Comparing Catholic Beliefs with the Teachings of Jesus in Scripture

2ndpillar · Dec 15, 2018

Deeje said:
The question is...does God judge the Catholic church on the Bible alone? If Jesus based all his teachings on scripture, then shouldn't all Christians do that too?

One is judged by "the word I spoke" (John 12:48) And the Scripture Yeshua used was the "Law and the prophets" (Matthew 5:17). It is not the same for the "Christians", who follow the lawless (Romans 7:6) false prophet Paul.

New American Standard Bible John 12:48
"He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

2ndpillar · Dec 15, 2018

pcarl said:
3. The written Gospels. ‘The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus'

How are "Mark" & "Luke" declared "sacred authors", when no one even knows who wrote those books?

2ndpillar · Dec 15, 2018

pcarl said:
Many Catholics hold personal beliefs concerning Mary which are not part of the 'Deposit of Faith' not official church teaching. Mary has no merit of her own. There is one mediator between God and man and that is Christ.

I don't know, but it seems that the nuns taught the hail Mary prayer, and the priest handed out repeating the "hail Mary" prayer in group of tens, as penance. A big time sinner would need a rosary to keep count. Also, in the front of the church was a statue of Mary, in which the old women knelt on the kneeling platform, and lighted candles for her to be their intercessor. Of course, the pope had indicated to the women that Mary was in heaven per his Ex Cathedra, whereas the pope supposedly speaks for God.

Deeje · Dec 15, 2018

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Are you bound and determined to invent conspiracy theories for every aspect of every denomination you don't agree with, or is this something you only do with the Catholics?

Is there a reason why an atheist is defending the Catholic church?.....was this the religion you left perhaps?

The evidence for my assertions are there in the pictures....or does the camera lie? Was it just coincidence that the Romans worshipped the sun along with their Emperor, who was not a 'baptized' Christian until on his deathbed?

He was an astute politician who 'ran with the hare and hunted with the hounds'. He sacrificed to Zeus his entire life, but made a pretense of being Christian. Would you like the founder of your church to have such credentials?

He was merely consolidating his divided empire, playing to all parties. Every pagan festival that the Romans held was renamed so that they could still enjoy their festivities and customs, how else could he make this the state religion without a revolt?.....but the name change did not Christianize the paganism....it paganized the Christianity.....and that is what you have to this very day. Christendom's two main celebrations are 'borrowed' from renamed Roman festivals. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

From the Bible's perspective, it was foretold that Christianity would be corrupted in much the same way that Judaism was. Men started to promote their own ideas and traditions (often borrowed from paganism) and they led the people away from true worship and on into something unrecognizable to God. (Matthew 13:24-30; Matthew 13:36-43; Matthew 15:7-9; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 1 Peter 4:1-3; Luke 6:46; Acts of the Apostles 20:30; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4; Matthew 7:21-23)

This is the "mother" church....and she has many daughters, all of whom are attached to her primary doctrines....none of which you will find in scripture, but will see plainly in non-Christian worship.

To many people, this will be a new and disturbing concept.....but one they need to evaluate on the evidence, not just on an assertion made on an Internet forum. I want to create a reason for people to go and do their own research. Jesus said that 'good trees do not produce rotten fruit'....check out the history of Roman Catholicism and you will see a lot of rotten fruit....the torture and murders of innocent people falsely accused by the Inquisition....the systemic physical and sexual abuse suffered by children place in their institutions by the very ones assigned to care for them......the conquest of lands that forced conversion to the Catholic faith at the point of a sword.....Its not that Catholic people are rotten, but that false doctrines and practices dressed up as Christianity, have led their people down the wrong road. No one has to take my word for that, but I hope at least that some will examine the evidence for themselves.

This thread is not intended to be an assault on Catholic people, but an expose' on the institution that feeds them rotten fruit in the form of false doctrines. They trust these men to lead them, but they need to see where they have been led and who was responsible for this travesty. Who could be more confused about Christianity than someone searching for God in today's world? The Bible explains the reason for this situation.

It seems to me you ignored what I said - that they don't have any rule that it has to be a particular shape - jumped on your own nonsense, and just took off running.

I expanded on "why" there was a shape to the bread at all....one that many who have grown up in the Catholic faith may never have even thought of.

Evidence for the pagan roots of Roman Catholicism is in plain sight for those whose vision is not clouded by a misguided sense of loyalty. Please remember that the majority of Jews rejected Jesus for that very reason. If Jesus had not come to take the blinkers off the Jews in the first century, then who would be a Christian today?

As Jesus said...."let he who has ears, listen."

pearl · Dec 15, 2018

2ndpillar said:
How are "Mark" & "Luke" declared "sacred authors", when no one even knows who wrote those books?

Because they are God inspired.

Deeje · Dec 15, 2018

pcarl said:
Many Catholics hold personal beliefs concerning Mary which are not part of the 'Deposit of Faith' not official church teaching. Mary has no merit of her own. There is one mediator between God and man and that is Christ.

pcarl said:
Since the Gospel writers interpreted the meaning and purpose of Jesus through Hebrew Scripture;

the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation." (Note in this instance that the word "you" is singular, referring to Noah only. Yet, by virtue of Noah's righteousness, his whole family is taken into the ark. Peter compares this event to Baptism in 1 Peter 3:20,21)

Yes, I noticed that with regard to the jailer as well...

Acts of the Apostles 16:34 says...."He brought them into his house and set a table before them, and he rejoiced greatly with all his household now that he had believed in God."

Husbands were heads of their families and responsible before God to raise them with all the directives contained in God's word. Same with those in pre-Christian times and in the Patriarchal system before that.

Yet to tie that in with what Paul said at 1 Corinthians 712-14...."If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she is agreeable to staying with him, let him not leave her; 13 and if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is agreeable to staying with her, let her not leave her husband. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy."

This indicates to me that 'believing' parents, even if there is only one, have their children 'sanctified' (or viewed as holy) along with their unbelieving mates, because of the faith of the believing parent, who would teach their children about God and his Christ. This to me does not necessitate baptism for infants if the parent is baptized, the children are sanctified by God until they are of age to make their own choice. This depends entirely on the maturity of the child and whether or not they want to follow in the same path as their parent(s). As I said, baptism is a choice, not a ritual. It isn't the act of baptism that makes one a Christian...its the choice behind the act that matters to God. What do you think?

pcarl said:
Genesis 12:17 "But the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife."

Genesis 18:19 "For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him."

Deuteronomy 14:26 "And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household."

Joshua 24:15 "And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

1 Samuel 25:6 "And thus you shall say to him who lives inprosperity: 'Peace be to you, peace to your house, and peace to all that you have!"

These passages speak of houses being blessed or condemned by virtue of the spiritual status of the head of that household. Joshua, cited above, even takes responsibility not only for his own serving the Lord, but for his family's as well.

I agree with all of that. A household includes all who live under that roof. The paternal head was to take responsibility for his whole family.

And, yes, that applied in a negative way as well as in a positive sense. If the paternal head was convicted of acts deserving of death...his whole family went with him. It sounds cruel, but I believe it was meant to motivate those men to do the right thing, seeing as how every decision they made would affect their whole family, it should have made them think twice about everything.

And just as significant are those passages that mention the household but explicitly exclude children:

Genesis 50:7-8 "So Joseph went up to bury his father; and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt, as well as all the house of Joseph, his brothers, and his father's house. Only their little ones, their flocks, and their herds they left in the land of Goshen."

1 Samuel 1:21,22 "Now the man Elkanah and all his house went up to offer to the LORD the yearly sacrifice and his vow. But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, 'Not until the child is weaned; then I will take him, that he may appear before the LORD and remain there forever.'"

The exceptions prove the rule. In both of the above cases, when the biblical writer mentions the entire household, he feels the need to point out in this case that the children are not included. He would not point this out unless the term "house" presumed otherwise.

Yes, there are passages that exclude children....but we can't make every instance a rule for all other passages. We can use deduction, but scripture usually explains other scripture.

pcarl said:
To get the full flavor of this truth, we ought to see the entire New Testament witness. Look at these verses one by one, remembering the normal meaning that any Jew or instructed Gentile would attach to the word "house" and let the cumulative force of these verses overwhelm you:

Matthew 10:12-14 "And when you go into a household, greet it. If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet."

Luke 19:9 "And Jesus said to him, 'Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham'"

John 4:53 "So the father knew that it was at the same hour in which Jesus said to him, 'Your son lives.' And he himself believed, and his whole household."

Acts 2:38-39 "Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.'"

Acts 10:2 "[Cornelius was] a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always."

Acts 11:14-18 "'[Peter] will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.' And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God? When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, 'Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.'"

Acts 16:14-15 "Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, 'If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.' So she persuaded us."

Acts 16:31-34 "So they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.' Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household."

Acts 18:8 "Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized." (Note well that Paul refers back to this event in 1 Corinthians 1:14 as the baptism of "Crispus." It is clear that in Paul's mind, to baptize "Crispus" is necessarily to baptize the members of his household under his headship as well.)

1 Corinthians 1:16 "Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other."

2 Timothy 1:16 "The Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain."

Hebrews 11:7,9 "By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.... By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise."

No problem with any of that. But again it is not clearly stated that infants in any of those households were baptized. Going by what is said of those who did undergo baptism, it was their choice, but only after the gospel had been preached to them. Since the whole household was 'sanctified' by the actions of the family head, there was no valid reason to 'dunk' infants under water. (which I assume could have been dangerous for them had they inhaled the water)

Baptism involved full immersion, not a simple sprinkling of water over their head. Full immersion was significant as it actually represented a 'dying' to the doing of one's own will first in life, and being 'raised' as a new person, dedicated to the doing of God's will in following the teachings of Jesus Christ....not just some of the convenient ones, but all of them. It also meant refraining from activities that God condemns. Gentiles in particular had more to learn than Jews about those things.

It was a public act so that witnesses would know if someone was a baptized Christian. Jews had their appearance and dress to identify them, but many Christians were Gentiles so the public act of baptism now identified them as belonging to "The Way".

2ndpillar · Dec 15, 2018

pcarl said:
Because they are God inspired.

They are "God inspired" according to who? The "daughter of Babylon" who sits on the "Roman" head of the "beast"( Revelation 17:3)? I think Revelation 18:4, says one is come out of "her".

PruePhillip · Dec 15, 2018

pcarl said:
Because they are God inspired.

I am fairly confident the authors of these Gospels are the actual ones.
The church had these documents passed down for generations, and
they were known by these names.
The authors of Luke, Matthew and John bear some resemblance to the
characters in these Gospels.
Furthermore, it shouldn't matter WHO wrote them. They were left
DELIBERATELY unnamed by the authors.

Glaurung · Dec 16, 2018

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Are you bound and determined to invent conspiracy theories for every aspect of every denomination you don't agree with, or is this something you only do with the Catholics?

The OP's chosen sect was founded on a conspiracy theory. That and failed end of the world predictions.

Deeje · Dec 16, 2018

Musing Bassist said:
The OP's chosen sect was founded on a conspiracy theory. That and failed end of the world predictions.

I predict that you will die sometime in the next one hundred years......how accurate is that prediction? I believe that it is 100% accurate but I can't tell you precisely "when" in that hundred years, it will happen. Same with the end time prophesies...its not the prophesy that is wrong because it is bound to happen.....but "when" is not given to us.....there are clues though. They are all in evidence...so it isn't a case of a failed prophesy....its just "when" it will be fulfilled. Are you ready?

Glaurung · Dec 16, 2018

Deeje said:
I predict that you will die sometime in the next one hundred years......how accurate is that prediction?

Accurate, although not particularly useful.

Deeje said:
how accurate is that prediction? I believe that it is 100% accurate but I can't tell you precisely "when" in that hundred years, it will happen.

But your predecessors did claim certainty concerning the "whens".

1877: Christ's kingdom would hold full sway over the earth in 1914; the Jews, as a people, would be restored to God's favor; the "saints" would be carried to heaven.[28]
1891: 1914 would be "the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men."[29]
1904: "World-wide anarchy" would follow the end of the Gentile Times in 1914.[30]
1916: World War I would terminate in Armageddon and the rapture of the "saints".[31]
1917: In 1918, Christendom would go down as a system to oblivion and be succeeded by revolutionary governments. God would "destroy the churches wholesale and the church members by the millions." Church members would "perish by the sword of war, revolution and anarchy." The dead would lie unburied. In 1920 all earthly governments would disappear, with worldwide anarchy prevailing.[32]
1920: Messiah's kingdom would be established in 1925 and bring worldwide peace. God would begin restoring the earth. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other faithful patriarchs would be resurrected to perfect human life and be made princes and rulers, the visible representatives of the New Order on earth. Those who showed themselves obedient to God would never die.[33]
1922: The anti-typical "jubilee" that would mark God's intervention in earthly affairs would take place "probably the fall" of 1925.[34]
1924: God's restoration of Earth would begin "shortly after" October 1, 1925. Jerusalem would be made the world's capital. Resurrected "princes" such as Abel, Noah, Moses and John the Baptist would give instructions to their subjects around the world by radio, and airplanes would transport people to and from Jerusalem from all parts of the globe in just "a few hours".[35]
1938: Armageddon was too close for marriage or child bearing.[36]
1941: There were only "months" remaining until Armageddon.[37]
1942: Armageddon was "immediately before us."[38]
1961: Awake! magazine stated that Armageddon "will come in the twentieth century. ... This generation will see its fulfillment."[39]
1966: It would be 6000 years since man's creation in the fall of 1975 and it would be "appropriate" for Christ's thousand-year reign to begin at that time.[40] Time was "running out, no question about that."[41] The "immediate future" was "certain to be filled with climactic events ... within a few years at most", the final parts of Bible prophecy relating to the "last days" would undergo fulfillment as Christ's reign began.
1967: The end-time period (beginning in 1914) was claimed to be so far advanced that the time remaining could "be compared, not just to the last day of a week, but rather, to the last part of that day".[42]
1968: No one could say "with certainty" that the battle of Armageddon would begin in 1975, but time was "running out rapidly" with "earthshaking events" soon to take place.[43] In March 1968 there was a "short period of time left", with "only about ninety months left before 6000 years of man's existence on earth is completed".[44]
1969: The existing world order would not last long enough for young people to grow old; the world system would end "in a few years." Young Witnesses were told not to bother pursuing tertiary education for this reason.[45]
1974: There was just a "short time remaining before the wicked world's end" and Witnesses were commended for selling their homes and property to "finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service."[47]
1984: There were "many indications" that "the end" was closer than the end of the 20th century.[48]
1989: The Watchtower asserted that Christian missionary work begun in the first century would "be completed in our 20th century".[49] When the magazine was republished in bound volumes, the phrase "in our 20th century" was replaced with the less specific "in our day".

Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses - Wikipedia

Deeje said:
Are you ready?

I don't smugly assume my own salvation. But I do hope in God's mercy. Not just for me, but for all. Even for those caught in the multitude of false sects. (Among which I obviously include yours).

pearl · Dec 16, 2018

2ndpillar said:
I don't know, but it seems that the nuns taught the hail Mary prayer, and the priest handed out repeating the "hail Mary" prayer in group of tens, as penance.

Penance should not be understood as punishment for sin, but meditative prayer that helps the penitent avoid a repetition of sin. The heart is always in need of conversion. Its ones conscience that seeks forgiveness.

2ndpillar said:
Of course, the pope had indicated to the women that Mary was in heaven per his Ex Cathedra, whereas the pope supposedly speaks for God.

I think you may be referring to the 'Assumption of Mary'. As far as I know there is no text in the NT that refers to this dogma, but as with the Immaculate Conception they were arrived at through later reflection on Mary's role in the Gospels.

pearl · Dec 16, 2018

PruePhillip said:
Furthermore, it shouldn't matter WHO wrote them.
/QUOTE]

Pseudonymity was fairly common and didn't carry the same weight we give it today.

pearl · Dec 16, 2018

Deeje said:
This to me does not necessitate baptism for infants

Neither does it refute it.

pearl · Dec 16, 2018

2ndpillar said:
They are "God inspired" according to who? The "daughter of Babylon" who sits on the "Roman" head of the "beast"( Revelation 17:3)? I think Revelation 18:4, says one is come out of "her".

According to faith of believers whether Jews, Christians or Muslims. What you've stated is the mindset of a true fundamentalist.

9-10ths_Penguin · Dec 16, 2018

Deeje said:
Is there a reason why an atheist is defending the Catholic church?.....was this the religion you left perhaps?

I'm not defending the Catholic Church; I'm defending the truth.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize the Catholic Church. For instance, its protection of predators has been downright evil... though I understand why you chose not to criticize them on that issue, since your own church's history on the issue has been just as bad.

2ndpillar · Dec 16, 2018

pcarl said:
According to faith of believers whether Jews, Christians or Muslims. What you've stated is the mindset of a true fundamentalist.

And what is the destination of these faiths? (Matthew 7:13) They all have inherent "false prophets" (Matthew 7:15), and they are all heading for the "wrath to come" (Matthew 3:7), unless they repent and confess their sins (Matthew 3:2 & 6). Their faith in their leaders/shepherds (Ezekiel 34) is misplaced

Deeje · Dec 16, 2018

Musing Bassist said:
Accurate, although not particularly useful.

Its a sure fact based on what has taken place since humans first disobeyed their God. We assume that death will come because of the evidence that it always has.....no one knows when except those who take their own life. That is a situation where we become the murderer as well as the victim. Yet I believe that God is merciful and will judge each one of us as individuals, knowing full well our circumstances and state of mind..

But your predecessors did claim certainty concerning the "whens".

We were told by Jesus to "keep on the watch" (Matthew 24:42-44).....its a reference to the role of the watchman on the city's watchtower to alert the residents of anything approaching the city that may be of concern to those inside, either good or bad. The watchman sounded an alarm and the citizens were alerted in case action was needed. The circumstances were checked out, and if it was necessary, appropriate action was taken, but if it was deemed to be of no concern or there was no threat, the watchman resumed his duties and the city went back to business as usual. This is what we have done and why the watchtower is our logo. These alerts were noted but it was always on a wait and see basis.

The coming of the kingdom was always kept as something 'imminent' in the expectations of Christ's disciples....even as he was ascending to heaven, his apostles asked if he was going to establish his kingdom then and there? (Acts of the Apostles 1:6) There were still thousands of years to wait, but never did Christ's disciples treat it as if it couldn't happen tomorrow. Hope is what serves as "an anchor for the soul." (Hebrews 6:19)

I don't smugly assume my own salvation. But I do hope in God's mercy. Not just for me, but for all. Even for those caught in the multitude of false sects. (Among which I obviously include yours).

There is nothing "smug" about being confident about what you believe. If that is the case then Jesus and his apostles were just smug preachers in Israel walking around condemning the religious system of which they themselves were a part. How many of the Jews responded to Jesus' teachings? The majority rejected him on the say so of the religious leaders of the time.....so what made the difference between the ones who responded and those who ended up wanting him dead?

Your response here seems to indicate that you think we are smug because we believe that we are right and everyone else is wrong....was Jesus smug? Were his disciples smug? Or did they care enough about the salvation of others to carry Christ's message to those who basically were already smug in their own faith? How did Jesus and his disciples take their message to the people?

Matthew 10:11-15..."Whatever town or village you enter, find out who in it is worthy, and stay there until you leave. 12 As you enter the house, greet it. 13 If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." (NRSV Catholic Edition)

Acts of the Apostles 20:20...."I did not shrink from doing anything helpful, proclaiming the message to you and teaching you publicly and from house to house".(NRSV Catholic Edition)

Do we see people sitting in a building waiting for the people to come to them? Or do we see the Christians actively seeking those who might respond to the message?

Matthew 24:14...."And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come." (NRSV Catholic Edition)

"The end" will come only after the message has been taken into all the world. The end of what though?

Matthew 28:19-20..." Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (NRSV Catholic Edition)

What is the end of the age to Catholic understanding?

When was the last time you saw the Catholic church sending out preachers to tell their neighbors about the kingdom of God? This isn't a work just for foreign missionaries.....Jesus and his disciples took the good news to their neighbors......we should too. But what is the "good news of the kingdom"?
Can you tell me what the church teaches about that?

Sectarianism killed the Jewish faith and it has also corrupted the Christian faith as Jesus foretold. The one who sowed the "weeds" of discord is identified as satan the devil. (Matthew 13:36-39) If you check their history you will find many similarities between Judaism and Christendom. Both traded God's word for man made doctrines and traditions.
According to scripture, both will share the same fate, and for the same reason....they did not love the truth.

2 Thessalonians 2:7-12..."For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of his mouth, annihilating him by the manifestation of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, 10 and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, 12 so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned." (NRSV Catholic Edition)

There you have it.....God gives people what they want. If they want to believe lies...he will let them.

Food for thought.

Deeje · Dec 16, 2018

9-10ths_Penguin said:
I'm not defending the Catholic Church; I'm defending the truth.

What "truth" is that? Please tell me this truth.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize the Catholic Church. For instance, its protection of predators has been downright evil... though I understand why you chose not to criticize them on that issue, since your own church's history on the issue has been just as bad.

There is not an organization on earth (that has access to children) that is free of these rock spiders. The Boy Scouts....sporting teams....all churches and institutions in positions of trust, and yes, even ours....but nothing equals the magnitude of the problem experienced in Catholic institutions for God only knows how long, probably for as long as they have been in existence. Their abuses go back centuries with evidence of the torture perpetrated on innocent people at the order of the Grand Inquisitor. They got away with so much abuse because of the power they wielded over governments. They felt like they were untouchable. Answerable to no one, they got away with so much for so long that the priesthood became a haven for child abusers and pedophiles.

In the recent past, there were also some constraints that did not make it always a good thing to take the problem to the courts. Children were made to face their abusers in court and often put through cruel cross examination by the defense lawyers. This experience was often more traumatizing for the victim than the original crime.

The other problem was witnesses to the crime. Child abusers make sure that there are no witnesses, and this was also an impediment to justice being carried out.

It is important to note that the problem of child abuse was not treated the same way as it is now. It was not deemed to be that serious in times past until the victims began showing up in statistics of suicides and presenting with serious mental health problems. Once it was established that it was way more harmful than it was estimated to be, the law began to take measures to protect children in more positive ways. Thankfully now we have very good child protection measures in place.

It pays not to tell half a story.

Deeje · Dec 16, 2018

pcarl said:
Neither does it refute it.

Well I guess you have to make deductions based on what the rest of scripture says.....like the case with the immaculate conception. Understanding that Mary was simply the 'vehicle' that God used to produce his Messiah, (there had to be a human mother) there was no necessity for Mary to be sinless because God removed all stain of sin with Jesus' conception. Did it not occur to the Catholic hierarchy that if Mary had to make a "sin offering" after Jesus' birth, that she was just as sinful (imperfect) as any other woman. A fine woman indeed, especially favored and chosen by God for this role, but not given the position or accolades in scripture that the Catholic church gives her.

The supposed assumption of Mary, "body and soul" into heaven is not scriptural either, but no one seems to notice when the church departs from what is taught in the Bible. Could it be the reason why the Bible was kept from the common people for so long? If you don't know what the Bible says how would you know? Keeping the masses in ignorance is a common ploy of the wicked. (2 Corinthians11:13-15)

Keeping in mind that baptism was full immersion, then I believe subjecting an infant to that would be in some cases life threatening. Would God demand something dangerous for a little baby? Since the baptism of even one parent covered the child till they were old enough to make their own dedication to God as a disciple of Christ, why would it be necessary?

Comparing Catholic Beliefs with the Teachings of Jesus in Scripture

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Avid Bible Student

Well-Known Member

Avid Bible Student

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Denizen of Niflheim

Avid Bible Student

Denizen of Niflheim

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Well-Known Member

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student