rectify this situation, debating you is a pure waste of time.                    Minerva’s Catholic message board            http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7724/b.htm        Ask a question   Make a comment   Post a prayer request                  Catholics and Non-Catholics welcome!   DO NOT send me email promoting your product, service, web-site, religion, cause, or get-rich-quick scheme. I don’t do business with spammers.

Response:

The only "re-incarnation" is the re-incarnation of the mind and spirit which is the mind and spirit Created by God in Adam; as this spirit was incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth.

There is no basis for such metaphysical philosophy in either the Torah, the Prophets, the Gospels or the Koran. All who receive the promise of God, receive the new mind

"Mind" is another metaphysical concept similar to the soul. Michael

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Or maybe it’s because you don’t know how to debate. You can’t debate someone who doesn’t know how to contruct, analyze and break down an argument. I know you *think* you do. But you don’t. Show me ONE PASSAGE from the Gospels where Jesus says that his job is to CONTRADICT the Torah. And the doctrine of a metaphysical heaven and hell is a *specific* and FLAGRANT contradiction of Deuteronomy 28, which affirms that the rewards and punishments for the violation of the Law are in THIS world. Michael

A "world" is a social order; not a physical matter.                   "Mere belief is to not know for sure."

Response:

You should know by now that catholics know NOTHING about the Bible and believe only what their celibate (NOT!) childmolesting priests tell them.

Excellent argument there.  I would have read further, but you proved yourself an elegant purveyor of the truth with the words above.

Response:

Dear Eli27;

My name is Michael. You should know by now that catholics know NOTHING about the Bible

I realize this. This is merely for those who have not yet had this DEMONSTRATED to them. and believe only what their celibate (NOT!) childmolesting priests tell them.

I have also encountered many priests who were very spiritual people. How unfortunte that they were so misled by the superiors. They have no care for believing the truth but are only concerned with such weighty beiefs as in believing that the wafer and the wine are the True Blood and Body of christ. Believe me you will get nowhere with them as they have no ability to question the beliefs the "penguin nuns"

I have the deepest respect for many of these nuns. Most of the ones I know were quite gentle-hearted and dedicated to what they were doing in a *positive* sense. They were merely UNAWARE of the implications of what they were teaching. have instilled in them fro childhood. Believe me I was raised in that church, I know. Little do they know that their beliefs were formulated by the Roman Imperium as a tool  of propaganda by Emperor Constantine so that he could control the population of the Empire through his priests". Confession was instituted as a means of keeping control through the secret police I mean Priests. And you know the rest. they even went so far as to incorporate the writings of the heretic Saul of Tarsus into their Bible at the exclusion of other more accurate works. They are lost.

I make this argument in the hope that all is NOT lost with these Roman Christians. Most will NOT listen; but, perhaps, there is only ONE for whom I am writing. And that ONE is worth it. Other than that, I appreciate at least SOME of your sentiments. Michael

Response:

Dear Eli27; You should know by now that catholics know NOTHING about the Bible and believe only what their celibate (NOT!) childmolesting priests tell them.

DUH! If you were actually raised Catholic *in an intelligent manner*– you would know that the ability to reason is *extremely important*. Unlike *some* belief systems* And if you had any brains, you would also realize that most priests *are* celibate. Of course, you don’t recognize a prejudicial statement when you see one. They have no care for believing the truth but are only concerned with such weighty beiefs as in believing that the wafer and the wine are the True Blood and Body of christ.

And of course you have no way of disproving in any logical manner. After all epistemology is of no importance. Believe me you will get nowhere with them as they have no ability to question the beliefs the "penguin nuns" have instilled in them fro childhood.

Yes I do. I have a brain. But I am intellectually satisfied with the answers I have received. They accord with logic and reason. Unlike some belief systems. Believe me I was raised in that church, I know.

Maybe so, but you didn’t learn how to think critically, because if you did you wouldn’t be making these stupid and prejudicial remarks. Little do they know that their beliefs were formulated by the Roman Imperium as a tool  of propaganda by Emperor Constantine so that he could control the population of the Empire through his priests". Confession was instituted as a means of keeping control through the secret police I mean Priests. And you know the rest.

Utter crap. And the historical sources prove you wrong. But who needs sources when you can’t think critically? All you need is historical lies. they even went so far as to incorporate the writings of e heretic Saul of Tarsus into their Bible at the exclusion of other more accurate works. They are lost.

Again, the sources prove you wrong. But I guess history to you is useless when all you want to do is promote lies.                    Minerva’s Catholic message board            http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7724/b.htm        Ask a question   Make a comment   Post a prayer request                  Catholics and Non-Catholics welcome!   DO NOT send me email promoting your product, service, web-site, religion, cause, or get-rich-quick scheme. I don’t do business with spammers.

