Class Warfare Blog

December 25, 2013

Pope Flat Out Lies to Gathered Thousands!

Filed under: Religion — Steve Ruis @ 2:32 pm
Tags: , ,

In Pope Francis’ holiday message in front of 70,000+ people, the Pope told a couple of whoppers. Toward the end of his comments Francis said “God is peace . . .” and “God is full of love.” What god was he referring to?

The god of the Bible is the god who had Abraham sacrifice his own son as a “test of faith.” How much peace and love could be in a father’s heart after going through such an event. The god of the Bible is the god who led his chosen people across a desert to a “land of milk and honey” that he would “give them.” But instead of using his amazing powers to clear the land of its former occupants, he required the Israelites to wage war and put the indigenous population: men, women, and children, to the sword. This is not a god of love and peace. This is a jealous god.

The Pope really shouldn’t tell lies.

Eternal suffering awaits
anyone who questions
God’s infinite love.
‑ Bill Hicks ‑

Advertisements

124 Comments »

  1. The essential nature of God Almighty is self-evident.

    That is, one can understand the essential nature of God Almighty by reasoning it out.

    The atheist, ever on his toilet thrown judgment deigns to judge God Almighty according to his personal biased opinion.

    The Western Heritage, a heritage that atheism seeks to destroy, has led to modernity precisely because it was able to develop objective faith and reason to such a level that it replaced personal biased opinion.

    The author of this post has completely missed the points presented in the biblical stories he presented.

    That amounts to a redefinition of the Bible and what it means.

    Atheists don’t get to do that though they continue sitting on their toilet throne at their leisure.

    Comment by silenceofmind — December 25, 2013 @ 2:53 pm | Reply

  2. Abraham did not sacrifice his son, he offered him.

    And you don’t really know what sort of practices the Canaanites were engaged in, and ‘ what else ‘ was in there. i.e. In Canaan.

    At least read your Bible properly, if you’re going to slag it off.!!

    Comment by spookchristian — December 25, 2013 @ 3:26 pm | Reply

  3. You’re right about one thing though, the so called pope does tell lies, quite regularly, and if you knew the scriptures, you would know what I was referring to.

    Comment by spookchristian — December 25, 2013 @ 3:28 pm | Reply

    • Spook,

      The Bible came to mankind courtesy of a pope, Pope Damasus I as a matter of fact.

      That Protestants are taught to hate the Catholic Church before they are taught to love Jesus should give any person with a conscience cause for reflection.

      Comment by silenceofmind — January 4, 2014 @ 9:08 am | Reply

      • That is not true… the bible was fully in existence before any so called popes came on the scene..

        Comment by spookchristian — January 4, 2014 @ 9:12 am | Reply

        • Spook,

          The books that make up the Bible were scattered to hell and gone all over Empire and mixed up with all sorts of literature that was not the Word of God.

          It was the Catholic Church that separated the wheat from the chaff and compiled and published the first Bible.

          Your hatred for the Catholic Church is matched only by your contempt for the facts.

          Comment by silenceofmind — January 4, 2014 @ 9:43 am | Reply

          • stop typing out rubbish like that please..

            Comment by spookchristian — January 4, 2014 @ 9:56 am | Reply

            • Spook,

              Facts aren’t rubbish.

              It’s all a matter of historical record.

              The emotionally disturbed Catholic priest who tore 7 books out of the Bible and appointed himself as the Divine Authority to redefine Christianity, not withstanding.

              Do you know who that emotionally disturbed Catholic priest was?

              Comment by silenceofmind — January 4, 2014 @ 10:28 am | Reply

              • you are talking absolute, Jesuit, catholic filth.
                keep your disgusting roman catholic so called apologetics to yourself please.

                Comment by spookchristian — January 4, 2014 @ 10:42 am | Reply

                • Spook,

                  I rest my case.

                  Thank you.

                  And I’m not to fond of those wily Jesuits either.

                  Comment by silenceofmind — January 4, 2014 @ 10:52 am | Reply

                  • you have NO case at all..
                    you twist the truth about the bible manuscripts, and the catholic involvement..
                    you have fallen for the catholic propaganda,/ lies..
                    the catholic so called church has always hated scripture, as is displayed to day, they deny the truth, and practice idolatry,mariolatry, your so called pope tweets absolute tosh, and the lie of purgatory, the list is virtually endless.

                    get yourself a proper bible,, KJV

                    Comment by spookchristian — January 4, 2014 @ 11:24 am | Reply

  4. Neither should you tell lies. Your post is full of a lack of understanding. You should receive instruction about the meaning of Scripture. Abraham did not sacrifice his son ; God insured that he did not.

    Comment by Francis Philip — December 26, 2013 @ 3:47 am | Reply

    • Well, at least an angel did. We don’t know that god sent the angel. And why was Abraham even considering sacrificing his son? And to whom was this sacrifice intended? And to what purpose? You make it sound that god jumped in to prevent a great wrong when he instigated the whole thing in the first place.

      The fascinating thing was this story is a complete invention. It was invented by people to show what they they thought of their god. Apparently they thought their own god was cruel and heartless.

      See what one can read with one’s own eyes when they don’t receive “instruction about the meaning of scripture”?

      Comment by stephenpruis — December 26, 2013 @ 7:41 am | Reply

      • Stephen,

        Yes we do know that God sent the angel.

        We know that because of the definition of angel in the Judeo-Christian theologies.

        You don’t get to redefine the Bible and neither to you get to redefine what angel means in the Bible.

        Don’t you see, that the only reason atheist argument seem to work is because atheists redefine everything to fit whatever scheme they are peddling at the moment.

        Atheist arguments are designed to prey on the ignorant.

        Comment by silenceofmind — December 26, 2013 @ 7:50 am | Reply

        • So god sent Lucifer, too? There was no rebellion of the angels and there are no fallen angels? Just because an angel shows up, how do you know which kind it was. Your bible differs from mine.

          Comment by stephenpruis — December 26, 2013 @ 8:22 am | Reply

          • Be careful not to judge rashly and you will not be judged rashly. The answer to your question: because we understand the truth and do not doubt the goodness of God.

