Catholic Church is Satanic in your opinion?

[Hockeycowboy]

I can't tell you how many Bible Christians say "the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, Pagan, Unchristian, Religion of the Antichrist"!

Yet they get their "Christian Bible" and New Testament Canon , from this "Satanic, Whore of Babylon, Demon worshipping, Religion of the Antichrist, evil Church of abominations" , that it makes no sense for them to trust in such a book in the first place.

If the Catholic Church is soooo evil, then why trust a Catholic book like the Bible??

The Christian New Testament Canon is undeniably, irrefutably Catholic, because the Catholic Church at Rome, Carthage, and Hippo , determined that was the correct Canon, (of so many other sacred texts about Jesus floating around). The Church protected and reprinted that book for centuries, and the only institution for countless generations to do so!

The Catholic Church also included the Deuterocanonicals in the Christian Bible, which Protestants ripped out, having no Biblical basis or authority for doing so.

Also, Jesus Christ with Moses on Mount Tabor isn't the only Scripture verse that makes it clear that the Spirits of the dead go on living.

Also, for over 1500 years, every Christian Church on the face of the earth promoted prayers for and to the souls in Heaven.

This modern (highly Unchristian) teaching that such prayers are Satanic prayers to Devil's, is extremely depressing enough that I could vomit!

It means God is so cruel and unreliable a Shepherd, he lied about his promises to be with his Church and "Upon this rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her", was all a crock of BS!

Bible Christians (many of them) these days are preaching that every Christian Church on earth for over 1500 years , and their members, were a bunch of Satanic Devil worshippers!

It makes Christ look like a total liar and incompetent , dishonest, useless Shepherd if I've ever seen one! It creates the most depressing miserable story I've ever heard of!

Not to mention , it condemns and judges so many people as hellbound, Pagan, Idolater, Devil worshippers, that it is total bigotry, cruelty, and makes God look absolutely terrible, and life so dangerous, where Satan is in control of even Christians (everyone practically is going to Hell!) In view of this teaching, best thing your mother could apparently do is abort you in the womb, to save your soul from such a terrible God and such a Satanic world and Church!

Jehovah God can use anyone He wants, whether good or bad, to accomplish His will. He even used Nebuchadnezzar to fulfill His purpose.
I think you know that.

 

[rational experiences]

Egyptian and Mayan book of dead was science first. Old.

Not Christ.
Not Christian.
Not Catholic.

Church was built by hypocrites as scientists. As science is a hypocrite

Science irradiated life by fallout then introduced medical healing science.

Foundation church. By phi architecture sound resonations. Once held no pulpit preaching science it was an opened building. Healing venue.

Medical conscious reasoned brain entrainment applications. Balancing the mind. Meditations. Constant chant prayer. Conditioning.

Shawls rugs were laid on floor for meditating chanting music played or singing therapies.

Why healer in nature was an astute herbalist said you were a hypocrite.

Who today still is. As you make us pay again to benefit your greed for medical supplies causing early age death by radiation fallout.

Is the known human teaching.

Once a family member was given hierarchical tribal status medicine man.

You took a natural wisdom and abused it as greedy lying rich men.

Hypocrites made it a Hippocratic oath medical. Yet you don't do it freely do you.

In not bring evil. It is being greedy.

Radiated space is sciences teaching fallout causes. Mother space womb zero term. Cursed life. A cause.

As men brothers agreed science. Men brothers are the hypocrites.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There are over 300 versions of the bible in English, who knows how many in other languages. The vulgate (catholic bible) is the oldest surviving complete bible which was written around 80 years after the original.

Each of those bible versions is subtly different from any other and various sects (of which there are more than 40,000) interpret the bible they favour in the way that their sect prefers. This has caused considerable division of christianity with most sects saying theirs is correct and all the others are wrong and those who are wrong will burn in hell (or similar). The differences have also been the cause of killings and wars.

However there are no copies of the original bible in existence to compare so who knows which version of the bible and which sect are true followers of christianity?

But we have manuscripts in the original Hebrew and Greek. That's all you really need.

 

[rational experiences]

Once many books belonged to the holy see holy tree of life orders.

Judgements a branch not a science as human law was a holy father's verdict of scientific causes to an irradiated consciouness in society.

Why he passed the confessional of law dependant on the brain mind victim. In trials. Knowing science had caused it as the healers society. Then it involved personal choice by confession.

Law court proceeding.

Humans today ignored multi books were used in various ordered branches.

The church was proclaimed built as a spiritual medical advice for brain entrainment by ritual constants when trying to control human behaviours first. That were out of control by fallout causes.

Was applied in the churches building human meditation practices prayers. Why prayer was once involved in a legal decision behaviours about how much time a human needed to contemplate behaviour.

The use of it lost when the next 1000 star fall arrived.

Some of the advice was still used but not as it was.

Bible records advised were why particular social choices had been chosen.

Science is rationally only ever a thesis first.

Inventing caused the effects human caused.

 

[ChristineM]

But we have manuscripts in the original Hebrew and Greek. That's all you really need.

I said complete.

 

[metis]

Hell is the grave. Everyone goes there.

Not everyone.

 

[sojourner]

Hell is the grave. Everyone goes there.

Does the Old Testament word Sheol have Greek or Hebrew origins?

The grave is the grave. The questioner in the article is wrong. Hell has no place in the ancient Hebrew belief. You’re conflating early Judaic thought with later Hellenistic thought.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I said complete.

So? How does that conflict with what I said"?

 

[ChristineM]

So? How does that conflict with what I said"?

If they are incomplete how is one to compare the accuracy of a later bible that claims to be complete.

 

[Spiderman]

Jehovah God can use anyone He wants, whether good or bad, to accomplish His will. He even used Nebuchadnezzar to fulfill His purpose.
I think you know that.

I'm aware of the Nebuchadnezzar story and God using him, and him walking on all fours and eating grass.

Could you share more about Nebuchadnezzar though? I read the Bible , with Apocrypha, front to back, once. It's been so long since I read about him though.

I remember the furnace and the three men who were unharmed by the flames. It doesn't sound true, but possible with God.

Anyway, any interesting facts you have about King Nebuchadnezzar and God using him, are appreciated!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If they are incomplete how is one to compare the accuracy of a later bible that claims to be complete.

complete manuscripts exist, dear.

 

[ChristineM]

complete manuscripts exist, dear.

Do they dear? Prove it

 

[sojourner]

If they are incomplete how is one to compare the accuracy of a later bible that claims to be complete.

I’m unaware of any bible that claims to be “complete.” The various canons just are what they are. I’m also unaware of any academic who believes that any of either the canonical or extra-biblical texts are completely known and above scrutiny.

That’s not how accuracy is arrived at. First of all, any exegete or translator knows that this isn’t an exact science. Accuracy is checked against differences among the several most ancient sources we have. In this case, “accurate” =/= “perfect.” And we know that.

 

[ChristineM]

I’m unaware of any bible that claims to be “complete.” The various canons just are what they are. I’m also unaware of any academic who believes that any of either the canonical or extra-biblical texts are completely known and above scrutiny.

That’s not how accuracy is arrived at. First of all, any exegete or translator knows that this isn’t an exact science. Accuracy is checked against differences among the several most ancient sources we have. In this case, “accurate” =/= “perfect.” And we know that.

You try telling a literalist Christian that the bible is not above scrutiny.

So why, for example does the NIV exclude compete verses? Is it still accurate?

 

[sojourner]

You try telling a literalist Christian that the bible is not above scrutiny.

So why, for example does the NIV exclude compete verses? Is it still accurate?

Remember: all the Biblical canon really is, is “stuff that’s OK to read in church.” The NIV’s ok; I don’t like it, because it has a decidedly evangelical bias. Most Biblical scholars don’t care for it, but it’s ok for the average lay person to read. One of the most accurate translations is the NRSV (among a couple others). But the differences don’t really make much difference. “Accuracy” is sort of a relative term. If you look, for example, at any decent, NRSV study bible (such as the Oxford Annotated, or the Harper Collins), where there are uncertainties, pieces missing and extrapolations made, or translational difficulties, there will be be a footnote that says, “Other ancient sources read: ______.”

Literalist Christians are simply wrong. the Bible is a human collection of human-authored documents that is not “infallible.”

 

[ChristineM]

Remember: all the Biblical canon really is, is “stuff that’s OK to read in church.” The NIV’s ok; I don’t like it, because it has a decidedly evangelical bias. Most Biblical scholars don’t care for it, but it’s ok for the average lay person to read. One of the most accurate translations is the NRSV (among a couple others). But the differences don’t really make much difference. “Accuracy” is sort of a relative term. If you look, for example, at any decent, NRSV study bible (such as the Oxford Annotated, or the Harper Collins), where there are uncertainties, pieces missing and extrapolations made, or translational difficulties, there will be be a footnote that says, “Other ancient sources read: ______.”

Literalist Christians are simply wrong. the Bible is a human collection of human-authored documents that is not “infallible.”

Of course they are wrong. There are many different bibles. The basic message is the same but there are so many differences. Differences enough to cause schisms and wars. So i dont believe accurate enough is good enough.

 

[sojourner]

Of course they are wrong. There are many different bibles. The basic message is the same but there are so many differences. Differences enough to cause schisms and wars. So i dont believe accurate enough is good enough.

Well, to be fair, though, it’s not really any of those differences that have caused schisms and wars. Schisms are caused by interpretational differences. Remember: the biblical texts are multivalent — that is, they will support a multiplicity of valid interpretations. Those different interpretations lead to differing doctrines. Wars are caused by power struggles. None of this really has anything to do with different versions of the Bible. it has more to do with the myriad interpretations available to the Bible student.

 

[Muffled]

I believe the Roman Catholic church is a quasi Christian church and therefore not satanic. No doubt the enemy tries to corrupt and sidetrack but that is all a sideshow.

 

[Muffled]

I am not actually Catholic by the way for newbies. I won't follow what goes against my conscience in the Catechism.

I just find the "Bible Christians" painting such an incredibly depressing, ugly picture, and such bigotry, condemning so many people to Hell, and the Bible so chock-full of contradictions, that I will passionately defend Catholicism, despite having my issues with the Church as well.

I hope you feel me!

If you are a Bible Christian, and it makes you more kind to others and virtuous, raises your moral standards, keeps you in communion with a God who is love and mercy, by all means keep on that path!

Just try not to follow judgemental condemning stuff, and please don't call denominations prostitutes and whores and stuff.

I believe the historic battles between the RCC and protestants caused the protestants to see the RCC that way. It just does not logically hold up under scrutiny.

 

[Muffled]

There are over 300 versions of the bible in English, who knows how many in other languages. The vulgate (catholic bible) is the oldest surviving complete bible which was written around 80 years after the original.

Each of those bible versions is subtly different from any other and various sects (of which there are more than 40,000) interpret the bible they favour in the way that their sect prefers. This has caused considerable division of christianity with most sects saying theirs is correct and all the others are wrong and those who are wrong will burn in hell (or similar). The differences have also been the cause of killings and wars.

However there are no copies of the original bible in existence to compare so who knows which version of the bible and which sect are true followers of christianity?

I believe the reformation and the printed Bible in native languages are responsible for the explosion of different church groups. At least the RCC kept it to one faith (mostly) even though it was wrong about many things and the worst being what constitutes salvation.