Response:

Dear Eli27; You should know by now that catholics know NOTHING about the Bible and believe only what their celibate (NOT!) childmolesting priests tell them. They have no care for believing the truth but are only concerned with such weighty beiefs as in believing that the wafer and the wine are the True Blood and Body of christ. Believe me you will get nowhere with them as they have no ability to question the beliefs the "penguin nuns" have instilled in them fro childhood. Believe me I was raised in that church, I know. Little do they know that their beliefs were formulated by the Roman Imperium as a tool  of propaganda by Emperor Constantine so that he could control the population of the Empire through his priests".

My hatred for the Roman church as an institution is in SHARP contrast to the relationships I have had with those who are members of that church. The first and only person I have ever seen with a *halo* was a monk in a Trappist monastery about 26 years ago. My determination in pursuing the TRUTH is not different than the dedication to the Truth that I encountered in the Roman Catholic brothers that were my teachers in high school. It is partly in ap- preciation for what they have taught me that I send these notes to the Internet. Many of them I believe would be able to perceive the Truth in what I have written. Do not think for a MOMENT that Suzanne Fortin represents the BEST of Roman theology. There is no way for me to contact all of the people I have grown up with concerning the Truths that have been Revealed to me other than over the Internet. It is also for those that I write these notes. Michael

Response:

Dear Eli27; You should know by now that catholics know NOTHING about the Bible and believe only what their celibate (NOT!) childmolesting priests tell them. DUH! If you were actually raised Catholic *in an intelligent manner*– you would know that the ability to reason is *extremely important*. Unlike *some* belief systems*

Divine Revelation is ABOVE the capacities of the human intellect. I believe even PAUL said something to that effect–something about Truth being perceived as foolishness to the world. And if you had any brains, you would also realize that most priests *are* celibate.

I have not made accusations along these lines. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Of course, you don’t recognize a prejudicial statement when you see one. They have no care for believing the truth but are only concerned with such weighty beiefs as in believing that the wafer and the wine are the True Blood and Body of christ. And of course you have no way of disproving in any logical manner. After all epistemology is of no importance. Believe me you will get nowhere with them as they have no ability to question the beliefs the "penguin nuns" have instilled in them fro childhood. Yes I do. I have a brain. But I am intellectually satisfied with the answers I have received. They accord with logic and reason.

I realize this. But that reason is CONTRARY to Revealed Truth. To put these things on the same level ontologically is a fundamental error. It is the Deification of the psychological structure of the intellect based upon the fear of death and the desire for pleasure. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Unlike some belief systems. Believe me I was raised in that church, I know. Maybe so, but you didn’t learn how to think critically, because if you did you wouldn’t be making these stupid and prejudicial remarks. Little do they know that their beliefs were formulated by the Roman Imperium as a tool  of propaganda by Emperor Constantine so that he could control the population of the Empire through his priests". Confession was instituted as a means of keeping control through the secret police I mean Priests. And you know the rest. Utter crap.

This kind of language is really unnecessary. And from a WOMAN, yet. And the historical sources prove you wrong.

Well, the contrary history books were BURNED. But who needs sources when you can’t think critically? All you need is historical lies. they even went so far as to incorporate the writings of e heretic Saul of Tarsus into their Bible at the exclusion of other more accurate works. They are lost. Again, the sources prove

There is no PROOF of such things. you wrong. But I guess history to you is useless when all you want to do is promote lies.

Another "interesting" statement. Michael – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

You should know by now that catholics know NOTHING about the Bible and believe only what their celibate (NOT!) childmolesting priests tell them. Excellent argument there.  I would have read further, but you proved yourself an elegant purveyor of the truth with the words above.

One could also make the claim that very few Protestants have ever read "Scripture"; translations from the Textus Receptus yes, but the "Bible" no. They just versify it, buy a Concordance and throw around quotes from it making arses of themselves – its called "preaching". God damn it folks, doesn’t it make you feel clean! Jeeesus died for me and I feell so good I could piss in my pants. —

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Or maybe it’s because you don’t know how to debate. You can’t debate someone who doesn’t know how to contruct, analyze and break down an argument. I know you *think* you do. But you don’t. Show me ONE PASSAGE from the Gospels where Jesus says that his job is to CONTRADICT the Torah. This is exactly what I mean. I’ve been telling you *I THINK YOUR METHOD IS B.S.*

I don’t have a METHOD. The memory of the consciousness with which Adam was Created is NOT a METHOD. Now if you knew how to debate, *YOU’D FIND ANOTHER METHOD*.