            Comment by Francis Philip — December 26, 2013 @ 9:20 am | Reply

            • What is the basis for your not doubting? Is there a reason not to doubt?

              Comment by stephenpruis — December 26, 2013 @ 9:34 am | Reply

              • Yes. The Gospel which means “good news”

                Comment by Francis Philip — December 26, 2013 @ 9:37 am | Reply

                • The Gospel(s), the four that made the final cut when the Roman Emperor blessed the scriptures, have quite contradictory stories in them. Consider who first saw the empty tomb and when. They all say different things. And this is not a source of doubt as to their reliability?

                  Comment by stephenpruis — December 26, 2013 @ 10:35 am | Reply

                  • No. You are a source of doubt however.

                    Comment by Francis Philip — December 26, 2013 @ 11:07 am | Reply

                    • So, if scriptural contradictions are not a source of doubt for you, what would make you doubt the veracity of scripture?

                      Comment by stephenpruis — December 26, 2013 @ 11:19 am

                    • I would never doubt the veracity of Scripture. I would doubt an incorrect translation

                      Comment by Francis Philip — December 29, 2013 @ 3:50 am

                    • Ah, well it has been nice talking to you.

                      Comment by stephenpruis — December 29, 2013 @ 8:19 am

          • Stephen,

            Initiating a discussion about Lucifer before acknowledging all your other false arguments is a logical fallacy called, “moving the goal post.”

            Biblical stories have particular meaning.

            You can freely choose to understand what the Bible means if you give up the prepackaged falsehoods peddled by atheists.

            By the way, the Bible was commissioned circa 382 Anno Domini, by Pope Damasus I who gave the job of translating to Latin to Saint Jerome.

            The pope ran the show, not the emperor. The tradition of the divine right of kings lasted until it was over thrown by the American Colonies in 1776.

            The Declaration of Independence sent a shock wave of liberty into the hearts of tyrants the world over.

            Comment by silenceofmind — December 26, 2013 @ 11:52 am | Reply

            • Oh, my goodness. Just what do you think was being translated into Latin? Do you actually think the Vulgate Bible was the first Bible? Did you not hear of the Emperor Constantine calling all of the Christian bishops together in 325 CE to resolve their differences and to settle on one set of scriptures? Christianity became the official state religion of Rome in 380, blessed by the Emperor? Constantine did not commission any Bibles at the council itself. He did commission fifty Bibles in 331 for use in the churches of Constantinople.

              And I wasn’t initiating a discussion of Lucifer. I was making a point regarding the angel who stopped Abraham from sacrificing his own son to Yahweh. The point was that just because an angel stopped him, you can’t assume that it was an angel sent by Yahweh. It could have been a “fallen angel” who took pity on Abraham, being used cruelly by Yahweh, no?

              Comment by stephenpruis — December 26, 2013 @ 12:12 pm | Reply

              • Stephen,

                Before the commission of the Bible by Pope Damasus I, there was no Bible.

                There was however a collection of literature, some the authentic Word of God, some not.

                It was at councils like the one at Nicaea 325 Anno Domini where the Church bishops settled issues like which books make up the Bible Canon.

                One of the responsibilities of a good Roman emperor was social stability. The Church as an institution as of 325 Anno Domini, still did not have the social or political clout of the Emperor.

                Christianity then, like today, suffered from self-appointed blow hard reformers who were destroying Church unity and therefore the social stability rendered to a society by a unified religion.

                By the way, the use of “Common Era” is an example of historical ignorance.

                We live in the era started by Jesus Christ, therefore Anno Domini.

                “Common Era” is meaningless except that it purposefully omits Christianity as the root and branch of Western Civilization, which is an example of atheist propaganda.

                Comment by silenceofmind — December 26, 2013 @ 1:29 pm | Reply

                • You sure it isn’t Muslim propaganda?

                  Comment by stephenpruis — December 26, 2013 @ 2:12 pm | Reply

                  • Stephen,

                    Since you haven’t called me a ‘Minion of the Great Satan,” or an infidel, I’m going to go out on a limb and stick with atheist propaganda.

                    Comment by silenceofmind — December 26, 2013 @ 2:16 pm | Reply

            • Can I just say that the terms of belief in the Christian bible are ‘all or nothing’ and that means that any discussion of any part of it is valid during a discussion relying on the bible as source material. If you would like to tell the rest of us which parts of the Christian bible are not true then those parts could be removed from the list and not used in discussions of what is true. Until that time, all of the Christian god’s supposed words are valid in any discussion about such god.

              The character and nature of said god are derived and interpreted from the entirety of the Christian bible and not just from this piece or that. That would be cherry-picking. There was no moving of the goal post here, for if tihs was moving the goal post then most sermons are of that variety or the cherry picking variety.

              There is no instruction manual on how to interpret the mysteriously vague words of the Christian god, so any interpetation is valid. This is fact and is demonstrated by the fact that there are so very many variants of christian faith and religion.

              Your next logical step is to try the ‘no true scotsman’ fallacy, but perhaps you might want to avoid such fulfillment of prophecy?

              Comment by myatheistlife — December 26, 2013 @ 1:36 pm | Reply

              • Mya,

                You pretty much just rationalized the taking of things out of context.

                Atheists make book on taking biblical literature out of context and then applying arbitrary standards to it in order to delegitimize it.

                The Bible is complicated in the extreme and very confusing to anyone who isn’t expertly coached in its nuance.

                I haven’t met an atheist yet who had any real interest in the Bible.

                In fact the purpose of atheist propaganda is to make the stupid look smart and the smart look stupid.

                Back in ancient Greece, Socrates called such nihilists, sophists.

                Comment by silenceofmind — December 26, 2013 @ 1:48 pm | Reply

                • You make assumptions that you should not. Have you sat through any sermons lately? Everyone that I hear takes a tour guide to follow the pastor through the books, chapters, and verses they hop around on. Is that an example of the result of expert coaching on the book’s nuances?

                  If you take your time you will find that most pastors don’t take a story from a single block of text but rather construct one from many disparate scriptures, interpreting the collage to have the meaning they want you to hear. If you then go back and read the surrounding texts they have no where near the meaning proposed when taken in context. I suppose that is what you mean by ‘complicated in the extreme’ … it’s interesting that the word of an omnipotent god needs such interpretation to be used correctly and that only certain ‘men’ can do it. Smells like power grab to me. I’m pretty certain that Socrates has a word or two for men that would usurp power and hold it over the people for their own agendas. Want to guess what that word was?

                  Comment by myatheistlife — December 26, 2013 @ 1:57 pm | Reply

                  • Mya,

                    To understand the Bible one must study it diligently, formally.

                    Too many people depend upon the weekly church sermon for their understanding of the Bible and that just isn’t enough.

                    Most Catholic priests give horribly boring homilies that are just pap.

                    The situation is so bad that Pope Francis even addressed it recently.

                    It is best to assume personal responsibility for one’s own education and search out good educational venues.

                    Comment by silenceofmind — December 26, 2013 @ 2:07 pm | Reply

                    • You and papa have more problems than you want to admit. Those educated scholars of holy texts of christianity are becoming more convinced that the Moses story (and all that goes with it) are nothing but myth.

                      I do assume personal responsibility and that is why you and I are discussing this right now. The book upon which all Christian faith is based is about as truthful as a Dan Brown novel.

                      http://consortiumnews.com/2011/12/13/israeli-scholar-disputes-founding-myth/

                      Comment by myatheistlife — December 26, 2013 @ 2:24 pm

                    • Mya,

                      The basic meaning of the Bible is as follows: “Love God and love your neighbor.”

                      I didn’t say that. Jesus said that. Moses said that.

                      You and your rag tag collection of cacamayme scholars simply can’t argue with that kind of simple wisdom.

                      Whether wisdom comes from myth or not couldn’t be more irrelevant.

                      Why do atheists concern themselves so totally with what is completely irrelevant?

                      Comment by silenceofmind — December 26, 2013 @ 3:02 pm

                    • SoM,
                      Your basic meaning is simply a restatement of the law of reciprocity. There is no holy text required for that and certainly not the trash that goes with religions. It existed long before christianity and will outlast it.

                      Well, looks like Jesus and Moses are myths. Let’s just avoid all the unecessary bs that goes with that book and switch over to Aesop’s Fables. It’s much more gratifying that way.

                      People don’t argue with the law of reciprocity. It’s only religious thinkers that want to claim that morality comes from their god and can’t be originated in the mind of humans that want to cooperate, live, thrive.

                      Yes, it is relevant. Your swipe at wisdom comes with built in evils and deleterious thinking. It’s much better to get the same wisdom without all the claptrap about gods and hell and how to justify inhumane activity in the name of a god.

                      Why can’t believers like you stop to figure out why it is that non-believers don’t concern themselves simply with what you think is relevant. Maybe there is more to this topic than simply what YOU think is important. Perhaps you don’t have all the answers. Perhaps your book really isn’t the be-all and end-all of truth?

                      To truly communicate your ideas to others you have to understand it like they will. You don’t seem to be able to do that, opting instead to simply damn anyone that does not believe as you do. Some how I don’t think that is what the jesus was trying to get you to do.

                      Comment by myatheistlife — December 26, 2013 @ 5:24 pm

                    • Mya,

                      So again, we have the Bible telling you something you already accept as common sense and yet you still complain.

                      Yet you act as though the Bible is telling you to pull down your pants and walk on the ceiling.

                      Isn’t atheism simply ridiculous?

                      Comment by silenceofmind — December 26, 2013 @ 6:13 pm

                    • Your logic fails… the great leader of North Korea occasionally uses wisdom that others agree is good, but that does not mean he is the source of the wisdom or even worth letting live. You’ve said nothing here of any value except to throw taunts at atheists. Is that what your holy text tells you is wise, or did you make that part up on your own?

                      Comment by myatheistlife — December 26, 2013 @ 6:22 pm

                    • Mya,

                      The leader of North Korea is a psychotic madman. He is a poor example of goodness.

                      He is wicked which is the opposite of good.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — December 26, 2013 @ 6:44 pm

                    • The god of the christian bible is a psychotic madman, he is a poor example of goodness. He is wicked which is the opposite of good. Slavery, misogyny, genocide, mass murder, blood sacrifice of humans, blood sacrifice, scape-goating, racism, incest, and the list goes on. He is one of the most vile characters in all of written history. That you are blind to this is testament only to your unwillingness to embrace truth.

                      Comment by myatheistlife — December 26, 2013 @ 6:56 pm

                    • Mya,

                      Man can only judge God if the man has fallen victim to hubris.

                      The result of hubris is folly, and tragedy.

                      By nature and definition God is good. Just as we tailor our actions around the law of gravity we must tailor our thinking around the nature and definition of God.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — December 26, 2013 @ 7:02 pm

                    • Keep spouting sound bites from the pulpit, it makes you look oh so informed. You claim to know the nature and definition of god. Why don’t you go on and tell us all about your god. How would we know your god if we met him? What is the definition of your god? What is the nature of and character of your god and how do you know these things?

                      Go on, tell us or is this another question you won’t or can’t answer?

                      Comment by myatheistlife — December 26, 2013 @ 7:41 pm

                    • Mya,

                      My comments are pure reasoning that comes from Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas.

                      Atheism destroys the mind’s ability to think so you people need to be told what to think.

                      All you are left with is anger, pettiness and abusive behavior.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — December 26, 2013 @ 8:03 pm

                  • Mya,

                    Any shortcomings are not of the “omnipotent” God, but of humanity.

                    If God acted the way you require, you’d then start complaining about him being a controlling tyrant.

                    Best just deal with reality.

                    Comment by silenceofmind — December 26, 2013 @ 2:10 pm | Reply

                    • You start this comment with some victim blaming, nicely done. It is even more fun that you follow this up with what can be described as a straw man argument.

                      I am dealing with reality. What I find is that religious faith is not based on reality, rather it is founded on myth and lies and is anything but a guidebook for morality.

                      Comment by myatheistlife — December 26, 2013 @ 2:26 pm

                    • Mya,

                      Stating that humanity is plagued by shortcomings is a fact, not blaming the victim.

                      By nature, God is all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing. And we don’t need the Bible to tell us that. We can reason it out for ourselves.

                      The mythology of ancient world, especially of the Greco-Romans and Hebrews was and continues to be, a font of wisdom.

                      Atheist denial of some of mankind’s greatest wisdom literature is a remarkable and clear clarion call to the ignorance of pre-civilization.

                      That alone makes the jettison of atheism out the global poop chout an intellectual and spiritual necessity.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — December 26, 2013 @ 2:41 pm

                    • SoM,
                      You never fail to entertain.

                      “Stating that humanity is plagued by shortcomings is a fact..” is a true statement but when we examine it in the context of Christianity as you are wont to do, it is that very nature of humanity which makes it the victim of the Christian god. For that frailty we are damned to eternal torment by the very god that created us that way. This, in the context of religion, is victim blaming. Go ahead, wriggle and squirm and try to make it something else or someone else’s problem but it’s not and it won’t ever be in this context. The Christian god condemns his creations for the very frailty he created them with… there are a lot of words to describe this situation and victim blaming is one of the most kind.

                      “By nature, God is all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing.”
                      I’m still waiting for proof of this. It can easily be argued that those traits are mutually exclusive but more importantly there is no evidence of these traits in any being known to exist, only mythological creatures of man’s making.

                      “…And we don’t need the Bible to tell us that. We can reason it out for ourselves.”
                      I’m sure you’re familiar with hospitals which cater to the mentally ill, correct? They don’t need evidence to tell them what is true either. The point I’m making is that just because you can reason it for yourself does not make it true. Our frail-by-design brains are wont to create stuff that does not exist and so it is that without corroborating credible evidence such imaginings should not be relied upon as truth… unless you simply like living your life by the rules of a fairy tale.

                      “The mythology of ancient world, especially of the Greco-Romans and Hebrews was and continues to be, a font of wisdom.”
                      Oh, absolutely. Where else are we to find the guide for how to treat your slaves in a moral fashion? Where else can we find the socially just way to subjugate women and others without tarnishing our halos?

                      “Atheist denial of some of mankind’s greatest wisdom literature is a remarkable and clear clarion call to the ignorance of pre-civilization.”
                      The great wisdom in the Christian holy texts is like a 5 star meal sitting on the top of the cesspool under an outhouse. Sure, it has definitive value but you’re going to have to swim in a lot of shit to get to it and it probably won’t be all that appetizing once you do get it.

                      “That alone makes the jettison of atheism out the global poop chout an intellectual and spiritual necessity.”
                      Now you are claiming that there are spiritual necessities. On what basis do you claim these exist? Please, oh please, try to tell us that there is objective spiritual necessities. Please, just as a Christmas gift to me?

                      Comment by myatheistlife — December 26, 2013 @ 5:17 pm

                    • Mya,

                      God offered mankind eternal paradise and man, of his own free will rejected it.

                      That is not God’s fault.

                      Your analysis of the Bible is typical leftism: Everyone’s a victim. No one is responsible for themselves or their behavior. And some villain needs to be created to take responsibility and blame.

                      But God saw you coming and sent His own Son to take the blame and become the victim.

                      And you still complain.

                      Isn’t atheism simply ridiculous.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — December 26, 2013 @ 6:10 pm

                    • SoM, you make this discussion lopsided. The Christian god did not offer anything… he created man in what was claimed to be paradise and yet, not happy with arrangement, decided to send in the satan as a serpent or ‘let’ him in… you pick. The god of Christianity is evil incarnate and I dare you to show evidence that YHWH is not the satan himself anyway.

                      All that has happened to mankind, according to the christian narrative, is god’s fault.

                      My analysis of the bible is my own, not typical. You may view it however you wish but you have a high likelihood of being wrong. I personally had no choice in the matter according to your holy texts. I was born condemned and my only choice is eternal torment or eternal servitude to your god. The paraphrase here is love your god or die forever. This is hardly what constitutes free will.

                      So, you think this ‘man god’ thing doing blood sacrifice is how to set the universe right? Seriously? That makes sense to you? How very barbaric you must be.

                      Yes, the very being who condemns me to eternal torment put his kid to sleep for a couple of days and I’m supposed to be all fawning over him and signing up for an eternity of servitude to him… the very guy that wants to torture me forever if I don’t volunteer to be his eternal slave of my own free will. You have to be out of your effing mind to think that is some kind of gift… You should probably go get a professional opinion as to whether or not you suffer from Munchausen syndrome

                      Comment by myatheistlife — December 26, 2013 @ 6:20 pm

                    • Mya,

                      As an atheist you don’t get to redefine the Bible.

                      Genesis is clear: God offered man eternal life in paradise.

                      Jesus restored Paradise Lost and God’s offer to man of eternal life in paradise was renewed.

                      The theological term for that is New Covenant.

                      There is no indication in the Bible of God “sending in Satan.” That’s just an atheist hallucination.

                      If you’d study actual theology instead of atheist propaganda the Bible would begin to make sense to you.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — December 26, 2013 @ 6:40 pm

                    • Well, SoM, I guess it’s time you know that I am the first born child of a preacher. Until I left that home there were more theology books than anything else in our home. I have studied the christian faith and others for all of my life, not simply because I was told to but because I was seeking truth.

                      That atheist hallucination you claim is a question than any 6 year old can ask. You brush it off as if it’s just lint but it is not. To believe Genesis as whole truth one has to ask how the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god let the satan into the garden to spoil his creations. I asked that question at 6 years old… why is god such a bad parent?

                      Go on then, use your theology and tell us how and why it is that your deity let the satan into the garden to ensure that Adam violated the law which he was very happy to keep up to that point. It took extra help to taint Adam, it took a supernatural being to push Adam to break the law and thus condemn himself and all humanity to eternal torture. Was your god not able to stop it? Was your god not aware of it happening? Was your god so blind that all he wanted was revenge on humanity despite the part played by himself by letting the satan into the garden? Go on then, let’s here how you explain that away… it’s all in your book, every word of it. Your god even stuck the tree there to temp Adam and he would have no part of it without your god’s help in sending in the satan to ensure it happened. Even then your god broke his promise because Adam did not die, rather he died of old age. Yes, you can blame aging on the fall but then you still have to explain why your god worked so hard to make it happen: not one try, but multiple attempts… first the tree then the snake. Your god seemed hell-bent on ensuring that humanity was condemned to eternal torture from the very beginning… it was his plan all along. Go on, explain how that is not so.

                      Comment by myatheistlife — December 26, 2013 @ 6:51 pm

                    • Mya,

                      Being preacher isn’t a guarantee against error.

                      I could only last 6 weeks as a Protestant because it is a totally senseless religion.

                      You folks learn to hate the Catholic Church before you learn to love God.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — December 26, 2013 @ 6:59 pm

                    • Awesome, you do all Catholics proud SoM. First you switch from slagging on atheists to atheists AND protestants. To top that off you flatly refused to answer the question. You are offering readers nothing here but careless and wanton negative diatribe. You demonstrate nothing positive to say and show Catholicism as the bigoted religion that it is. As a self professed representative of your faith you are doing more to make atheists out of people than I ever could, and for that I thank you.

                      As for your refusal to answer the question we are left to presume only that you have no answer and that your book has no answer no matter how skilled in interpretation you are.

                      It is people like you SoM that helped me find lack of belief.

                      Comment by myatheistlife — December 26, 2013 @ 7:39 pm

                    • Mya,

                      I have expressed in other comments at other posts that Protestantism and atheism are philosophical brethren.

                      Former Catholics who become atheists can get turned around just by filling in the gaps with a proper religious education.

                      Protestants on the other hand reject their religious education but keep the hatred for Catholicism that was brainwashed into them.

                      Very, very, very few former Protestants even think to give Catholicism a look on their way out the door to atheism.

                      They give up the religion they learned but not the hate they learned from that very same religion.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — December 26, 2013 @ 7:57 pm

                    • Interesting take on things but it still doesn’t answer any of the questions. It’s a feeble defence of your bigotry toward those who do not believe as you do without the slightest consideration of why people might do that.

                      I gave all faiths a good look in my search, or at least more than a half-assed read of their bibliography. Your claim here simply doesn’t match the facts as I’ve seen them.

                      You still have not answered the questions I’ve asked. Do you intend to or are you going to ignore them in the hopes that I’ll forget?

                      Comment by myatheistlife — December 26, 2013 @ 8:01 pm

                    • Mya,

                      I haven’t answered your questions because they are stupid.

                      Whatever you are reading is not even recognizable as being even distantly biblical.

                      Atheist hallucination can only be properly shared with other atheists.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — December 26, 2013 @ 8:08 pm

                    • I will never speak to you again because everything you’ve written is stupid, as you have termed things. Have a nice life.

                      Comment by myatheistlife — December 26, 2013 @ 8:11 pm

                    • Mya,

                      Almost all of what I express to atheists comes from Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas.

                      100% of what you express is atheist propaganda which rejects the systematic thinking and analysis set forth by those two giants.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — December 26, 2013 @ 8:28 pm

                    • SOM,

                      At one point you claim “Genesis is clear: God offered man eternal life in paradise.” Have you read Genesis? Did you miss the point “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” Genesis 3:23 Just when did Yahweh offer Adam eternal life? As it turns out, apparently we all get eternal life; according to your scriptures we either live forever in Heaven or roast forever in Hell. Does that leave anybody out as “living eternally?” And just what did Yahweh mean by “us”?

                      Comment by stephenpruis — December 27, 2013 @ 11:18 am

                    • Stephen,

                      Adam and Eve were living eternal life in Paradise before they ate the fruit.

                      That eternal life in Paradise was restored by Jesus.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — December 27, 2013 @ 4:07 pm

                    • You are just repeating what you said you believed, but according to the Bible, they would have had to eat from the Tree of Life to become immortal, which means they were not immortal. And Yahweh didn’t offer that fruit, nor did he suggest they eat from it. Nor is there any indication that he intended to. If they were to be imortal, why would he give to them the power of procreation? He could have been up to his ass in immortal humans in very short order. So how the heck were they “given immortal life in the Garden of Eden.”

                      Either you are mistaken or making things up.

                      Comment by stephenpruis — December 28, 2013 @ 8:32 am

                    • Stephen,

                      I’m informing you of authentic, orthodox Christian teachings.

                      There is very little that I say around atheists that is my personal opinion.

                      It’s just the opposite with atheists. Nearly everything you say is personal opinion given with extreme bias.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — December 28, 2013 @ 9:16 am

                    • Hello? I quoted you from the Bible that Adam and Eve were not immortal. It is there to read in black and white. Why do you insist upon “orthodox Christian teachings” that are contradicted by the Bible, the supposed source of your “orthodox Christian teachings?”

                      Comment by stephenpruis — December 28, 2013 @ 9:37 am

                    • Stephen,

                      Your quote from Genesis comes after the Original Sin.

                      The damage had already been done.

                      Paradise was already lost.

                      My commentary about Paradise concerns the original nature of man before he sinned.

                      The Original Sin destroyed human nature and that is why God kicked Adam and Eve out of Paradise.

                      Only the pure can live with God.

                      Jesus was born, lived and died so that man’s original nature could be restored.

                      In that way man can once again live forever with God in Paradise.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — December 28, 2013 @ 9:53 am

                    • So, God’s creation was flawed, you say. And what if the statement by Yahweh was after they had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge? After, before, what difference did it make? Yahweh basically states that being “all-knowing” and “immortal” makes one like a god. Did eating from the Tree take away their immortality? That would have to be made up because it is supported by scripture. And you will notice that God’s punishment for their disobedience doesn’t mention any loss of immortality.

                      And how come Adam and Eve ate the fruit but didn’t become all-knowing?

                      Your claim that Adam and Eve were to be immortal is not backed up by scripture and you are just obstanately saying “’tis so!”

                      Comment by stephenpruis — December 28, 2013 @ 10:08 am

                    • Stephen,

                      I did not say that God’s creation was flawed.

                      I said specifically that sin, which is free human action against the wishes of God, is what caused the destruction of man’s original nature.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — December 28, 2013 @ 10:28 am

              • Comment by spookchristian — January 4, 2014 @ 11:27 am | Reply

    • Comment by spookchristian — January 4, 2014 @ 11:25 am | Reply

      • What is your point or message here Spook? I apologize, but I don’t have time to watch videos like this one.

        Comment by Francis Philip — January 4, 2014 @ 1:16 pm | Reply

        • The so called pope is a Jesuit,
          That video is about the Jesuits.

          Comment by spookchristian — January 4, 2014 @ 1:33 pm | Reply

          • Spook,

            I highly recommend reading, “The Spiritual Exercises,” by Saint Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits.

            Why listen to a bunch of propaganda put out by a bunch of hacks when you can read material put out by the founder of the movement himself?

            Comment by silenceofmind — January 4, 2014 @ 1:41 pm | Reply

            • no thx..
              i dont read satanic filth.

              Comment by spookchristian — January 4, 2014 @ 1:49 pm | Reply

              • Spook,

                In “The Spiritual Exercises,” Saint Ignatius teaches the essence of discipleship.

                He teaches discipline of the mind and the will by directing them systematically to Jesus Christ through concentration and prayer.

                If anything, Saint Ignatius’ teachings are the opposite of satanic.

                Comment by silenceofmind — January 4, 2014 @ 2:13 pm | Reply

                • they are not biblical, therefore they are not of God.
                  Ignatius learned those tricks in India or somewhere..i forget..
                  his book is basically demonic pap.

                  Comment by spookchristian — January 4, 2014 @ 2:42 pm | Reply

          • Okay. Thanks. In truth, I see that regardless of the order, the Pope is a Christian man who has his own personality and charisms, who leads us and who follows the traditions laid down by the Lord and His Apostles as developed for the sake of the needs of the church over time, being docile to the inspirations of the Holy Spirit. The rest is “accidental” (to use an expression of St. Thomas Aquinas). Healing is needed still.

            Comment by Francis Philip — January 4, 2014 @ 1:58 pm | Reply

            • the so called pope is not a christian,,
              and he certainly does not follow biblical teaching or Jesus.
              and the apostles did not teach mariolatry, or idolatry/ i.e. the worship of statues.
              or purgatory..
              you need a biblical reality check.
              ive never such rubbish as your comments are…
              leave that whore of babylon.
              get saved!!

              Comment by spookchristian — January 4, 2014 @ 2:11 pm | Reply

              • Spook,

                The Catholic reverence for Mary Mother of God, is biblical.

                At Cana, she ordered the Son of God, Jesus, to turn water into wine, thus beginning his public ministry.

                Jesus complained about it saying that his time had not yet come. But He did as His mother instructed.

                In the Bible Jesus said that He obeyed the will of the Father. That means the Holy Mother embodied the will of the Father.

                And what about when Jesus was hanging on the Cross and He gave His mother to all of mankind through the Apostle John?

                Catholic reverence for Mary is completely biblical.

                So your complaints about Catholicism not being biblical are simply not true.

                Comment by silenceofmind — January 4, 2014 @ 2:20 pm | Reply

                • get a Bible
                  hardly anything if at all is said by the apostles about Mary
                  mary is not co-redemptrix,
                  and she is not to be prayed to,
                  and she did not die a virgin.
                  you must desist from picking your nose, and read a Bible..
                  WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ???

                  Comment by spookchristian — January 4, 2014 @ 2:45 pm | Reply

                  • Spook,

                    I just told you what the Bible said.

                    Apparently it is you who doesn’t know your Bible and it is clear you aren’t even reading my comments.

                    What is the sound of one hand clapping.

                    Comment by silenceofmind — January 4, 2014 @ 2:48 pm | Reply

                  • How do you know she didn’t die a virgin? Who’d she have sex with?

                    Comment by john zande — January 4, 2014 @ 3:03 pm | Reply

                    • joseph of course

                      READ YOUR BIBLE!!!!!

                      Comment by spookchristian — January 4, 2014 @ 3:13 pm

                    • Joseph was 90 years old when he married Mary. Read YOUR bible!

                      Comment by john zande — January 4, 2014 @ 4:33 pm

                    • so was Abraham..
                      READ YOURS..
                      GO AND HIDE SOME PEDOPHILES IN YOUR CHAPEL OR SOMETHING.
                      MORON.!!!

                      Comment by spookchristian — January 4, 2014 @ 4:46 pm

                    • Abraham is a myth… do please catch up. Not even Jewish rabbis believe he existed any more.

                      Comment by john zande — January 4, 2014 @ 4:51 pm

                    • John,

                      It is completely irrelevant weather Abraham was myth or legend.

                      The story and its message are what is important.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — January 4, 2014 @ 6:23 pm

                    • With all due respect my mischievous elf, Bollocks. Granted a story, any story, has power when viewed truthfully, yet presently the story of Abraham is viewed in most Christian and Muslim quarters as real. Christians and Muslim must first grow up and accept it is folklore, a myth, then, and only then, might they be able to garner some flimsy truth from it…. Like the truth found in the Lord of the Rings.

                      Comment by john zande — January 4, 2014 @ 6:38 pm

                    • John,

                      If a person profits from the message and meaning of a story, what difference does it make if the story is true or myth?

                      The God of the Bible is all about message and meaning, not process.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — January 4, 2014 @ 6:49 pm

                    • What’s there to profit from? The events never happened. The Christian and the Muslim are worshiping nothing. They might as well be prostrating themselves before Alice; she, at least, is far more entertaining… and her message is profoundly more relevant to human beings.

                      Comment by john zande — January 4, 2014 @ 7:46 pm

                    • John,

                      The Bible is God’s story.

                      He can tell it any way he wants.

                      A major part of our Western Heritage is literature written as fiction.

                      Yet the message and meaning are profound.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — January 4, 2014 @ 8:00 pm

                    • As profound as the thimble-sized puddle of sweat in my bellybutton… 😉

                      Comment by john zande — January 4, 2014 @ 8:41 pm

                    • I am on a mission from Gwod to reduce all atheists to doing unspeakable things to their belly buttons.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — January 4, 2014 @ 8:48 pm

                    • I’m aware, and I love you for it

                      Comment by john zande — January 4, 2014 @ 8:51 pm

                • the way that you are talking about Mary, indicates that in ‘ reality ‘ it i you that evidently does not read his Bible { assuming you even have one }

                  Comment by spookchristian — January 4, 2014 @ 2:54 pm | Reply

                  • Spook,

                    It wasn’t me talking about the Bible. It was the Bible talking about Mary.

                    God even sent an angel to her with a greeting: Hail, full of grace.

                    That shows reference for Mary from God, Himself.

                    I know, I know. That must mean God is a satanic Jesuit.

                    Comment by silenceofmind — January 4, 2014 @ 4:08 pm | Reply

              • And you don’t have authority or a right to judge him, do you? Yet, against Jesus’s teaching, you vehemently condemn and judge as if you were God.

                Comment by Francis Philip — January 4, 2014 @ 5:34 pm | Reply

                • yo are judging also

                  the so called pope has no right to be called ‘pope ‘ Mt23v9

                  I know what he teaches, if you can call it teaching,,
                  and I know what he is the head of, ie an apostate,blasphemous,idolatrous,mariolatrous, so called church, therefore, he is not christian.

                  ” ye shall know them by their fruits “,
                  I have the authority from Scripture, and I certainly do not need you to tell me what I have a right to do.

                  Your so called pope allows himself the title of ‘ Holy Fr’ which he has no right to..seeing as God is the only one entitled to that title.

                  Catholicism is not of God, but is of the devil
                  The Whore of babylon

                  Comment by spookchristian — January 4, 2014 @ 11:02 pm | Reply

                  • Spook,

                    Matthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

                    Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

                    The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

                    So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

                    Comment by silenceofmind — January 5, 2014 @ 5:27 am | Reply

                    • your so called pope is a false teacher..
                      I know what Matherw23v9 is about thank you.

                      the authority of Jesus christ, by The Holy Spirit is given to Christians also.

                      the so called pope has no right to be called that,, he is not God.

                      Comment by spookchristian — January 5, 2014 @ 5:55 am

                    • Spook,

                      The means what God wants it to mean, not what you want it mean.

                      I suggest you read the section of scripture that precedes your quote instead of just cherry picking a quote and assigning it the meaning of your personal choice.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — January 5, 2014 @ 6:00 am

                    • you catholics do all the cherry picking..

                      you need to read it yourself,,,
                      the so called pope i no teacher…
                      he teaches lies and rubbish like you are trying to do..
                      Get yourself a Bible.

                      Comment by spookchristian — January 5, 2014 @ 6:15 am

                    • Spook,

                      The only way that verse means what you say it means is if you cherry pick the verse out from among the verses that surround it.

                      That verse, in union with the verses that surround it add clarity to what Jesus is actually saying.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — January 5, 2014 @ 6:27 am

                    • those verses refer to not seeking pre-eminence, or to be above others,seeking the chief seats,
                      or thinking more of yourself than you ought to,

                      and

                      NOT ALLOWING YOURSELF TO BE CALLED FATHER i.e. pope{so called}

                      #false #heretic #blasphemer #Liar

                      Comment by spookchristian — January 5, 2014 @ 6:31 am

                    • Spook,

                      Jesus is warning early Christians and those to come, about people like you.

                      You establish yourself as a teaching authority and than attack the Body of Christ.

                      Luckily, you are so full of hatred that you are easy to spot.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — January 5, 2014 @ 6:36 am

                    • I dont establish myself a teaching authority at all.

                      keep your insinuations to yourself.

                      and i am not full of hatred thank you..
                      it is you that are full of it !!

                      Comment by spookchristian — January 5, 2014 @ 6:43 am

                    • Spook,

                      You assigned false meaning to a Bible verse and preach that meaning as Gospel.

                      That’s you declaring yourself as an authority and that makes you a false teacher.

                      Being so full of hatred as you are, means that you are a stranger to Christ and his teachings.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — January 5, 2014 @ 6:50 am

                    • you dont know wat our talking about, saying that to me,,
                      your just one of the rather silly catholic know-it-alls..

                      have you ever considered salvation as a ‘ viable ‘ option???
                      If you get saved, let me know,, and no more messages from you thank you, i have other things to do than talk to a person like you..

                      Comment by spookchristian — January 5, 2014 @ 6:55 am

                    • May God bless you and keep you and grant your heart’s desire.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — January 5, 2014 @ 6:59 am

                    • My desire is for you to get saved out of that catholic so called church,,
                      I do not hate any catholics at all..
                      seriously..
                      I will pray for you.. 😀

                      Comment by spookchristian — January 5, 2014 @ 7:32 am

                    • Matthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

                      Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

                      The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

                      So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

                      ReplyMatthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

                      Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

                      The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

                      So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.
                      Matthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.Matthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

                      Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).Matthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

                      Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

                      The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

                      So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

                      ReplyMatthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

                      Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

                      The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

                      So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

                      Reply

                      The Bible is clear tMatthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

                      Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

                      The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

                      So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

                      Replyhat only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.
                      Matthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

                      Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

                      The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

                      So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

                      Reply
                      So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

                      Reply

                      Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

                      The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

                      So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

                      ReplyMatthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

                      Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

                      The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

                      So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

                      ReplyMatthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

                      Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

                      The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

                      So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

                      Reply
                      ReplyMatthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

                      Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).Matthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

                      Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

                      The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

                      So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

                      ReplyMatthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

                      Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

                      The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

                      So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

                      Reply

                      The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.Matthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

                      Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

                      The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

                      So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

                      Reply

                      So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for dulyMatthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

                      Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

                      The Bible is clear that onlyMatthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

                      Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

                      The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

                      So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

                      Reply those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

                      So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

                      Reply authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

                      Reply

                      Comment by spookchristian — January 5, 2014 @ 6:58 am

                  • Well, I recommend that you broaden your understanding through prayer, spiritual direction (if you have access to such), the study of actual church history, and even authentic Catholic theological instruction in order to help make you aware of the realities within the Catholic Church. It is always better to understand something before concluding that it is bad. We do this with people who are accused of a crime – take them to court to understand the facts before condemning them for doing something they may not have actually done.

                    Comment by Francis Philip — January 5, 2014 @ 3:09 pm | Reply

                    • Uh, this is the same Church that said:

                      “5. Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason. “6. God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason. “7. Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false.”

                      and then

                      “8. … that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture. “9. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.”

                      I assume you recognize the quotes. Translated they mean “We are right, you are wrong, nyah, nyah.”

                      But then this is to be expected from an organization which would say (in the same document): “12. What is more, the Church herself by reason of her astonishing propagation, her outstanding holiness and her inexhaustible fertility in every kind of goodness, by her Catholic unity and her unconquerable stability, is a kind of great and perpetual motive of credibility and an incontrovertible evidence of her own divine mission.”

                      Our “own awesomeness is testimony to the correctness of our actions.”

                      I think your Church is a little full of itself and would benefit from a measure of humility. Heck, if even infallible Pope’s can admit mistakes were made, why not?

                      Comment by stephenpruis — January 5, 2014 @ 9:59 pm

                    • Speak for yourself.

                      Comment by Francis Philip — January 7, 2014 @ 7:20 pm

    • Francis in 2003 Deanna Lajune LeNay bludgeoned her two boys to death because “God was testing her faith.” You know what we call Deanna Lajune LeNay? A mentally deranged lunatic.

      Comment by john zande — January 4, 2014 @ 2:41 pm | Reply

      • John,

        I knew Abraham.

        And Deanna Lajune LeNay weren’t no Abraham.

        It gets down to my oft repeated axiom: Atheists and raving lunatics don’t get to define the meaning of the Bible.

        Comment by silenceofmind — January 4, 2014 @ 2:45 pm | Reply

        • Or of insane people, by the looks of things 🙂

          Comment by john zande — January 4, 2014 @ 2:48 pm | Reply

      • So? What’s that have to do with the Pope?

        Comment by Francis Philip — January 4, 2014 @ 5:35 pm | Reply

        • Nothing. I thought you were talking about Abraham…

          Comment by john zande — January 4, 2014 @ 5:46 pm | Reply

  5. Reblogged this on oogenhand.

    Comment by oogenhand — December 26, 2013 @ 9:02 am | Reply

  6. Comment by spookchristian — January 4, 2014 @ 10:43 am | Reply

  7. I think its about time that you catholics got yourselve’s a Bible. for once, and actually read it, rather than read the so called popes tweets, ( which are just totally unbiblical, and stupid pretentious rubbish,)
    and I dont mean the NIV either,,try a KJV

    It’s a tad tiresome, reading a post done by a catholic, and they dont know what they are on about…

    ‘ Reality check’s ‘ needed in the catholic persuasion..

    Comment by spookchristian — January 4, 2014 @ 1:38 pm | Reply

    • The King James version of the New Testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the Church of
      England. There were not (and still are not) any original texts to translate. The two oldest manuscripts available were penned hundreds of years after the last apostle allegedly died; they contain 3,036 conflicting textual variations and do not mention a resurrection in the earliest written gospel. That part was secretly added to copies generations later. There were over 8,000 copies of the copies of the copies made, producing a story so blindingly contradictory that “Christians count 133 contrary opinions of different authorities concerning the year the Messiah appeared on earth” (Encyclopaedia Britannica).

      ….But that doesn’t matter.

      The King James translators didn’t refer to any of these manuscripts, anyway. Instead, they edited previous translations of the corrupted documents to create an entirely new bible which the King and Parliament would approve of.

      In other words, 21st Century Christians believe the “Word of God” is a book edited in the 17th Century from tainted 16th Century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of contaminated 4th Century scrolls that claim to be copies of secretly falsified (lost) letters possibly first written (at the earliest) in the last years of the 1st Century regarding a gnostic character who lived perhaps two or even three generations earlier… but who no historian, social commentator, court record keeper, curious onlooker or graffiti artist along the entire eastern Mediterranean seaboard apparently noticed during his supposed life.

      Is this what you Christians mean by Faith?

      Comment by john zande — January 4, 2014 @ 2:45 pm | Reply

  8. Good grief…pray to God to help you to heal. You need healing. Don’t doubt; just pray for the favor. What harm can come from healing?

    Comment by Francis Philip — January 4, 2014 @ 8:21 pm | Reply

  9. Matthew 23:9 is a Matthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

    Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

    The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

    So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

    Replycaution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

    Jesus is directing his disciples to lMatthew 23:9Matthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

    Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

    The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

    So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

    Reply is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

    Jesus is directing his disciples to look oMatthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

    Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

    The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

    So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

    Replynly to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

    The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

    So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

    Replyook only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

    The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

    So calling a priest or the Matthew 23:9 is a cauMatthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

    Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

    The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

    So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

    Replytion against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

    Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

    The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

    So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

    Replybishop of Rome, father orMatthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

    Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

    The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

    So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendantMatthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

    Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

    The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

    So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

    Replys of the Apostles.

    Reply papa is a sign of deepMatthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

    Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

    The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

    So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiasticaMatthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

    Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

    The Bible is clear that Matthew 23:9 is a caution against false teachers, like say Martin Luther, who appoint themselves as preachers and teachers of the Word.

    Jesus is directing his disciples to look only to his authority (which he passed to the Apostle).

    The Bible is clear that only those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

    So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

    Replyonly those men who are specifically chosen by the Jesus or the Apostles have the authority to teach the Gospel.

    So calling a priest or the bishop of Rome, father or papa is a sign of deep affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

    Replyl descendants of the Apostles.

    Reply affection and respect for duly authorized men who are ecclesiastical descendants of the Apostles.

    Reply

    Comment by spookchristian — January 5, 2014 @ 6:59 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: