A discussion on The View on Wednesday about sin quickly devolved as the hosts reiterated common media myths about the Catholic Church and its teachings. Elisabeth Hasselbeck read a bogus list of seven “new” sins that the Vatican supposedly came up with, while Joy Behar misrepresented the Catholic Church’s teachings on papal infallibility. When Barbara Walters later asked what the “biggest sin” was, in their opinion, Behar and Whoopi Goldberg agreed that it was “intolerance.”
Goldberg began the discussion by bringing up how a “new study by the Vatican says that men and women sin differently. They said men are more likely to commit sins of lust and gluttony and sloth, and for women, it’s pride, envy, and anger.” She then prompted her co-hosts for their take on this. Barbara Walters joked, “Yeah. I mean, with men, it’s much more the sexual and the lust, and the women are angry that it’s much more the sexual and the lust....They cheat more.” It’s funny that the ABC veteran put it that way, since she admitted to having an affair with former Massachusetts Senator Edward Brooke.
Moments later, as the discussion progressed. Goldberg stated that she thought the most common sin among bankers was envy. Sherri Shepherd replied, “It’s funny when you say with the bankers. You look at all these politicians. They don’t get in trouble for pride and envy. Everybody is getting in trouble for cheating.” Walters responded, “I don’t think the Vatican was thinking of the bankers.”
Elisabeth Hasselbeck replied to Walters by interjecting what she had read in an article about this new study about sin: “No, they did, actually, because this past -- last year, the Vatican added seven new sins....They updated the seven. But they -- yes, genetic modification, human experimentation, pollution, social injustice -- financial gluttony was one of them. So they knew. The Vatican knew.”
One of the possible sources for The View’s discussion of this “new study by the Vatican” is a story from the Daily Telegraph in the UK on Wednesday. Correspondent Alastair Jamieson reported that “[t]he results of survey, which was based on an analysis of confessional data carried out by 95-year-old Jesuit priest and scholar Roberto Busa, have been echoed by the Vatican.” So it was an elderly Catholic priest who originally came up with this insight, not the Vatican.
The Daily Telegraph was also one of the major media outlets who helped perpetuate the myth that the Vatican came up with a list of “new sins” last year, based on an interview of a Catholic bishop who works for a high-level Catholic Church tribunal. During the interview, Bishop Gianfranco Girotti discussed “new forms of social sin,” and gave examples such genetic manipulation and drug trafficking. The newspaper, in its misinterpretation of the bishop’s comments, went so far to say that the bishop’s examples “replaces the list originally drawn up by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th Century, which included envy, gluttony, greed, lust, wrath and pride.”
Goldberg reacted in disbelief to the supposed list Hasselbeck had read: “Explain to me how you suddenly can write new sins. You can’t -- you’re not allowed to do that.” Lapsed Catholic Joy Behar had an explanation for her co-host: “But Whoopi, the Pope is supposed to be infallible, so he can say whatever he wants and people believe it. That’s how it goes.”
Behar’s take on papal infallibility is a common misconception of the concept. According to Catholic doctrine, the Pope is infallible only “when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians... [as] he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church,” as promulgated by the First Vatican Council. The exercise of this authority has only taken place on very rare occasions, and does not to apply to every single thing the Pope says, as Behar would lead one to think.
The discussion concluded with a discussion on what the hosts though the greatest sin in the world was. Walters asked, “What do you think is the biggest sin?” Behar answered, “Lust among priests -- that’s a big one,” in an apparent slam on the Catholic Church. Hasselbeck echoed Behar when she named pedophilia. Goldberg gave a more generically liberal answer: “Intolerance....because Jesus was not intolerant of anybody.” Goldberg must have forgotten the several places in the Bible where Jesus chastised the Pharisees, referring to them as a “brood of vipers” and “hypocrites.” On one occasion, he even rebuked Peter, his own disciple, calling him “Satan.”
The transcript of the relevant part of the discussion, which began 12 minutes into the 11 am Eastern hour of Wednesday’s The View:
WHOOPI GOLDBERG: A new study by the Vatican says that men and women sin differently. They said men are more likely to commit sins of lust and gluttony and sloth, and for women, it’s pride, envy, and anger. Do you buy this?
SHERRI SHEPHERD: Interesting.
BARBARA WALTERS: I think -- yeah. I mean, with men, it’s much more the sexual and the lust, and the women are angry that it’s much more the sexual and the lust.
(AUDIENCE LAUGHS)
ELISABETH HASSELBECK: Does that mean that men are more, you know, victims of --
WALTERS: They cheat more.
HASSELBECK: Or taking action on their --
WALTERS: They cheat. They cheat.
HASSELBECK: So they actually do the thing and women just, like, think about it until it, like, just kills us?
GOLDBERG: It seems to me -- I see all those bankers, and I think, you know, that envy and --
JOY BEHAR: Envy and avarice.
SHEPHERD: It’s funny when you say with the bankers. You look at all these politicians. They don't get in trouble for pride and envy. Everybody is getting in trouble for cheating, or, you know --
WALTERS: I don’t think the Vatican was thinking of the bankers.
HASSELBECK: No, they did, actually, because this past -- last year, the Vatican added seven new sins. You know how they have all that --
GOLDBERG: What!?
HASSELBECK: Yeah. They did.
GOLDBERG: Whoa! (makes ‘time-out’ gesture with her hands)
HASSELBECK: I had no idea. They updated the seven. But they -- yes, genetic modification, human experimentation, pollution, social injustice -- financial gluttony was one of them. So they knew. The Vatican knew.
GOLDBERG: (shakes head) Ok. So how -- I’m sorry. I realize that the Vatican is the last word in all things that are God --
HASSELBECK: For Christian people.
GOLDBERG: Yeah, for some folks. But explain to me how you suddenly can write new sins. You can’t -- you’re not allowed to do that.
HASSELBECK: They did.
SHEPHERD: (unintelligible) Selling drugs, so any people who do that --
(CROSSTALK)
BEHAR: But Whoopi, the Pope is supposed to be infallible, so he can say whatever he wants and people believe it. That’s how it goes.
GOLDBERG: Well, but then -- but that doesn’t make any sense.
WALTERS: What do you think is the biggest sin?
BEHAR: Lust among priests -- that’s a big one.
HASSELBECK: Pedophilia. They put that (unintelligible) --
WALTERS: What do you think is the biggest sin?
GOLDBERG: The biggest sin? That any -- the church can do, or that is out there? Intolerance.
WALTERS: Intolerance -- you think that intolerance is the biggest sin?
GOLDBERG: Yeah, I do, because Jesus was not intolerant of anybody --
HASSELBECK: He was not.
GOLDBERG: He was not -- if you believe the Bible. Jesus was, you know -- He was like, look, we don’t agree, but that’s cool. Let’s see what we do agree on. And to me, any religion that says it’s us and forget about them, that’s a sin.
BEHAR: That is a sin.
GOLDBERG: That’s a sin to me, and I believe that.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDS)
SHEPHERD: That’s so funny. I think --
WALTERS: But that’s not on the list.
GOLDBERG: No, it’s not on the list.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Not one Catholic among them
February 18, 2009 - 19:00 ET by obageegeeKinda like the Goths commenting on the Romans.
Isn't Joy Behar Catholic?
February 18, 2009 - 19:25 ET by NewsbusterbrownIsn't Joy Behar Catholic? She's Italian, so she probably was as a child at the very least.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
NB brown: It's my
February 18, 2009 - 19:49 ET by QueenMumNB brown: It's my understanding that she was indeed raised in an Italian Catholic family. She's likely the black sheep at this point in time.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
I'm pretty sure Joy is
February 18, 2009 - 19:49 ET by obageegeeI'm pretty sure Joy is jewish
Behar is her married name.
February 18, 2009 - 20:07 ET by QueenMumBehar is her married name. She was born into an Italian-American, Catholic family and her maiden name is Italian. Her full first name is Josephina. The idea that she is Jewish likely comes from the fact that her husband was a Sephardic Jew. They've been divorced for quite a while. I've not found any information that suggests she converted upon her marriage.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
Catholic?
February 19, 2009 - 09:21 ET by allanfJoy's Wikepedia entry confirms QueenMum's statements. I find Joy's name kind of ironic.
Joy is Catholic
February 19, 2009 - 11:01 ET by kufir77You'll find that some of the most venoumous anti-Catholics are actually Catholics themselves.
I think a nun needs to crack that ruler across Joy's face a couple more times.
A slight amendment to
February 19, 2009 - 11:18 ET by moderncommentaries83A slight amendment to that...
Some of the most venomous anti-Catholics are CAFETERIA Catholics.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Intolerance a sin?
February 18, 2009 - 19:09 ET by kch50428Then 4 of those broads ought to be first in line for the penalties for sinning.
At Least Three of the Four are Very Intolerant
February 19, 2009 - 09:25 ET by allanfAt least three of these four are very intolerant --- of viewpoints that challenge liberal orthodoxy. They were intolerant of John McCain, Ann Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly. They do not play well with others outside their little social circle.
I found this clip where
February 18, 2009 - 19:36 ET by MidAmericaI found this clip where the discussion really got deep for these ladys.
It just keeps coming
February 18, 2009 - 19:36 ET by richb313It just keeps coming. The more that the educated class speak on issues regarding any religion the more thier ignorance shows. The anti-catholic trends in recent years reminds me of a time when I was growing up. I was raised in South Louisiana which is mostly catholic but moved to Northern Louisiana mostly Non-Catholic. When I was in Northern Louisiana you could actually feel the Anti-Catholic Bias. We were called papists and other demeaning things. I really was much too young to understand. The KKK was active in the area as well and thier literature would somehow magically appear in public schools. This was in the mid 60's in case you are wondering. It always amazes me how any enlightened soul could have the same views as the KKK.
America
February 18, 2009 - 20:00 ET by iveseenitallAnother example of how low we've sunk as a society. Needless to say, ignorance is bliss on a show like this. But now their ignorance has gone further into the abyss. However, since they're at it, why doesn't this group of "intellectuals" do a show which mocks Islam, or Jewdaism. Too politically incorrect, I suppose.
Speaking of intolerance, I guess I'm a real sinner because I can't tolerate these low-lifes any more.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
V-Cows
February 18, 2009 - 19:49 ET by urbuggenmeThese four View Moo Cows are just jealous that Nancy Pelosi just got all the dust and cob webs chewed out from her weathered up old snook by the Pope. Ba-ba and Woopie havent seen any action since the early 70's and I wouldn't even want to guess about the other 2 old cows.
Elizabeth can come stop by here anytime she wants!
Intolerance, who would had thought?
February 18, 2009 - 19:57 ET by general companyWhen Barbara Walters later asked what the “biggest sin” was, in their opinion, Behar and Whoopi Goldberg agreed that it was “intolerance.”
I have to admit, I am a little surprised by this, considering how little tolerance the left in general have. Behar is as intolerant as anyone I ever come in contact with.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
general c: I guess
February 18, 2009 - 20:15 ET by QueenMumgeneral c: I guess "righteous indignation" is too hard to spell. "Intolerance" is pretty much phonetic.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
But, I had already used
February 18, 2009 - 20:36 ET by general companyBut, I had already used that today, and the definition of phonetic is far to confusing for my little brain.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Maybe this Mensa panel can solve the economic crisis
February 18, 2009 - 20:02 ET by Lord ErondWhat a bunch of retards.
"What you can not enforce, do not command" -Sophocles-
Intolerance
February 18, 2009 - 20:12 ET by ChattychitoWell then maybe they believe God is a sinner because he is intolerant of mankind's sins. they are so fortunate to live in this Grace period God has blessed mankind with for the last 2000 years. these silly women can say such foolish things and not get struck down for being do blatantly anti-christ.
But it wont be long and no more grace period and it will be time to pay the piper his due. just look for the sudden disappearance of 700million people from the face of the earth that is the sign NO MORE GRACE.
You ever notice how intolerant people are of intolerance. How these same people are intolerant to any one who is not of their view. Just like Matthew's and the like being so intolerant of Rush Limbaugh. And these are supposed to be the tolerant ones. They are the ones who compare simple folk to Nazi's and Klan members. yeah they are found guilty of the sin of intolerance by their own mouths.
HA!! Totally agree about
February 18, 2009 - 20:20 ET by mostlymoderateHA!! Totally agree about people being intolerant of intolerance :) So true.
If intolerance is the biggest sin, those four intolerent ...
February 18, 2009 - 20:09 ET by R D Helm...hypocrites are going to bust the gates of Hell wide open.
With their heads.
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
Sheesh
February 18, 2009 - 20:10 ET by jcheneyThis article only confirms why I never watch that show.
By the way, the Bible (in my view, the authority before the Catholic Church) say that the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Spirit (Matt 12:31).
Whoopie is Jewish
February 18, 2009 - 20:13 ET by mostlymoderateWhoopie is Jewish
Barbara is Jewish
Behar is married to a Jewish person
Why are they criticizing a faith they know nothing about? I would be just as upset if a Catholic tried to criticize a Jewish persons faith. Ofcourse if that happened, all hell would break lose.
Jewish Poohockey
February 18, 2009 - 20:18 ET by ChattychitoThey are any more Jewish than the next guy. even the Bible declares in Romans 10 they are not all Israel that are of Israel.
And if they are Jewish, when the grace period is over they will be one of the most persecuted people on the planet for 7 years. The same TV stations that now allow them to speak so freely wont be so intolerant and they will be broadcasting their deaths on TV for the wold to see.
So if I criticized the
February 18, 2009 - 20:21 ET by mostlymoderateSo if I criticized the teachings in Judaism or the past acts of the Jewish leadership, none of these women would be insulted or upset? My bottom line is that people should not criticize other peoples religions. I find it insulting that these women are criticizing a Church that I doubt they are members of.
I think I see your point though.
Behar knows all about the
February 18, 2009 - 20:28 ET by QueenMumBehar knows all about the Catholic Church. (See my earlier post.) She likely sees her comments as acceptable jokes. You know. Like when you're a hillbilly and you make a hillbilly joke. It's okay because your being self-deprecating. However, I think it comes off as disrespectful on a show like "The View" because a good deal of the audience knows nothing about her background or the Catholic Church. Besides, as a person raised in the Catholic Church, she should be more respectful.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
Mostly,
February 18, 2009 - 20:29 ET by Trix RabbitYou won't find a bigger gaggle of self-loathing Jews than you will on the View Klux Klan.
Last January, resident Alzheimer's patient Baba Wawa, along with Susie Essman, the "actress" of HBO's sleep-inducing "Curb your Enthusiasm", referred to Chassidic women as ugly, having bad taste in clothing, and having bizarre customs.
Imagine the uproar if these television Einsteins had said that of Muslim or black women?
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
GOLDBERG: "He was not -- if
February 18, 2009 - 20:34 ET by muh-oonGOLDBERG: "He was not -- if you believe the Bible. Jesus was, you know
-- He was like, look, we don’t agree, but that’s cool. Let’s see what
we do agree on. And to me, any religion that says it’s us and forget
about them, that’s a sin."
Wow, Goldbergs never actually had any contact with Christianity ever really has she? I thought at least sister act 1 or 2 might have had something about it somewhere in there. "Let's see what we do agree on?" Really? Is she cuttin some kind of deals with Jesus? "we don't agree, but that's cool?" When she says Jesus, Is she talking about Obama here?
...He was like, look, we
February 18, 2009 - 22:51 ET by PeskyDane...He was like, look, we don’t agree, but that’s cool.
Yeah, I think she got that from The Sermon on The Mount.
PD
February 19, 2009 - 05:09 ET by thebutlerdiditYou're right! Wow, you really know your Bible! Maybe you and Whoopie can get together and have a Bible Study group. I'm sure Sherri and Elizabeth would love to add their brain power. BW, maybe not so much.
BTW, when I read your post, I really did spew coke!
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
Negative Intelligence
February 19, 2009 - 10:19 ET by Pilgrim1949Each time these "tolerant" and oh-so-enlightened morons opens their mouths, they subtract from the sum total of human knowledge, sucking any intelligence found in the room down into the black hole of nothingness that radiates from their empty skulls.
Catholics and Christian
February 18, 2009 - 21:55 ET by celatorCatholics and Christian Evangelicals get continously misrepresented, mocked, laughed at, derided and otherwise slandered in the Old Media and on nutjob television shows like The View, as we all know. It's all a big joke to them.
This is getting mighty tedious and, I might add, very dangerous.
I fear, with the socialist agenda now reaching full force in the White House, it's going to get even more intense. Be prepared.
Only Christians can be criticized
February 18, 2009 - 22:11 ET by Radical1979You'd never catch these women criticizing Islam this way. Did they forget to mention the executive of Bridges television who just beheaded his wife because she asked him for a divorce? Nooo, that would be politically incorrect. Helen Thomas probably refered to that guy as the "so-called wife killer".
I can only think they're bitterness against Christianity comes from an inability to obey the ten commandments.
What a load
February 18, 2009 - 22:43 ET by moderncommentaries83What a load of crappity crap crap:
First, I wish someone had the balls to pull out the Catechism and ask them to find where it says Jesus was "cool" with sin. He makes it very clear in many passages that not only is sin intolerable, but it is a surefire way to guarantee you will be separated from the wheat and the sheep and cast out with the chaf and the goats.
Second, any religion - and, more specifically, any religious leader - who doesn't wholeheartedly believe the faith he professes is not to be trusted. Why in the world would I trust a man with my salvation who says any faith is a-okay and that there are many paths to heaven.
Third, I would ask them to prove and explain how saying X behavior is a sin = intolerance.
If "intolerance" is the only sin, then liberals would know because they have been utterly intolerant of Catholicism for decades, if not millenia.
If anyone from the Newsbusters staff can get word to producers of The View, I'd be glad to go on there and debate this morons on Catholic teaching any day of the week.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
GOLDBERG: Yeah, I do,
February 18, 2009 - 22:53 ET by Dan The Man 2GOLDBERG: Yeah, I do, because Jesus was not intolerant of anybody
I guess she forgot about the part where He trashed the temple because the money changers and idolaters were there. Or He called the elders of the church vipers. I think tehy also forgot the fact that Jesus is God and as the Father destroyed 2 cities.
I believe it is true He does not hate as we do and He hates the sin and loves the person. But, these women have no idea of what they are talking bout or whom.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
first things first
February 18, 2009 - 23:43 ET by WesenFunny, the people listed first into hell are the fearful and unbelieving.
the girls on the shrew
February 19, 2009 - 01:45 ET by anormthey are simply talking out of their respective a$$es
The Hormonal Harpies, as I call them,
February 19, 2009 - 05:13 ET by thebutlerdiditare on every day "educating" the ignorant masses of people who for some reason have time in the middle of the morning to watch them, and lack the good sense to turn the television off. These kind of people are where a large portion of America gets its news and political views. Scary, huh?
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
illiteracy
February 19, 2009 - 06:47 ET by NonanonI think liberals are elected because so many Americans are biblically, economically, and constitutionally illiterate. This is another example of it. So much truth has been disregarded and re-defined by the liberals and has then been forced upon the rest of us. I hope it will turn around, but am not real certain it will given the number of people who refuse to take responsibility for the things they chose to do and demand that stuff be done for them.
I come not to send peace, Whoopi
February 19, 2009 - 13:19 ET by CobraMan"He was not -- if you believe the Bible. Jesus was, you know -- He was
like, look, we don’t agree, but that’s cool. Let’s see what we do agree
on."
Gee, Whoopi, I wonder, you know, if, like, Jesus would agree with your statement?
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34"
It looks like, if you believe the Bible, that Jesus, you know, would, like, disagree with you. But that's cool.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
daytime T V
February 19, 2009 - 15:14 ET by jessieHJessie R. Hamby Who are these women & what is "the view? Are they the "thinkers", the best minds, to be able to discuss politics AND the bible? What are their credentials? What bible college did they go to? Did they specialize in politics? they're minds must be enormous! Or are they just yapping like a bunch of beagles on the trail of a rabbit? How can people watch this crap? Who ever listens to them are the " BIGGEST LOOSERS"!!!
The Catholic Church's teaching on "sin" is what's "distorted".
February 19, 2009 - 17:00 ET by"Do not seek to uphold the tenets of a false church if you do not wish to be rebuked with the truth"....
"One of the possible sources for The View’s discussion of this “new study by the Vatican” is a story from the Daily Telegraph in the UK on Wednesday. Correspondent Alastair Jamieson reported that “[t]he results of survey, which was based on an analysis of confessional data carried out by 95-year-old Jesuit priest and scholar Roberto Busa, have been echoed by the Vatican.” So it was an elderly Catholic priest who originally came up with this insight, not the Vatican."
FIRST.
If the survey by the 95 year old "priest" and "scholar" was ECHOED BY THE VATICAN, then they adopt it's premises and it's author is unimportant. So your attempt at a "gotcha" by saying that the Vatican didn't originate the study is irrelevant and a red herring. The Vatican adopted his data as their own and it is because of this adoption of data that you heard about the study in the first place. Don't argue like a liberal, be truthful.
SECOND.
You claim that the Pope is only "infallible" when he is speaking "EX CATHEDRA", meaning when he is speaking during the exercise of his office. Well that's whenever he's speaking about Christ! Not just when wearing the gear and lighting the candles. So you make a distinction that is really for our purposes, without a difference. Especially since EVERY thing that the Pope said that the View crones might object to was certainly said in his capacity as "pope". The following is the "church's" teaching on the popes "infallibility".
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
So the red herring award goes to you since nobody accused the pope of being "infallible" while discussing the Yankees. BUT since you want to get picky how's this example of the Pope speaking to a group of children IN HIS CAPACITY AS POPE. Would that, in your view, constitute him speaking "ex cathedra"? He is after all teaching them about Christ, right? Mind you I could have chosen any of a multitude of statements that were even more egregious. Most false doctrinaires like the pope or Creflo Dollar, etc, will usually say something heretical every time they open their mouths to speak about Jesus. Meaning that, what they say will SOUND good but almost invariable be contrary to scripture. Here's what he said a little while ago.as reported by a Catholic website.
http://thecatholicsp...
"Dear children, you can pray that the Lord would change the hearts of weapons manufacturers, that he would make terrorists sane again, that he would convert the hearts of those who always think of war and that he would help humanity build a better future for all the world’s children,” the pope said.
Friend in Jesus
Meeting in late December with representatives of the children’s section of Italian Catholic Action, Pope Benedict said involvement in the parish-based program is designed “to help you become saints; for this reason, it helps you meet Jesus, to love his church and to take an interest in the problems of the world.”
Some people say children like to be naughty and that they always want new toys and are never happy with any of them for long, the pope told them.
“But you say to Jesus, ‘You are enough.’ That means ‘You are our best friend and are with us when we play and when we go to school, when we are at home with our parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters and when we are playing outside with our friends,’” he said.
As a best friend, Jesus opens our eyes when one of our friends is sad and helps us see “the many children around the world who suffer from hunger, sickness and war,” the pope told them.
Being a best friend, Jesus always listens. “He listens to the prayers we say so that the world would become more beautiful and better for everyone,” the pope said.
Now, I realize that to a lot of you, knowing little or nothing about the actual Word of God, this sounds just fine, doesn't it? Hey what's the problem with asking the Lord to convert the hearts of the "bad people" and the fluff about Jesus, listening to the prayers so the world will become "more beautiful and better for everyone"? What on earth could be wrong with that? Nothing. IF you know NOTHING ABOUT CHRIST OR HIS ACTUAL MISSION, that is!
First praying for God to "heal the world" while a good sentiment is actually a statement that comes from a spirit of Anti -Christ. The reason that this comes from an Anti-christ spirit is because it is the EXACT OPPOSITE of Christ's stated PURPOSE. Let's see how Jesus dealt with it when someone close to him, began to speak, even in well meaning fashion, diametrically against His stated purpose, shall we?
Immediately after Jesus asked Peter "whom do men say that I am"? And Peter replied with the famous, "Thou art the Christ, Son of the Living God". The Lord blessed Peter, gave him the keys to the kingdom, right? Well, right after that, the Lord described the manner in which He would die and the purpose of that glorious act. Here are a couple of accounts, forgive me the longwindedness but it's necessary for those who will object to my point.
Matt 16
21From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
24Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
Now, some of you may think "Get thee behind me Satan" is a rhetorical flourish or something but it isn't. It is a command for Satan to leave Peter. Just like Satan entered Judas ( luke 22:3) and then Judas went on his way to betray the Lord, the devil tried the same thing with Peter. The Lord responded this way because in this moment, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS APPARENTLY "WELL MEANT", Peter became "anti-christ", NOT "THE" ANTI-CHRIST, mind you, but he was influenced by the SPIRIT of the ANTI CHRIST which Paul instructed, was "already at work" ( 1John 4:3). The reason is because the bible declares the Lords' plan of salvation to have been formed, "before the foundation of the world" (John 17:24, ephesians 1:4, 1 Peter 1:20). In fact the bible declares Christ to be the "lamb slain FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD,( Rev 13:8)
When the devil tempted Christ he tempted him with temporal riches, earthly lusts and the pride of life. When he entered into Peter he sought to dissuade the Lord from His holy purpose, the salvation of mankind. We know this because Jesus SPECIFICALLY told Peter that when he is crucified he will "DRAW ALL MEN UNTO ME" ( John 12:32) And when he told them that His plan of salvation meant that everyone who believed in Him "AS THE SCRIPTURE HATH SAID" would receive the Holy Ghost in the form of "living water" that would spring up out of your "belly" into fountains of everlasting life, he specifically referenced the fact that this could not be accomplished UNLESS HE WAS CRUCIFIED! John 7:37-39
Are you beginning to see the importance of Peter questioning the Lord's pending sacrfice, even though it was "seemingly" well meaning? Do you now see why the Lord rebuked SATAN instead of Peter? Because as His disciple, PETER certainly knew the Lord's plan of salvation and KNEW that the Lord had to die, but the devil, believed that he could appeal to the flesh of Christ which certainly did not want to suffer and he used an Apostle to do it!
All of that background is necessary for you to understand the staggering implications of the "pope" claiming that praying to Christ will "bring peace" You can watch a video of him saying that and more here, under the title YouTube - Benedict XVI: Unity in Christ brings peace to the nations
http://www.youtube.c...
The supposedly "infallible" pope when speaking "ex cathedra" doesn't know that the hell he is talking about. This is what happens when you have an unregenerated fraud masquerading as a man of God. He doesn't have the Holy Ghost and we know this because THIS is how you get it (ACTS 2:4, ACTS 10:44-48, ACTS 19:1-6) and the Catholic church DOESN'T TEACH THAT. The bible declares that the Catholic Church has been deceived by demons and has embraced the doctrine of DEVILS, 1Timothy 4:1-4. The bible declares in the aforementioned scripture that you will know the false church because it will "forbid people to marry" AND "command the abstention of certain foods which God gave to be received with thanksgiving". Even with this in the bible the catholics began these demonic practices, that's because prophecy can't be avoided.
By praying for "peace on earth" or Christ to "heal the nations with peace" or " for the Lord to change terrorist hearts and minds" or "that he would convert the hearts of those who always think of war and that he would help humanity build a better future for all the world’s children," is good sentiment if you're working for SATAN. Because EVERY SINGLE THING that the "pope" prayed for is DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO THE STATED MISSION OF JESUS CHRIST. "“He listens to the prayers we say so that the world would become more beautiful and better for everyone,”"
The true Christian does not expect OR WANT this world to become more beautiful, because a Christian that is NOT blinded by satan and can actually READ his or her bible knows that Rom 8:22 " 22For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now."
See the reason that lions don't lay down with lambs is because the entire CREATION has been tainted by sin. And a true christian would know that it is NOT POSSIBLE to change the earth. That's why drugs grow in plants that will take your life, that's why scorpions sting and there are plants in the jungle that can KILL YOU. Mankind wasn't the only thing affected by original sin. The true Christian isn't waiting for THIS world to get ANY better, he's waiting for what the Lord Promised His people, what he prophesied in Isaiah 65:17
17For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
IF God has promised you a NEW heaven and a NEW earth why would you be waiting for this one to improve, when clearly it won't? IF you understood what you read that is? Which the pope, not having the Holy Ghost, clearly doesn't. Let's see, was the teaching about the NEW heaven and the NEW earth "consistent" in the New Testament? And just so some "nancy boy" with three scriptures to his memory doesn't pipe up about this all being "conceptual" here's Peter's take on it...
2PETER 3
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
GEE, sounds like Peter got the New earth memo that the pope didn't get! So basically, the pope is wasting his time and yours, praying for things that ARE AGAINST THE REVEALED WILL OF GOD. Gee, who speaks falsely under the guise of "helping" or "goodness" when his goal is actually the opposite of faith? Sounds like Satan to me.
The Bible talks about spiritual blindness often. It references the things that bring this condition to fruition, it's much too long to go into now but suffice to say that the pope is a perfect example of someone in authority being "blinded by the god of this world" that is, satan. You would think that as a "pontiff" as a "pope" as a blasphemously labeled "holy FATHER", see Matt23:9, the pope would at LEAST know what the heck Christ's mission is! But he doesn't. He thinks it's about Christ bringing Peace on earth and peace to families, right? WRONG. Like Peter BEFORE he was converted, the pope is being used by SATAN to trample on the truth of Christ by lying to the people about Christs, purpose, expectations and consequences. Oh and the reason that ANY prayer, no matter how seemingly "well meaning" that asks Christ for "peace on earth" or asks Christ to "make the terrorists nice people" is from satan is because like Peters rebuke of Christ, it is DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO CHRIST'S PURPOSE, not off to the side a little, ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DEGREES AWAY from the original purpose of Jesus Christ and only satan can be that stupid. Jesus didn't come to bring peace and if the pope were "saved" he would know that. My child knows that because the Word of God declares it. The words are the words of the Lord Jesus Christ as he explains his "mission".
Matt 10:34-37
34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[e]
37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
I have just proven that while speaking in his capacity as "pope" while, speaking "ex cathedra, in cathedra or down the street from the cathedra, the pope doesn't know that the heck he is talking about and is PROVEN WRONG.
btw. A "POPE" cannot BE "Infallible" because SIN is a "failing" and teaching false doctrine is SIN.
I will now be accused of being "intolerant" or "ranting" or whatever. Love brings correction. If you have a response make it a biblical one, debate the points raised, no offense, but I'm not interested in your "feelings" or "thoughts" that are contrary to the bible because they "feel good". So do us both a favor and search the scriptures to back up what you "feel" are your "points".
Dead Horse Alert!!!
February 19, 2009 - 17:12 ET by QueenMumActs: At the risk of being accused of unwarranted hubris, I respectfully request that if you want to continue your preaching, please consider starting a Topic in the Forum. I'm sure you'll find someone willing to debate the subject if that's your purpose. Otherwise your sermon is most likely to fall on deaf ears. Generally, attacks on the Catholic Church are not well accepted. Most of us have heard it all before.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
QueenMum...Thank you!!!!
February 19, 2009 - 17:17 ET by PrairieSkyThank you, thank you, thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking while reading Acts' post...
Perfectly stated.
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan~ January 20, 1981
I will be honest
February 19, 2009 - 17:20 ET by sherylsimsI didn't read past the first sentence. Once I looked and saw how long it went on I knew it was going to have to be really interesting or at least contain some pictures to keep me focused. Sorry.
sheryl...Truth be told...
February 19, 2009 - 17:36 ET by PrairieSkyI didn't read every single word either...Acts' posts can be over-the-top wordy, so I knew it would be looong, but I read more than enough to get the Catholic-bashing angle loud and clear.
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan~ January 20, 1981
Prarie Sky
February 19, 2009 - 17:40 ET by sherylsimsShhhh... don't tell anyone, but I think some of it might have been cut and pasted from somewhere else...
(Maybe he didn't read it first either.)
sheryl...LOL!
February 19, 2009 - 17:44 ET by PrairieSkyIt's possible!!!!
Still LOL!
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan~ January 20, 1981
~Prairie
February 19, 2009 - 17:45 ET by choselife3xI read the whole thing (glutton for punishment *shrug*)
Acts emotes very well, doesn't he? I've never seen b@tsh!t crazy seep through someone's typing quite like that.
(well, except for that general sosbee character who carries on about armies of the living dead...)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
chose...Right you are...
February 19, 2009 - 17:48 ET by PrairieSkyYou're braver than I...Once I read down far enough and it became clear what the content and intent was, I stopped.
Yikes!
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan~ January 20, 1981
~Prairie
February 19, 2009 - 17:59 ET by choselife3xI must confess I have occasionally poked him with a stick just to watch the crazy spill out. It's amusing how quickly he goes from spouting Scripture to phrases like "I could give a dry fart".
(no..I'm NOT KIDDING)
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
chose...Oh darn...
February 19, 2009 - 21:35 ET by PrairieSkyI guess I missed that particular bit of "crazy..." LOL!
(I'm not even sure I know what the "dry fart" reference means...On second thought, I don't want to know...):P
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan~ January 20, 1981
~Prairie
February 19, 2009 - 21:51 ET by choselife3xI didn't ask my husband for a definition, there are some things a girl just doesn't want to know! *shudder*
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Nothing unwarranted at all
February 19, 2009 - 18:27 ET byNothing unwarranted at all Queen Mum! Point taken! The problem is that I was ignorant of that procedure. Didn't know that I could take something to a "private forum" or start a new thread. I apologize to all who didn't wish to view these opinions and scriptures.
But to those who did view them and had negative comments NOT BASED on any thing but your "feelings", well, feeling's are like noses, everyone's got 'em. The question is, "What if I'm right"?
What if you actually opened up your bible to each and every scripture that I either quoted or re-printed, and it was right. What is 1Tim 2:5 REALLY says,
5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
What would that make the Catholic Church which has told you since it's inception that the POPE, is that mediator?
For once DEAL with the scriptures at hand. Isn't the bible the "guide" for Christianity? Don't you believe the Lord's Word? Do you think that the pope has the power to change Christ's words to their OPPOSTITE meaning and still be saved? Then, what are all the warnings about the false church and it's false doctrines, which "coincidentally" have ALL been adopted by the Catholic Church, all about? It's easy to snark and snipe with NO INFORMATION. And it's easy to disregard someone as a lunatic again, with NO INFORMATION. But it is you who in the end, will suffer.
It'd be different if you guys were learned men who said, "hey Acts, you're all cracked, the scriptures don't say that, they say this......" OR "my friend you clearly just made that up because I looked it up and what you said isn't even IN the bible", but you have none of that to offer. All you have to offer is your ignorance and name calling. You would do well to search the scriptures since you are the ones who have been grievously misled.
~I wonder what part of
February 19, 2009 - 18:39 ET by choselife3x'Take it to a forum' just blows right by him?
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
If that's what you got from
February 19, 2009 - 19:09 ET byIf that's what you got from my last post no wonder you can't read your bible and understand it.
First, neither you nor anyone else outside of the management of this website , "TELL" me to take anything, anywhere. Queen Mum respectfully made a suggestion to which I respectfully replied.
You on the other hand are an offended creature who's anger at not knowing anything substantial about the faith you allegedly profess, is exceeded only by your anger at one such as myself, possessing said knowledge .
I'll tell you
February 19, 2009 - 20:15 ET by CobraMan"First, neither you nor anyone else outside of the management of this website , "TELL" me to take anything, anywhere."
I'll tell you to take your holier than thou attitude and shove it where you don't store your Bible. If you don't like it, that's just tough!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
How dare you, Acts
February 19, 2009 - 20:23 ET by CobraManHow dare you insinuate that someone, anyone, doesn't understand their own faith! You may not be aware of this, Acts, but FAITH is a personal belief and you are NOT another person. You have no more right in defining someone's faith for them or what they do or do not understand about their own faith, than I have in defining your faith for you or deciding for you what you may or may not understand about your own faith.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
"How dare you insinuate
February 19, 2009 - 23:49 ET by"How dare you insinuate that someone, anyone, doesn't understand their own faith!"
Actually I dare pretty well. And it's perfectly appropriate for me to examen the faith of the Pope and whether or not he is "in" Christ. It is also appropriate for me to say that "chooselife" doesn't understand his alleged faith because of the idiotic things he has said about it.
You may not be aware of this, Acts, but FAITH is a personal belief and you are NOT another person.
Wrongo bongo, baby. You're two for two! "FAITH" is NOT a "personal belief" in the sense that you get to make up your own faith or what to believe. For instance, if you "believe" that MULTIPLE BAPTISMS will be accepted by Christ but yet Christ says that there is only ONE LORD, ONE FAITH and ONE BAPTISM, you would be the one going down the "pig trail" not me and not Jesus. EPH 4:5. Oh, and by the way since there is only ONE FAITH it is pretty easy to tell whether someone is in it or not, they either teach what the Apostles and disciples of Jesus taught regarding, repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost or they go to hell. Period. Especially since, these are the issues taught to the Apostles by the Lord, DESIGNED to keep you OUT of hell!
"You have no more right in defining someone's faith for them or what they do or do not understand about their own faith, than I have in defining your faith for you or deciding for you what you may or may not understand about your own faith."
This part is basically "emergent church" nonsense, that is to say, not biblical. If you are claiming to be a member of the church of Jesus Christ, I, or anyone else has the right and even the RESPONSIBILITY to see if what you believe is what the true church teaches. By "true" I mean, apostolic. Here is Paul making "judgments" about someone's "personal Faith" lol.
1 Corinthians 1:9-11 (King James Version)
9God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
10Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
See, this is pretty much the reason that Ephesians 4:5 declares there to be ONLY ONE FAITH. Because salvation is specific, not unknowable and vague. There are specific requirements that you must accomplish in order to be saved. Having "faith" is just one of them. When you "Repent" you speak in tongues (acts 2:1-4, Acts 2:13-33) this comes not when you believe but after, when you "repent". Eph 1:13-15 . If you let me, I'll teach you something.. Here's Paul Judging the faith of someone!
1 Corinthians 5
1It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
Now, who is Paul to "judge the faith" of someone claiming to be Christian? So what if the guy thinks he can be saved and still FORNICATE (sex before marriage, continuously and unrepentedly)? After all who is Paul to "judge"? You should read 1 Co 5 in it's entirety. Paul goes on to say.....
4In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
So basically Paul is calling for the fornicator to be thrown out of the church and the reason?
6Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
Sin in your midst becomes sin tolerated and pretty soon your whole church is busy "loving the sinner" but "hating the sin" two demonic doctrines that exist NOWHERE in the bible, and you're on your way to the lake! Here's Paul "judging" the faith and telling the people who TOLERATED the FORNICATOR that they were OUT OF THE WILL OF GOD.
Then of course there's the Lord himself telling us to "BEWARE FALSE PROPHETS", well, how are you supposed to "beware them" if you don't "judge" what the heck they teach? OR how about Jesus telling you , in regards to false prophets, "By their fruit ye shall know them", now how are you supposed to know a false prophet by his fruit if you can't "judge" the Fruit? What you wrote is a bunch of liberal claptrap nowhere near sound doctrine.
~Acts....like a tool
February 19, 2009 - 23:58 ET by choselife3x1. I am not a 'he'.
2. I am not a Catholic.
3. I have never made ANY 'statements about my faith' on this site. Other than to say that I am..not..a..Catholic.
(non-denominational Protestant, thank you)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Didn't say you said you were
February 20, 2009 - 00:59 ET byDidn't say you said you were catholic. I said that the things you said in response to the scriptures I printed was cracked in the head! I specifically commented on what YOU have said, about the truth that I have taught. If you don't believe me you don't believe Jesus because I only teach what He taught His disciples of which , I am the least. He said you MUST be BORN AGAIN. You choose to scoff at this. HE told you that being "born again" involved receiving HIS SPIRIT and HE told you on multiple occasions HOW that is accomplished, John 3:1-8 with emphasis on v.8, Mark 16:15-20, He told you that you would "speak in other tongues" I just REPEATED it. It is a fact that those who were PROMISED the Holy Ghost here, John 14:26, Acts 1:8, ALL received it with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues! Acts 2:4. When you scoff at me you're scoffing at the Word because THAT is ALL that I teach and preach! When you "choose" tradition over clearly written word, that's on you buddy. But don't expect me not to correct it. That's what I do. I correct false doctrine. And as one who has had the privilege of seeing untold numbers of people filled with the Lord's Holy Spirit, I certainly know false doctrine when you write it. As a lowly man who has been blessed to have people receive the Holy Spirit as a result of my teaching, as a man fortunate enough to be used by God to "water", I am blessed beyond measure Although as the scriptures says he that planteth is nothing and he that watereth is nothing only God which giveth the "increase", meaning His Spirit. So I'm not boasting, I'm just blessed, because I certainly didn't deserve it.
You have scoffed at plainly printed scripture, that says all I needed to hear about your "faith".
~I have never addressed
February 20, 2009 - 01:07 ET by choselife3xYour use of Scripture. Who are you confusing me with?
I'm not interested in telling you anything about my faith. I simply enjoy watching you foam and convulse.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Then what the heck is your
February 20, 2009 - 01:27 ET byThen what the heck is your problem lady? I'm telling people who have been misled by false doctrine the truth of salvation as the APOSTLES taught it. Not as "tradition" or my mama for that matter taught it, and you're playing games?
I don't "foam" or "convulse", I simply, instantly know, where the refutation of anyone's false doctrine is, thank you Jesus. Since I have been given this gift, the ability to know where the PROOF in scripture is for ANY bit of false doctrine, what would you suggest I do with it. JUST KIDDING. Don't answer that! LOL. Anyhoo, that's is why i do what I do ma'am. I have been blessed beyond measure and the Lord is calling His people to repentance.
So anytime, anywhere false doctrine is raised in my presence or awareness, I will scripturally refute it. What you do with the information is on you. As I said before, i have been privileged to see and do things in Jesus that people like you would never believe. People like you are my burden for that gift. But you can still repent. You can still read and learn for yourself. Test me . Prove me WRONG , biblically. If thou canst. Maybe we'll both learn something. I'm willing. R U?
Oi!
February 20, 2009 - 01:30 ET by BlondeWe have our very own right wing dingbat here.
No wonder the libs hate us.
Sheesh....how embarassing.
Now say something nice, Keith. About me.
What we have here is a poser
February 20, 2009 - 01:44 ET by CobraManWhat we have here is a poser, someone pretending to be religious as to leave embarrassing, demeaning, intolerant posts at a "Conservative" website. He'll soon be posting at the Democratic Underground or the Daily Kos under a different name and use copies his own posts here as to demonstrate how "crazy" the "Religious Right" is and how NB is willing, even eager, to allow this to be posted on their website.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Don't worry, Blonde...
February 20, 2009 - 01:47 ET by JerDon't worry, Blonde...
Keith and Acts are in an entirely separate category.
Jer
I don't think so, Jer
February 20, 2009 - 01:50 ET by BlondeIn fact, I believe they are one and the same.
Only Keith got banned....and Acts is still here.
But the similarity is amazing....perhaps they are identical twins, a la Ahnold and Danny DeVito.
Blonde...
February 20, 2009 - 02:15 ET by JerI meant they both [together] are in a category entirely separate from the normal range of consevatives at this site.
Are they one and the same person? Maybe, but I don't think so. But a lot of similarities.
Jer
Are you divine?
February 20, 2009 - 01:32 ET by CobraMan"I don't "foam" or "convulse", I simply, instantly know, where the refutation of anyone's false doctrine is, thank you Jesus."
Are you divine? Can you see into the heart and mind of another as to judge them as God would judge? Come to think of it, are you even ORDAINED?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Of course, Cobra
February 20, 2009 - 01:34 ET by BlondeHe doesn't "foam" or "convulse"...the day nurse takes care of it.
I've seen such a bunch of silliness....the last time I saw this amount was from the troll Keith. But I digress.....
Up his meds
February 20, 2009 - 01:38 ET by CobraManThe day nurse needs to up his meds. The current dosage isn't working.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
~I'm glad you're so astute
February 20, 2009 - 01:40 ET by choselife3xAbout false doctrine. This is our fifth encounter and you only just figured out I'm female.
And yes, I've been playing you like a fiddle every time.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
cl
February 20, 2009 - 01:47 ET by BlondeTry a high c.
Sounds great......troll screamin' in an octave above sound a human can hear.
~It's the wailing
February 20, 2009 - 01:56 ET by choselife3xAnd gnashing of teeth that really amuses me. Excuse me, Acts....like a tool is in need of tuning. I apologise for the horrendous noise.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Perhaps it is time to resurrect this classic Holy War thread:
February 20, 2009 - 02:37 ET by R D Helmhttp://newsbusters.o...
LOL-Not that I had anything to do with it. :-^)
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
You're not teaching
February 20, 2009 - 01:20 ET by CobraMan"about the truth that I have taught"
You're NOT teaching, you're screaching. Which one of us inquired as to your interpretations of the Bible? In order to teach there must be a student willing to learn. If no one is willing, you can't be teaching. You're doing nothing more than yelling your beliefs out in public. How is THAT teaching?
Now you know why real Preachers are ORDAINED and have a CONGREGATION!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
If you make a statement
February 20, 2009 - 01:41 ET byIf you make a statement about Christ, and that statement is WRONG and I correct it scripturally, then, you have been taught. Whether you learn is up to you. When a poster or a reporter tries to uphold false doctrine, I will refute it scripturally, something folk like you NEVER do.
These are not My BELIEFS, Lord help us if they were. These are the facts, statements of fact, and actions of the Lord's Apostles as it relates to the true Church of Christ. If you claim or think yourself a Christian then it is very much my purview to inquire as to what you believe and see if it matches what the Lord taught. See Acts 19:1-6 for an example of same. Should your biblical or scriptural utterance be found in scripture to be incorrect, it is my job to fix it. Appointed by Christ not by you.
Now you know why real Preachers are ORDAINED and have a CONGREGATION!
Which of the preachers in the bible was "ordained" by men? I KNOW you don't know the answer so I'll tell you his name was Matthias and know what happened to his "ordination" by the apostles? He was removed and the Lord picked Saul who became Paul. So the Lord has to call and send the preacher, not a bunch of old stuffies in bible college. That said....How do you know that I am not an "ordained" preacher?
For your information I have been ordained in the state of California in the Apostolic faith. I did it because so many people like you, are hung up on a "form of godliness" but lack the power thereof. Folks like a shiny certificate. However, most of those in this world who have been "ordained" have been "ordained" by men and falsely at that. Very few bible colleges teach salvation the way the apostles did, this isn't CHINESE, all you have to do is READ the book of acts and then call a bible college!
Say, "Hey the Apostles baptized in the name of JESUS CHRIST, how do you baptize"? And see what ya get!
Say, "Hey according to the eleventh and fifteenth chapters of the book of acts, the apostles didn't consider anyone saved unless they received the Holy Ghost the same way the apostles did. That is, with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. Not to mention that Christ taught that very thing in Mark 16:15-20...and see what you get. I know what you'll get when you simply quote the actual scriptures to them, but do you? YOu might be surprised.
No
February 20, 2009 - 01:50 ET by CobraMan"If you make a statement about Christ, and that statement is WRONG and I correct it scripturally, then, you have been taught."
No, you have merely expressed an opinion. For me to be "taught," I would need to agree with your opinion that the things someone says about Jesus is wrong. You are hardly an expert on Jesus, or the Bible, so I don't agree with your opinions, not in the very least. You haven't taught me anything at all, other than the fact that you seem to think you're an expert on scripture simply because you can cut and past passages from the Bible. That doesn't impress me, not at all.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Acts
February 20, 2009 - 02:16 ET by CobraManActs, do you know WHY I reject your interpretations of the Bible? It's because you believe that YOU know what the Scriptures really mean, that you understand the Scriptures while others do not. But what does Scripture say about relying upon your own understanding:
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding."
The very Bible you quote as to project your mastery of Biblical knowledge of Christ tells you NOT to rely upon your knowledge as you are not divine so your understanding of the Divine is limited at best.
So, tell me again how you are somehow BLESSED with Divine knowledge?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Christ did not send me to
February 20, 2009 - 00:03 ET by botgChrist did not send me to baptize --------- Paul the Apostle
Paul did indeed say that but
February 20, 2009 - 00:48 ET byPaul did indeed say that but from your citation of it, it is obvious that it's meaning escapes you. There was an issue in the Corinthian church of "fandom", because of the TREMENDOUS anointing that accompanied the Apostles and disciples, healings, raisings from the DEAD, etc, people were jumping on various "bandwagons". They started claiming to be the disciple of the particular person WHO BAPTIZED THEM as opposed to being the disciple of the one in whose NAME THEY WERE BAPTIZED. Allow me...
1 Co 1: 12-19
12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
See Paul was asking if "Paul was crucified for you" or "Apollos" or whomever else? He was chiding them for removing their faith from Christ to someone else. Paul sarcastically tells them that he is glad that he didn't baptize any of them, the thought there, which is borne by the rest of his words, is that if he had, they might very well be blaspheming that they were "Of Paul" as well as being "of Cephas" and the rest! He then gives list of the only people that he in fact, did baptize.
As and APOSTLE, Paul certainly WAS NOT sent to "baptize", what do you think a "DISCIPLE" is for? While it is an important work, your citation indicates you think to the contrary, it is an ELEMENTARY work (Rom 6:1-3), something befitting a disciple and not an apostle. Though elementary, it still a work that you and most of the others here still fail to grasp. While Paul was not "called to baptize" he did INDEED baptize. many. In fact, similar to what I have done on this blog, when Paul found those who were PRACTICING FALSE DOCTRINE, he "judged it" and then he CORRECTED it. In fact, when he found some disciples baptizes LIKE YOU and all others who have followed a traditional baptism in ERROR, he CHANGED THEIR BAPTISM. Oh, and he also waited until they received the Holy Ghost, the same way i told you , like this....Acts 2:4
Acts 19
1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
7And all the men were about twelve.
GEE BOTG, you've actually helped me PROVE my point! We should work together more often! In this one passage of scripture you have all the things I've been telling you guys about!
1. Paul finds people who HAVE faith but their faith is MISDIRECTED because of ignorance!
2. Paul asks them if they have received the Holy Ghost SINCE they became believers! This is of course contrary to ANYTHING taught by the Pope which was the point of all of this. The pope thinks that you get the Holy Spirit WHEN you believe and therefore there needs be no outward manifestation or speaking in tongues! The pope thinks that it's more like an inner conversion. Well, PAUL certainly knew better than that! Paul asked if it had happened SINCE they believed. And it HADN'T. It hadn't because NO ONE had PREACHED or TAUGHT reception of the HOLY GHOST, so Paul taught them. Just like I do for you guys time and again!
3. Paul questions there baptism! He asks them HOW THEY WERE BAPTIZED. Just like I did to all of you! WHEN THEIR ANSWERS CAME BACK INSUFFICIENT as yours did, as the popes does, HE CHANGED THEIR BAPTISM! He didn't allow them to continue in ignorance and they weren't TOO PROUD to accept sound teaching!
4. AFTER they were baptized PAUL didn't stop there! Here were BELIEVERS baptized now PROPERLY, and Paul still felt like there was WORK TO DO. The pope would have thought himself saved just by believing but Paul knows that they are NOT yet saved. Paul knows that the two-fold WATER BAPTISM and SPIRITUAL BAPTISM that Jesus taught in JOHN 3:1-8 is only partially complete! So Paul lays hands on them until the receive the Holy GHost and HOW DOES IT COME? With a new language, so that in an archetype of what the Lord did when he SEPARATED man by giving them tongues, the LORD now UNIFIES those that are His by giving them tongues! MArk 16:15-20, isaiah 28:11,12
Baptism is part of the Lord's plan of salvation, you can't change that and neither can a pope.
1 Peter 3:21 (New International Version)
21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[a] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
As romans 6:3-6 tells you, baptism is for identification with the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, do you now see why it has to be and WAS done in JESUS NAME, as opposed to the three empty titles Father Son and Holy Ghost, used by the false church?
Dude, thanks for the assist! You have helped me prove my point and you did it all by trying to insult me. Thanks!
it is obvious that it's
February 20, 2009 - 00:56 ET by botgit is obvious that it's meaning escapes you
you assume much, where is your justification for your prideful attitude?
pride---you come to the site assuming you know more than everybody here as evidenced by your need to 'teach' us all. Pride goeth
I know more than you because
February 20, 2009 - 01:17 ET byI know more than you because the Lord has blessed me to know more, not because of any intrinsic worth. I have none. I am wretched and undone without the Lord's grace, difference between me and thee, is I'm smart enough to know it! Lol. I have no "prideful" attitude. I simply print the truth in scripture. Jesus told you to Beware false Prophets, how else to judge them if not by the Word? Everything i teach you can be checked. NOTHING that the pope teaches can!
Where's praying to Mary in your bible? I can show you where it says NOT to do that though! Exodus 20:5
Where's calling a priest "father" in your bible sanctioned as a good idea. But I can show you where it say DON'T DO THAT and I can show you that the "sayer" was JESUS. ( MATT 23:7-9) The pope can't back up his appellation.
Where's it say that priests and bishops have to be celibate and CANNOT get MARRIED? But I can show you where God said that you can't even BE A BISHOP UNLESS YOU ARE MARRIED..(1 Tim 3:2) Now the Lord says you have to BE married through Paul to Timothy, the pope PREVENTS A BISHOP FROM MARRYING. At some point the math isn't that hard.
Where's it say that Jesus came to bring "Peace on earth" as the POPE continually asserts? But I can show you where Jesus warned you against thinking THAT VERY THING, Matt 10:34-36 and I'm the bad guy? You think I got nothing better to do than teach a bunch of stiff necked and rebellious know "littles"? My burden in the Lord is what has me laboriously printing the truth over and over again for you, every time you utter or report or blog some bit of false doctrine. In this case it was this reporters attempt to uphold the false doctrine of the church that was rightfully questioned ,albeit by the folks on the View !
So in short, I am a vile and villianous man who was lucky enough to have been saved by Jesus Christ, FULLY saved. Do I struggle with sin? As long as I'm in this flesh. Do I think myself "better" than you? Au contraire mon frere. I am far WORSE than you. Far worse than ANY of you in all likelihood. It's what led me to cry out for salvation. It's what led me to repent. And that's what I preach to you because I know that without "repentance" no man shall see God. And I know what happens when you TRULY repent...you get confirmation (acts 2:4, acts 2:33).
I know very well what pride goeth before, my friend, as the Apostle said best, if I boast, my boast is in the Lord. When i tell you I know something and SHOW it to you, it is because of the Lord's gift of the word of Knowledge. Of which, i am in no way "worthy". But I have been blessed and for that, I thank the Lord Jesus.
There it is, folks.
February 20, 2009 - 01:23 ET by CobraMan"I know more than you because the Lord has blessed me to know more"
There it is, folks, the admission of false prophacy.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Good Night, Barry.
February 20, 2009 - 01:26 ET by BlondeWe are sick to death of you.
Already.
surely you are the man and
February 20, 2009 - 01:28 ET by botgsurely you are the man and wisdom will die with you!
why do you rail to me against the Bishop of Rome?
this i will 'give' you, you must have many enemies within your own household, therefore be wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
~Acts....like a tool
February 20, 2009 - 01:30 ET by choselife3xWhy would you use the Pope and Mary to prove your superior knowledge when no one you are presently speaking with has professed Catholicism?
You don't have a CLUE what we know, and I for one would never share what I know with you because I don't care to cast pearls before swine.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
The Gift of Prophecy
February 20, 2009 - 02:51 ET by dark_dsMost people who think that have the gift of prophecy dont but it does inflate the ego which does give the feeling of the spirit moving thru ya
Course you maybe truly have the gift then please carry on untill the masses end up killing ya
"America is on the Short Bus to Socialism"
~Acts.....like a tool
February 20, 2009 - 01:02 ET by choselife3xI very much doubt you'd know the Holy Ghost if He goosed you in the dark.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
False Prophet
February 20, 2009 - 00:35 ET by CobraMan"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
For someone who professes a belief in the Bible, you sure do seem to miss a lot of it.
So, once again, how DARE you judge someone else's faith? You are not God so you don't know the faith that lays within the heart of another. By claiming that YOU are knowledgeable of another's faith, you raise yourself up to the level of a prophet, and a false prophet at that. What does God say about false prophets?
You also have no idea what faith really is:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Tell me, false prophet, what does that verse mean to you? I'll tell you what it means to me, it means that Faith is something that resides within you, it doesn't reside within the pages of the Bible. Faith can't be defined by mere words, it must be felt. Each person feels that faith within them. That faith is not located in the pages of the Bible. Inspiration for that faith can be found in the Bible, and a lot of other places as well, but the Bible is NOT the source for faith. That faith is mine, and mine alone. Who are YOU to judge my faith?
"My soul finds rest in God alone: My salvation comes from Him. "
Your salvation comes from God, not the Bible. So, false prophet, what do you say to that?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
~I don't know who Acts.....like a tool
February 20, 2009 - 00:45 ET by choselife3xIs confusing me with. (must be a man, he keeps calling me one)
Acts.....like a tool cannot seem to wrap his shriveled vestiges of gray matter around the fact that I have never once discussed my personal beliefs here. Or ever addressed his use or application of Scripture. I just point out that he's Acting....like a tool.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Acts is trying to be some kind of prophet
February 20, 2009 - 00:50 ET by CobraManActs is trying to be some kind of prophet, but he's a prophet only in his own mind. That makes him a false prophet. And like most false prophets, he is convinced of his own moral and intellectual superiority over everyone else. It doesn't matter who you are, you're not Acts, so you must bow to his self-declared superiority in all things religious.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Clanging Cymbal
February 20, 2009 - 00:50 ET by dark_dsClanging Cymbal Alert
"America is on the Short Bus to Socialism"
agapeo ---- phileo -----
February 20, 2009 - 00:58 ET by botgagapeo ---- phileo ----- eros ----- storge
not found, you may have hit it darkman
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Mathews vi, 7
February 19, 2009 - 20:39 ET by CobraManIn response to Act's excessively long post:
"They think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." Matthew vi. 7.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Like most who know
February 20, 2009 - 00:10 ET byLike most who know little, you take even what you know out of context. First, it 's not Matthew vi. 7, what the heck is "vi.7"? is that some scriptural reference? If you're going to be a big mouth and come into an existing debate AT THE LEAST, you might actually know what the hell you're talking about! Is that too much to ask?
"vi"- is not a biblical annotation, or reference to a scripture, it means NOTHING.
(v. 7 ) on the other hand IS scriptural notation and it means VERSE seven. But that would be really STOOPID to cite by itself, since most of the chapters in the bible have a seventh verse. And we couldn't possible know to what you are referring. Is it because YOU don't know what you're referring to either? I think so.
Let's see, could you have been mistakenly of course, thinking about this?
Matthew 6:6-8 (King James Version)
6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
8Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him
The context is PRAYING not TEACHING. Further proving that you know precious little about which you speak. The apostles taught all night. Paul taught so long that a guy fell asleep in a window where he was sitting, fell down into the street and died.
Acts 20:8-10 (King James Version)
8And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.
9And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
10And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
The Apostle raised him from the dead and kept on teaching. See, there's nothing wrong with teaching for a long time as long as what you're teaching is biblical. Now that you see how silly your citation of that scripture was, and how "redonculous" you look for NOT EVEN KNOWING HOW TO WRITE it ....Matt 6:7 and how DISHONEST it would be to cut that scripture in half and leave off it's subject which is PRAYER, perhaps you'll go back and read what I wrote with a bible handy. That way this lesson won't be for naught.
Matt vi:7 Matt
February 20, 2009 - 00:19 ET by botgMatt vi:7
Matt 6:7
Roman numerals dude
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
~botg
February 20, 2009 - 00:32 ET by choselife3xEver wonder what would happen if you gave a gerbil some crack, a Bible, and an Internet connection?
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
well cl3
February 20, 2009 - 00:41 ET by botgwhat our friend here misses is that it's "be ready to give an answer to all who ask" who asked? Paul was teaching a group who asked him to teach and wanted to hear what he was saying.
the context of the verses in Matt 6 is those who made long 'prayers' (speeches) on the streets --- to be seen of men, does that sound familiar?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
→ Now, a Protestant Tumbler?
February 20, 2009 - 00:52 ET by Cool ArrowLooks like the mods have dropped the ban on religious bashing.
Bring on Tumbler, Debra, and futbolisgreat.
Let's have some fun.
What the hey? PopTech still gets away with his incessant vain repetitions, and I've been too restrained for too long.
Throw out the rules, and as Mills Lane would say "Let's get it on"
It's kinda funny
February 20, 2009 - 01:10 ET by CobraManIt's kinda funny that a man who claims that he has a Bible in his hand couldn't seem to figure that out.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Your not teaching, you preaching
February 20, 2009 - 00:40 ET by CobraManYou're not teaching, you're preaching. And Preaching, And Preaching.... Most religious people already attend a church. They really don't need you preaching to them here. Who ordained YOU as our preacher?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Intolerance?
February 19, 2009 - 20:12 ET by BlueCat57I'm right, you're wrong. What's intolerant about that? Do they even know what he word intolerance means?
I had a neighbor who thought McCain was a good candidate because he was bipartisan. Who gives a sh!t? I want someone to represent my point of view, not compromise.
Another acquantance was ecstatic when Obama got elected because other countries would like us again. Who gives a sh!t? Other countries should fear us and know that if they cross us they'll get their bu#s kicked. We're not here to be liked. We're here to make every American rich and happy. If people in other countries get rich and happy along the way that's great.
Is it intolerant to think that jumping out of an airplane with a parachute is dangerous when others think it is just great fun?
If I'm right about religion, I go to heaven. So why is it intolerant to want you to go to heaven too? Sounds to me like I'm pretty tolerant if I want to share eternal joy with you.
Phewww!
February 21, 2009 - 09:33 ET by BlueCat57I'm glad I hit the refresh button. When I first came back to this thread it looked like my post was the oldest and that I had started some sort of religous rant. When I first posted my comment Acts2:38's comment wasn't there eventhough the timestamp indicates that it should have been.
My two favorite comments out of the "discussion" follow. I like them because they point out the ignorance of most people not only on religion in general, but their own religious beliefs. I challenge the Catholics here to, without looking it up in Wikipedia, give me the date that Papal infallibility (if that is the right word) became Catholic policy, and a clear explanation of the Immaculate Conception. I'm guessing most practicing Catholics wouldn't be able to and most non-Catholics don't even have a clue.
I'm also sick of this "everyone is going to heaven" mentality of liberal churches. If you believe that then why are you wasting your time in church? My church would be an orgy room everyday of the week until my gonads fell off. Then I'd find some other hedonistic pleasure to pursue until I burned out and died. Hey I'm going to heaven not matter what anyway.
To paraphrase the uncle from the Chronicles of Narnia - Don't they teach you logic anymore? Christ can't be god, blasphemer, prophet and just a man all at the same time. Logically only one is right. You can decide which for yourself. (Note: this is an example of logic, NOT an invitation to debate.)
What a load
February 18, 2009 - 22:43 ET by moderncommentaries83
What a load of crappity crap crap:
GOLDBERG: "He was not -- if you believe the Bible. Jesus was, you know -- He was like, look, we don’t agree, but that’s cool. Let’s see what we do agree on. And to me, any religion that says it’s us and forget about them, that’s a sin."
First, I wish someone had the balls to pull out the Catechism and ask them to find where it says Jesus was "cool" with sin. He makes it very clear in many passages that not only is sin intolerable, but it is a surefire way to guarantee you will be separated from the wheat and the sheep and cast out with the chaf and the goats.
Second, any religion - and, more specifically, any religious leader - who doesn't wholeheartedly believe the faith he professes is not to be trusted. Why in the world would I trust a man with my salvation who says any faith is a-okay and that there are many paths to heaven.
Third, I would ask them to prove and explain how saying X behavior is a sin = intolerance.
If "intolerance" is the only sin, then liberals would know because they have been utterly intolerant of Catholicism for decades, if not millenia.
If anyone from the Newsbusters staff can get word to producers of The View, I'd be glad to go on there and debate this morons on Catholic teaching any day of the week.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
illiteracy
February 19, 2009 - 06:47 ET by Nonanon
I think liberals are elected because so many Americans are biblically, economically, and constitutionally illiterate. This is another example of it. So much truth has been disregarded and re-defined by the liberals and has then been forced upon the rest of us. I hope it will turn around, but am not real certain it will given the number of people who refuse to take responsibility for the things they chose to do and demand that stuff be done for them.