Like the METHOD of the dualistic consciousness, the consciousness of the normal human personality, which REFLEXIVELY rejects anything which threatens its psychological security or desire for pleasure? No thank you. Been there; done that. But you don’t know *how* to find another method because you’re stuck in fundamentalist non-thinking

Why THANK YOU. The intellect cannot THINK of a time when it did not exist. The origin of the intellect and the source of illusion and evil must be PERCEIVED. And that perception is NON-THINKING, yes. frame of mind

Don’t have a "mind" to have a frame of. (Is this the same frame that goes with posing as a victim? Just wondering.) which refuses to question his procedure. And the doctrine of a metaphysical heaven and hell is a *specific* and FLAGRANT contradiction of Deuteronomy 28, which affirms that the rewards and punishments for the violation of the Law are in THIS world. That is not a contradiction.

"The wicked will NEVER understand." This is something that Daniel said, having received the Revelation of Knowledge through the Vision of the "Son of man". But if you knew anything about logic, you would know that.

Tell Daniel about logic. But you don’t. You’re a fundamentalist

Well, the Revelation of the "resurrection of the dead" and the Vision of the "Son of man" ARE fundamental Revelations, yes. They are the Revelations upon which Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were originally based–although the Knowledge Revealed through those Revelations has been distorted, denied and suppressed by the religious officials. who never questions the soundness of his own method.

Show me ONE PASSAGE that demonstrates that I have contradicted Revealed Truth. This debate has been going on for about 3 weeks and STILL you have not shown me ONE PASSAGE that demonstrates that I am in error. NOT ONE PASSAGE. Michael

Response:

Dear Eli27; My name is Michael. You should know by now that catholics know NOTHING about the Bible I realize this. This is merely for those who have not yet had this DEMONSTRATED to them. Actually, the nuttier things you say about Catholics,

My criticisms are directed against the institutional church. I know quite a few Catholics–most of whom are not in the least bit acquainted with the history of the Roman church. the more delusional you appear. So, as far as I’m concerned, your paranoia

You keep repeating this word "paranoia". I wonder why. and totally inability to think helps Catholics more than it helps you. If you delusional behaviour can lead any like-minded people from gnosticism, or whatever belief system you happen to believem then good. and believe only what their celibate (NOT!) childmolesting priests tell them. I have also encountered many priests who were very spiritual people. How unfortunte that they were so misled by the superiors. Misled? You *really* haven’t the foggiest clue about how Catholicism works.

Probably ‘taken advantage of’ would have been a better choice of words. I have seen very spiritual people being eaten alive by an institution which cares more about its own survival than the spiritual development of its followers; the psychological destruction that occurs in convents–of wounded women that are trying their best to maintain a minimal level of the pride necessary for normal psychological devel- opment. I have seen people like this DESTROYED by the church. My heart goes out to these people. It is those in positions of POWER within the Roman church, the theoreticians of murderous lies that I hold more responsible than the foot-soldier priests and nuns. They have no care for believing the truth but are only concerned with such weighty beiefs as in believing that the wafer and the wine are the True Blood and Body of christ. Believe me you will get nowhere with them as they have no ability to question the beliefs the "penguin nuns" I have the deepest respect for many of these nuns. Most of the ones I know were quite gentle-hearted and dedicated to what they were doing in a *positive* sense. They were merely UNAWARE of the implications of what they were teaching. Implications– you mean that we’re all out to kill heretics?

There are consequences to these doctrines that these nuns would be SHOCKED to be informed of, yes. There is HISTORY of the Roman church that they are not aware of and do not CARE about because their principal concern was establishing a spiritual relationship with the Creator. These people are being taken advantage of in their lack of knowledge as to precisely what kind of an organization they belong to. Get over it! We’re not out to kill anyone. You’re out of your mind!

OF COURSE I AM. There IS no ‘mind’ to be inside of. I make this argument in the hope that all is NOT lost with these Roman Christians. Most will NOT listen; but, perhaps, there is only ONE for whom I am writing. And that ONE is worth it. No. You pretty much lost all

ALL? That’s kind of an ‘ex cathedra’ statement, isn’t it? the Catholics when you said they were out to kill all people.

Never said that. Nor would you know of the Catholics that I have convinced of the errors of Catholicism. You’d have to be pretty stupid and bigoted to believe that.

You are incapable of perceiving Truth. How could you be capable of perceiving someone who TELLS the Truth? Michael

Response:

Jesus stated that the Torah was the law of God but that we should not become so invested of the law that we do not follow our hearts. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Or maybe it’s because you don’t know how to debate. You can’t debate someone who doesn’t know how to contruct, analyze and break down an argument. I know you *think* you do. But you don’t. Show me ONE PASSAGE from the Gospels where Jesus says that his job is to CONTRADICT the Torah. And the doctrine of a metaphysical heaven and hell is a *specific* and FLAGRANT contradiction of Deuteronomy 28, which affirms that the rewards and punishments for the violation of the Law are in THIS world. Michael

Response: