April 3, 2009

Roman Catholic Church or Sola Scriptura

rhiggs said to 3graces: "Check this out. The pope criticizes the pursuit of wealth. I can't decide what is dripping more, the irony or the gold draped all over his hypocritical body."

I have to admit that was pretty funny and I agree, but lets get the record straight about the Roman Catholic church (RCC).

The Bible says to evaluate everything to see if it's of God by its fruit, good tree = good fruit; a bad tree can never bear good fruit.

We don't even have to address the Catholic Church and the mass pedophiles, and the crusades, inquisition, witch hunts, millions of defectors, etc. to determine the fruit, it is obvious. That doesn't mean there are not truly saved people in the Catholic Church, which there are, but they are saved in spite of the RCC doctrine.

I hope you will agree that being a Christian does not mean being a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Scripture, to me, goes against RCC. (Matthew 23:9, Proverbs 3:5-6, 1 Peter 5:3, John 14:26, 1 Timothy 2:5-6[not priests], Colossians 2:16, 1 John 2:27)

"Even if Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18, this is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome. Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles. The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the "all authoritative leader" of the early Christian church. Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church. The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter)." (gotquestions.org)

I agree with Matt when he stated: "Being a member of the body of Christ which is accomplished by faith and trust in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of your sins. It means that you do not add your works to His work. Sincerity doesn't forgive sins. Membership in a church doesn't forgive sins. Doing works of penance doesn't forgive sins. Praying to Mary doesn't forgive sins. Forgiveness is received in the faithful trust and acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. You must trust Jesus, God in flesh, for the forgiveness of sins, not a man made ritual and certainly not the catholic saints. Even though Roman Catholic Church affirms the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and His physical resurrection, it greatly errs in its doctrine of salvation by adding works to salvation.

The official Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation is that the grace of God is infused into a baby at baptism -- making him/her justified before God. This justification can be lost through sin and must be regained by repeated participation in the many sacraments found in the Roman Catholic Church. These sacraments increase the measure of grace in the person by which he or she is enabled to do good works which are in turn rewarded with the joy of heaven.

No one can say whether a Roman Catholic is truly a Christian or not since we cannot know people's hearts. But, if anyone, Catholic included, openly denies essential doctrines then he is not saved, and this is the problem. It appears that the Roman Catholic church is denying the essential doctrine of justification by faith."(CARM)

See Foreordination

Like I said I believe that there are truly regenerate Christians in the Roman Catholic church.

"But, they are truly Christians in spite of official RCC theology and in spite of the ritualistic offerings of this ancient church which has had too many hands meddling in it through the centuries, gradually moving it away from orthodoxy and into apostasy. Yes apostasy. The Roman Catholic Church is no longer representing true Christianity."

RCC states that it is not the Scriptures, nor tradition, nor the early church fathers, nor anything other than the Church’s Magisterium, personified in the pope, that is the ultimate and final authority and standard of truth. Now does that sound right?

Sola Scriptura

bit.ly/RCChurch

74 comments:

  1.      But, unless you adhere to the Greek orthodoxy, your faith has its roots in the Roman catholic church. Now, that doesn't make you accountable for what they do. But it does mean that your religion is man-made. Everything that sets you apart from the Roman catholic church is man-made -- on the part of your religion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The catholic church is only one of hundreds of different and mutually exclusive christian sects in the US.
    Every one of them thinks they have a corner on God.
    The catholics are just far more organized and by far the largest of all christian sects.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry, I must be in the wrong place. I didn't realize this was Debunking Catholics now.

    ReplyDelete
  4. FrodoSaves:

         Why not? He failed completely at debunking atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "No one can say whether a Roman Catholic is truly a Christian or not since we cannot know people's hearts."

    I'm sorry. When did being a Christian require anything other than belief in Jesus?

    Oh I get it now. Catholics put sugar on their porridge, right?

    ReplyDelete
  6. When did being a Christian require anything other than belief in Jesus?

    Yesterday. Approximately 3:20am GMT. Didn't you get the memo?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why not? He failed completely at debunking atheists.

    Plus debunking Catholics would be a hell of a lot easier.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This like one clown telling another clown that his make up is absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This like one clown telling another clown that his make up is absurd.

    Or like a clairvoyant explaining why feng shui is bogus.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Or like a crack addict frowning on a heroin addict's habits.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The good analogies should serve to point out that evangelicals cry about the Catholic church being brought through the ages by the Papacy.
    Their inerpretaions were brought to them through Luther, VanTil, Calvin, Spurgeon, and finally Ray Comfort....hmmmm...that brings me back to the clown analogy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I guess no one would be truly offended by this article then?

    ReplyDelete
  13. So,Jesus says Peter is the rock upon which he will build his church and he didn't go to Rome. Bad Peter for upsetting you.
    Oops. Lets see. Disciples,picks out Peter. Hey it's only jesus doing this and I know better .Let's get Fundi.
    The RCC are the biggest manipulators in the whole sorry racket of religion.
    But if you are going to crap on them please don't do something so blatantly transparent as to give them an in to blast you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Reynold,

    I guess no one would be truly offended by this article then?

    I am. What are your motives for that article?

    My motives for this post is to make sure people are (or get) saved once and for all. I would hate to see the RCC take down so many unsuspecting people that follow their doctrine. We can all have a good laugh but picturing people burning in Hell forever, including you, is very motivating to me to get serious. Time is too short we must truly get saved before its too late.

    ReplyDelete
  15. My motive is to laugh at a dishonest, corrupt, superstitious system and the leader who helps propogate it. Why are you offended?

    It's not like you have any love for the system either.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dan:

         This is off-topic but it is to you and the owner of the blog to which it would fit is a liar who has taken to deleting my posts. Originally, he claimed destruction he prophecied would unquestionably supernatural. That is he said that even those who never heard his prophecy or of his god could think that it was natural. Now, he is saying that it might be a volcano. Even though you may be anxious for the "return of Jesus," I would recommend not following someone who deliberately lies just because he tells you it's coming. I will not give his name here. He is a coward who scurries back to his blog so he can delete the comments of those who would dismantle his illusion. You should know to which comment I refer. No one else need know who he is.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 1) Everyone has his own reason for being angry or disrespectful of religion and the church. Some people want to use it as a scapegoat for their own darkness and their own sins. They would rather wag their heads, point fingers and laugh at an institution still holding itself to moral perfection and sometimes failing to meet those standards than look at their own sins. To say, “Well, the Church is not perfect, so it must be a sham…” is a cop out.. Some will be blind to the immense good done by the Christendom over MILLENIA and to this day because they simply would rather be blind than change their opinion. The history of heroism and goodness in the Church is well documented but not, in this day and age, well-promoted. Those interested will seek knowledge of the abundant good done by the Church and by the Judeo-Christian tradition. If interested in church teachings on contraception or anything else – read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

    2) It's very interesting, and upsetting, to be in "a room" full of people who hate and attack my church and my beliefs. At least you’re all honest about it, though, maybe it makes it easier to handle.

    3) As a former atheist, I respect the beliefs of the atheists on this site, though I believe them to be in error. I respect the beliefs of Protestant Christians - until they are hateful and destructive to my kind. I guess I should be grateful that the pics of the pope weren’t nastier, actually. I take the fact that they weren’t as an act of Christian charity from Dan.

    4) While I disagree with Dan in just about everything he says about Catholicism, I'm not here to fight with him. We need to band together as Christians AGAINST the tide of secularism and death; so, Dan, please let's not fight. We're on the same team.

    5) I am not here to present faith as an "amusement" for people who are interested in trying to find new ways they can prove they are right to persist in error. I thought I could find fellow truth-seekers here, what I have found, *mostly*, is people seeking religion as the punch line of a bad joke.

    5) Some here seem to have a very limited understanding of the basic teachings of Catholicism.

    If anyone is truly interested in learning about the beauty and truth to be found in this ancient faith, you'll educate yourselves.

    6) I think I will end this with a blessing from Luke 1:28 in the good ol’ Gideon’s King James New Testament.

    "And the angel came unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."
    Luke 1:28

    7) Pray.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Pvblivs,

    I would recommend not following someone who deliberately lies just because he tells you it's coming. I will not give his name here.

    To be perfectly clear the only One I follow is Christ. I will not follow any man on this planet since it has been proved we are all wicked and deceitful rendering all of us untrustworthy. I have heard many far reaching stories as to the return of Christ or the rise of the Antichrist. I cannot trust any of them because the Bible says that no one knows the date when that will be but we can all look for the signs. I can say that I am hopeful for things to happen soon since my agonizing and waiting is wearing on me. Sitting is suspense for a lifetime is taxing on ones soul. I used to pray for more time so we can witness and convert more but I admit these days I pray for His return to get things rolling, to eliminate the disgusting evil in this world. I feel that Christ will return soon and that the prophecies in the Bible will come to fruition very soon. I will continue to look for the signs and hopeful for everyone's Salvation.

    He is a coward who scurries back to his blog so he can delete the comments of those who would dismantle his illusion.

    So what. Those who would dismantle his illusion? That doesn't make sense at all. Unless you claim some prophetic vision yourself, how can you even know the future? The only time you can "dismantle his illusion" is after the date of claimed prophecies has past. Then you, I, and everyone will know that the "vision" this person had was from a demonic spirit since it never came true. Then we will all know. I wouldn't discount such things too quickly though. No one has complete knowledge of the spirit world. To be so aggressive in denying such a world exists may be hazardous to ones soul/life.

    If the claimed prophecies do come true and certain event do actually happen as claimed hopefully it will open some eyes here. I would consider it an honor to baptize you myself as such an event would possibly convert even hardened heart such as yours. I guess I should ask you directly though. If a certain even were to happen as claimed, would that give you pause? Would you reconsider Christianity if the events of the Bible actually started to come to fruition?

    I can only hope so.

    If not, my follow up would be what Biblical event would convince you to reconsider you worldview?

    ReplyDelete
  19. 3graces,

    We need to band together as Christians AGAINST the tide of secularism and death; so, Dan, please let's not fight.

    With gentle love and meekness, I agree. This post was never an attack on you personally. It is a flat out rebuke to that religion. The RCC openly denies essential doctrines of the Bible. That is so very dangerous and it must be exposed.

    Like I said, I hope you will agree that being a Christian does not mean being a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Right? We can have friendly discussions as Christians over little things like Infralapsarianism or Supralapsarianism. But essential doctrines of Christianity must be brought up and questioned. All thing should pass the truth test. If I am wrong, and the only way to Heaven is saying hail to Mary and following priests and popes among other things, then you owe me that fight for my soul. Fight for me! You must get me to understand my error, please lovingly rebuke me, but don't let me rot in Hell unknowingly without you fighting for me. The rich man comes to mind for that point and Ezekiel 3:18 also. I can only recipricate that to you. Not to dig but because I want to make sure you are not a false convert and your name actually is written in the Book of Life.

    Blessings.

    ReplyDelete
  20.      The illusion he presents. The public image he endeavors to portray. He seeks to look good and people pointing to evidence interfere with that illusion. I was talking about the type of illusion presented by any con-man. That illusion can be dismantled by evidence. And he seems to make sure his followers don't see such evidence.
         If the events of the bible started coming to pass, I would probably conclude that there was a spiritual being that either was the christian god or was trying to take on a fictional role. But you overlook. My argument is not that the biblical god does not exist. It is that if he does exist, he is evil and that he is not all he claims. I did get a kick out of your "atheists debunked forever" post that had some rather large holes in it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "I will continue to look for the signs and hopeful for everyone's Salvation."

    Most of the signs are so mundane that they are laughable.

    Now, if the Temple gets destroyed I would think you'd have something to hang your hat on.

    ReplyDelete
  22. To say, “Well, the Church is not perfect, so it must be a sham…” is a cop out.. Some will be blind to the immense good done by the Christendom over MILLENIA and to this day because they simply would rather be blind than change their opinion. The history of heroism and goodness in the Church is well documented but not, in this day and age, well-promoted.

    I'm confused.

    It's a cop-out to point to the countless evils committed by the Catholic church over two millennia, but it's not the same cop-out to point to the good performed?

    Please show me why it is justifiable to point to the good deeds done in the name of Catholicism, but not justifiable to likewise point to the evil deeds done in the name of Catholicism. If you cannot, or will not, then I can only conclude that either each is equally justified, or equally hollow. I rather suspect the latter, but if you insist on defending your justification of the good deeds, then you'll have to either accept the lambasting or explain why it doesn't apply.

    It's very interesting, and upsetting, to be in "a room" full of people who hate and attack my church and my beliefs.

    Although it may appear this way, I don't think it's true. I certainly don't "hate" either your church or your beliefs -- in fact, I recognize that my knowledge of Catholicism is pretty limited, and quite the caricature. If you can stomach it, I, for one, wouldn't mind being eduated a little in that regard.

    Of course, I disagree with both, from what I know of them, and I don't have a problem belittling either -- expecting reciprocation, of course -- but I don't hate them.

    As a former atheist...

    Actually, there's no such thing. Anyone who is a True Atheist™ never joins the fold...

    Excuse me... sorry about that. I was channeling Dan there for a moment...

    I guess I should be grateful that the pics of the pope weren’t nastier, actually. I take the fact that they weren’t as an act of Christian charity from Dan.

    Heh. He's so charitable. I can't imagine what he'd post if he was trying to offend you or your religion...

    I'm not here to fight with [Dan] ... We're on the same team.

    Your membership on his "team" is contingent, of course, and while he's generally happy to embrace any support he gets (it's a hostile crowd around here), you'd have found him far more hospitable if you'd have let your status as Catholic go unreported. His hypocrisy in this regard is obvious, but his vanity is really pretty minimal. He'll probably cautiously accept you, but the Achilles' heel here is everything he knows of Catholic doctrine (which, I'm guessing, is as limited as my own).

    I thought I could find fellow truth-seekers here...

    Forgive us if your impression is otherwise -- I assure you this is not the case. We're unfortunately pretty calloused, from dealing with Dan's "logic" on a regular basis. You'll find that there is generally only one non truth-seeker here, and he is the host. Judge for yourself.

    Some here seem to have a very limited understanding of the basic teachings of Catholicism.

    ::Raises hand::

    I admit I'm unfamiliar and under-exposed, but I'm open to hear it if you want to tell it. If you don't, there's a fellow at my school whose business card says he's a "missionary," who is begging to inform me... I'm not picky, but I already waste a lot of time in the blogosphere...

    I think I will end this with a blessing from Luke...

    ...and I'll end mine with a platitude from Bill... or was it Ted?

    Be Excellent to each other.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  23. "I can say that I am hopeful for things to happen soon since my agonizing and waiting is wearing on me. Sitting is suspense for a lifetime is taxing on ones soul."

    That is exactly why I don't want people like you in positions where you could trigger events.

    People who admit in public that they are "agonizing and waiting is wearing on me," are the type of people that have the propensity to do really stupid things.

    Maybe you need some help in coping with what sounds like a serious issue.

    That's some creepy shit, Dan.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Froggie said...
    Now, if the Temple gets destroyed I would think you'd have something to hang your hat on.

    Maybe, but it'll be Dan and Dani doing the destroying, trying to get Jesus to come back again. But that guy ain't coming back. Jesus said he'd be back within a generation. Didn't happen. He ain't coming back, dude.
    Now. Anyone wanna talk about Faith Vs Works?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Now. Anyone wanna talk about Faith Vs Works?
    Yes. I brought the subject up last thread and was working on a reply.

    SALVATION BY WORKS.
    James 2:21
    Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
    ...
    James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

    Matt 16:27 For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.

    Revelation 20:12-13
    And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; ... and they were judged every man according to their works.

    1 Peter 1:17
    The Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work.

    Philippians 2:12
    "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

    2 Corinthians 5:10
    For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

    John 5:29
    And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

    And so on...
    I put it to you that the Bible teaches that salvation is through works or is at least contradictory on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 3Graces: welcome back. I know how it is to defend your beliefs to a hostile crowd- I've done a fair amount of it, and I imagine everyone else here has as well. But I think I can speak for all of us, that no one has any rancor against you as a person. I'm willing to bet that we're all pretty nice people.

    That said, on to business: you say-

    4) While I disagree with Dan in just about everything he says about Catholicism, I'm not here to fight with him. We need to band together as Christians AGAINST the tide of secularism and death; so, Dan, please let's not fight. We're on the same team.

    I would go you one further: "4) While I disagree with you believers in just about everything you say about the nature of the world, I'm not here to fight with you. We need to band together as humans AGAINST the tide of environmental destruction and death; so, everyone, please let's not fight. We're on the same team."

    While there are conversions every day- Christians becoming atheists, atheists becoming Christians, Muslims becoming Jews (okay, maybe those don't happen every day), it looks as though there is going to be a colorful mixture of beliefs in the world for the foreseeable future.

    I'm really not here to convert anyone: the only dog I have in this fight (a badly chosen metaphor, I know) is peaceful coexistence. We live in a wonderful world, and I would like it to continue to be a wonderful world for my children, and for yours.

    5) I am not here to present faith as an "amusement" for people who are interested in trying to find new ways they can prove they are right to persist in error. I thought I could find fellow truth-seekers here, what I have found, *mostly*, is people seeking religion as the punch line of a bad joke.

    Are you a truthseeker, or do think you have already found the truth? You chastise us for making fun of religion, and in the same breath say that we are "persisting in error". Motes and beams.

    5) Some here seem to have a very limited understanding of the basic teachings of Catholicism.

    I've never been Catholic, but I'm willing to bet that I've spent more time in Catholic churches than just about anyone else here. I can recite the entire Mass (just the Ordinary, admittedly) in Latin. That's what I get for decades of singing in choirs. Does that count? The fact is, that there is disagreement within the Church, and among Christians in general, about exactly what constitute the "basic teachings", and what they mean.

    This is not surprising: the Bible is not crystal clear in many respects. So far, my experience has been that every Christian I've talked to "knows" exactly what the basic teachings are, and exactly what they mean, and all other Christians who believe differently are wrong, and possibly heretical and hellbound.

    Adam: Faith vs. Works? That sounds to me like the two basic fighting strategies in lots of RPGs. For instance in Oblivion, you can concentrate on becoming proficient with magicka (Faith) or with weapons (Works), or try to achieve a nice balance. In my humble opinion, you are most likely to devastate evil with a one-two combination: for instance, a nice fireball followed by a blow of a daedric longsword. But that's just my personal preference, and might well not be the absolute truth.

    cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  27. 3graces,

    You write:
    We need to band together as Christians AGAINST the tide of secularism and death;

    What problem do you have with freedom of conscience, and religious neutrality of the state? Why would such principle lead to death?

    I was under the impression that non-secularism leads to death, that is: dogmatic dictatorship where the state dictates the beliefs of the people, like in Iran, Saoudi-Arabia, Afghanistan, Europe in the Dark Ages, Israel, Palestine (and most other Muslim countries) but also non-secular atheistic approaches like the former USSR, China and North Korea.

    Do you, and Dan, understand at all what the founding fathers of the USA stood for when they advocated secularism, and why, and how far the USA drifted from that idea by now?

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Respect for religious beliefs" is a phrase which is thrown around so much these days that many mistake what it actually entails. If you ask me to respect your religious beliefs, all you're asking me to do is agree that you have the right to believe whatever you want. And you do. Have at it.

    Lucky for me, here's a brief list of things which respect for your beliefs doesn't stop me from doing:
    - dispute them (I do)
    - hate them (I don't)
    - ridicule them (I do)
    - highlight fallacious reasoning (I do)
    - use them as a "scapegoat" for my own insecurities (I don't)

    "Attacking" your beliefs is a legitimate exercise. Attacking your right to hold them is not. But as a former atheist, you already know that.

    As Stan pointed out, the deeds and misdeeds of the church say nothing as to the truth of the doctrine it preaches. Bickering over a crusade or a donation to charity is copping-out all around.

    Of course, I can see that you already agree with me, since your slanderous allegations of "moral perfection" are something the Pope would take issue with, having spent so much time recently trying to tarnish his own reputation.

    Kindest regards from a card-carrying member of the Secularist Cult of Death.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dan said to Pvblivs:

    "If the claimed prophecies do come true and certain event do actually happen as claimed hopefully it will open some eyes here. I would consider it an honor to baptize you myself as such an event would possibly convert even hardened heart such as yours. I guess I should ask you directly though. If a certain even were to happen as claimed, would that give you pause? Would you reconsider Christianity if the events of the Bible actually started to come to fruition?"


    If you think this is a reasonable proposition then you should also consider the counter-argument....

    If the claimed prophecies do not come true and certain events do not actually happen as claimed hopefully it will open your eyes. I would consider it an honor to deconvert you myself as such non-events would possibly deconvert even fundie hearts such as yours. I guess I should ask you directly though. If a certain event were not to happen as claimed, would that give you pause? Would you reconsider Christianity if the events of the Bible never came to fruition in your lifetime?

    I ask mainly because you clearly seem to think that 'something' is going to happen 'soon'...

    "I used to pray for more time so we can witness and convert more but I admit these days I pray for His return to get things rolling, to eliminate the disgusting evil in this world. I feel that Christ will return soon and that the prophecies in the Bible will come to fruition very soon."

    Care to make this a scientific experiment.....?

    Can you please give us a description of what will happen and when 'very soon' is?

    This year?

    Next year?

    Next five years?

    Your lifetime?

    What do you mean when you say 'very soon'?

    This way you could prove the validity of the scriptures (and of your own faith) beyond a reasonable doubt and show us all up as the deluded truth-deniers we are.

    Give us specifics please. Or do you prefer to hide under your ambiguous and untestable assertions that 'something' will happen 'soon'?

    My guess is you will just carry on for years saying that 'something' will happen 'soon', just like those end-of-the-world cults continually revise when doomsday is coming. You are both clutching at imaginary straws. But at least they have the balls to offer up testable predictions...

    ReplyDelete
  30. I guess I will start with correcting a mistake of mine. I should of added Ezekiel 3:19 when I said "The rich man comes to mind for that point and Ezekiel 3:18 also."

    Moving on.

    Pvb,

    I commented on the "other" blog's post if you haven't read it earlier. I was appalled by your logic please reconsider those thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Froggie,

    Now, if the Temple gets destroyed I would think you'd have something to hang your hat on.

    Can you refresh me on those verses I would like to look at those again.

    Why would that convince you though? Don't people in the name of God blow things up all the time? No I am talking about substantial and apparent Biblical events.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dan,
    I was hoping you would tell me if the Temple mount's destruction (and rebuilding) will supposedly signal the end times. That would be much more specifis than wars, earthquakes and hurricans.

    Or, do you believe that the destruction in 70 AD was the reference?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Funny man Stan,

    Please show me why it is justifiable to point to the good deeds done in the name of Catholicism, but not justifiable to likewise point to the evil deeds done in the name of Catholicism.

    I will add that in a court of law that wouldn't work either. "I know I molested that child but I have done many good deeds" One cannot "make up" for their evil ways there must be a punishment for their crimes. Although, in that same breath, yes Jesus died for repentant pedophiles also. That is why the price was so high.

    I was channeling Dan there for a moment...

    I smell you on my cloths too. I feel so close to you.

    He'll probably cautiously accept you, but the Achilles' heel here is everything he knows of Catholic doctrine (which, I'm guessing, is as limited as my own).

    Who cares if I accept anyone? I am not one in the grand scheme here. Getting me on a side will not help anyone. What matters is what Jesus thinks. My instructions for this matter are clear. Make sure you are saved that's all.

    You'll find that there is generally only one non truth-seeker here, and he is the host. Judge for yourself.

    Ouch. Not fair and not true. Jesus loves me and the Bible tells me so.

    3graces-Some here seem to have a very limited understanding of the basic teachings of Catholicism.

    ::Raises hand also::

    I am simply a fan of Martin Luther, John Wycliffe, and Galileo for what they stood for, sacrificed, and did for truth. The pope and priests, not so much. I cannot get behind a church that would knowingly keep the truth from the people,act as a hierarchy, and suppress knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Froggie,

    I said: "I can say that I am hopeful for things to happen soon since my agonizing and waiting is wearing on me. Sitting is suspense for a lifetime is taxing on ones soul."

    Frog-That is exactly why I don't want people like you in positions where you could trigger events. People who admit in public that they are "agonizing and waiting is wearing on me," are the type of people that have the propensity to do really stupid things.

    Yea right. Any proof for this bare assertion? I want evil to be eradicated and my limited mind wants it to happen sooner more then later. My kids are growing up and I do not want to hand off this evil world to them. This is not to say that I am trying to enact God's will either. You know better then that.

    You are just trying to ruffle my feathers. You can do that much more efficiently if you pierce your lips tightly together and blow. :)

    ReplyDelete
  35. Adam,

    Maybe, but it'll be Dan and Dani doing the destroying, trying to get Jesus to come back again.

    See above comment I made about enacting God's will. That is not my intentions at all ever. I have patience, anxious but patient.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Chris,

    Wonderful verses and this would make a good post but briefly works count but not in Salvation. Works matter after salvation which is evidence of fruit of the spirit. An ever growing capacity to be others centered not self centered, thankfulness, and showing the fruit of righteousness.

    Repentance alone is an act of works also but will not save you. Saving is God's alone I believe. Trusting in Jesus is an act also for that matter.

    So in the grand scheme of things trusting in Christ and repentance are acts but neither will automatically save you. God must do the saving or rejecting. I hope I am not wrong here but you bring up good points. We receive spiritual gifts from our works but it has nothing to do with salvation like the RCC dictates.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Zilch,

    We live in a wonderful world, and I would like it to continue to be a wonderful world for my children, and for yours.

    Where I enjoy your calm and peaceful demeanor, I cannot agree with your belief that this is a "wonderful" world. The cons are to numerous to mention here. I will concede as to some of the beauty here but I cannot discount all the evil to enjoy it. (John 12:25)

    This world is darkened and I am sure even you could imagine a world without evil is a much better and more wonderful vision of a world. Now that will be a wonderful world...soon.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Geert,

    Do you, and Dan, understand at all what the founding fathers of the USA stood for when they advocated secularism, and why, and how far the USA drifted from that idea by now?

    That isn't true I believe. The Founding Fathers did not want to push one religion over another for their government. I view secularism as a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations. This is very far from the founding fathers emphasis of neutrality to all religions. I believe the hostility towards religion these days are far from what the Founding Fathers wanted. Fair? We are indeed a secular nation these days and that is why we are drifting away from our constitution daily. BTW I do still consider myself a constitutionalist.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Frodo,


    - dispute them (I do)
    - hate them (I don't)
    - ridicule them (I do)


    :7)

    - highlight fallacious reasoning (I do)
    - use them as a "scapegoat" for my own insecurities (I don't)


    Your brilliance is noted again and I do agree with those guidelines but my mind cannot get around Matthew 16:26. I guess that is the tragedy in your comedy.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Rhiggs,

    If you think this is a reasonable proposition then you should also consider the counter-argument....

    Leave it to you to make me feel uncomfortable for a moment. I want to say yes it would give me pause but that would not be honest. I am patient to God's time lines. I am admittedly anxious and I would be largely disappointed if He came when I reach 95 years old, since so many people will be lost to Hell forever and so much suffering would have gone on for so long. I want the pain to stop, I want the evil to end, I want God to fix this mess we got ourselves into.

    I do applaud the people that stick their necks out and predict the when and wheres but if I did such a thing it would be a lie. I hope others are telling the truth and the end times are near but I will not hold my breath until I am spiritually convinced myself through the course of events explained in the Bible. I do believe it will be soon like within 10 years but I have zero reason or evidence to back such a bold claim up unless wishful thinking is evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Froggie,

    I was hoping you would tell me if the Temple mount's destruction (and rebuilding) will supposedly signal the end times. That would be much more specific than wars, earthquakes and hurricanes.

    I agree just point to the verses that claim this so I can research it more. I don't remember reading it in the Bible but I might have missed it. A little help?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dan:

         "Leave it to you to make me feel uncomfortable for a moment. I want to say yes it would give me pause but that would not be honest."
         A pity, really. You want people to consider what it would mean if you are right, but refuse to consider what it would mean if you are wrong. I always find it amazing how confident people they can be in something until it means taking a risk. And here, the risk is admitting that you are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Chris,

    Wonderful verses and this would make a good post but briefly works count but not in Salvation. Works matter after salvation which is evidence of fruit of the spirit.


    Did you read the verses? Salvation IS through works. "Work out you own salvation" "judged every man according to their works."
    But anyway, cognitive dissonance, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Pvblivs,

    You want people to consider what it would mean if you are right, but refuse to consider what it would mean if you are wrong.

    No, I would consider things if I was wrong but this would not be an example of that. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Events that have not happened yet does not mean there is no God. You of all people should know that.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Chris,

    Did you read the verses? Salvation IS through works.

    I found something that agrees with my point about works.

    "James is refuting the belief that a person can have faith without producing any good works (James 2:17-18). James is emphasizing the point that genuine faith in Christ will produce a changed life and good works (James 2:20-26). James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but rather that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his life. If a person claims to be a believer, but has no good works in his life – then he likely does not have genuine faith in Christ (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26)."

    This is what I read. Do you see the difference?

    The article goes on to say:

    "Paul says the same thing in his writings. The good fruit believers should have in their lives is listed in Galatians 5:22-23. Immediately after telling us that we are saved by faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8-9), Paul informs us that we were created to do good works (Ephesians 2:10). Paul expects just as much of a changed life as James does, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17)! James and Paul do not disagree on their teaching on salvation. They approach the same subject from different perspectives. Paul simply emphasized that justification is by faith alone while James put emphasis on the fact that faith in Christ produces good works."

    This is exactly how I read these passages without the gymnastics that the Mormons and RCC claims. Yes works count but after Salvation, not for Salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  46. That isn't true I believe. The Founding Fathers did not want to push one religion over another for their government. I view secularism as a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations. This is very far from the founding fathers emphasis of neutrality to all religions. I believe the hostility towards religion these days are far from what the Founding Fathers wanted. Fair? We are indeed a secular nation these days and that is why we are drifting away from our constitution daily. BTW I do still consider myself a constitutionalist.
    Dan, secularism is neutrality to all religions.

    ReplyDelete
  47. This is exactly how I read these passages without the gymnastics...

    That's rich. This juicy morsel will have to wait, though, for I have other obligations at the moment -- playing checkers with my son. I hope the anticipation is as tantalizing for you as it is for me...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  48. Check this video of Dr. James White blasting the Papacy during a debate vs. Catholic apologists here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlQZXjjWZZs

    ReplyDelete
  49. without the gymnastics.

    What gymnastics? It flat out says YHWH will judge you according to your works. It plainly says "work out your salvation". I put it to you that you are the one doing the gymnastics to fit YHWH into your own presuppositions.

    ReplyDelete
  50. This is exactly how I read these passages without the gymnastics... (as with before, emphasis mine)

    What you have done, Dan, is exactly the gymnastics you have denied. You had a preconceived notion that the bible is inerrant, and when you were presented with an apparent contradiction -- especially through application of a "plain reading of the text" -- you actively sought a resolution which confirmed your preconception.

    You didn't just perform gymnastics, you successfully contorted yourself such that you could, and did, perform autofellatio.

    No gymnastics... Please.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  51. Dan,

    The Founding Fathers did not want to push one religion over another for their government.

    Exactly. That, and nothing else, is the goal of secularism.

    I view secularism as a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations.

    You view that wrongly. Secularism is the way a state can guarantee the article 18 in the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Please look it up. Also please look up the meaning of "secularism" in a good dictionary.

    I believe the hostility towards religion these days are far from what the Founding Fathers wanted.

    Fist, don't confuse secularism with atheism.
    Second, don't confuse atheism and agressive hostility towards religion.
    As an agnostic atheist, I think all religions are based on lies and easily lead to abuse when they get in power. But as a secular humanist, I will defend you fiercely if you are threatened in your religious freedom, as per art. 18 of the UDHR.

    Believe me, you got most atheists on your side in this. Although I cannot tell you how an atheist must behave, it's not a doctrine or a religion, I can tell you how a secular humanist should behave.

    Ask yourself the question: am I hostile against atheists on this site? So is it possible to disagree fiercly and not be hostile?

    Fair? We are indeed a secular nation these days and that is why we are drifting away from our constitution daily. BTW I do still consider myself a constitutionalist.

    No, you're not a pure secular nation anymore.

    Your Christian politicians put "God" in your constitution, and thus discriminating against agnostics, atheists, Bhuddhists, Shintou, polytheists like Hindu's, Sikh, and many other no-God or no-single-God worldviews.

    Even most Muslims would not agree with your wording, as is is an insult to put Allah in a lowly human-made law like that.

    It's not a disaster, but it is a breach in the original setup of your constitution.

    I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.
    -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799

    ReplyDelete
  52. Dan,
    I have seen you use the statement,
    "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" on quite a few occasions, especially when you have dug yourself a hole you can't get out of.
    I don't think you understand what, in fact, that means.
    "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence" means it's not a fact until proven otherwise.
    Thus, when you make that statement you are merely stating that something could possibly be true, the same as one can say that psychic abilities could possibly be true or Islam could actually be the one true religion. Many Muslims believe that there is another prophet to be born who will show that Allah Of Islam is the one true God, and yes, that could possibly be true.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Dan,
    "I view secularism as a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations."
    And:

    "I believe the hostility towards religion these days are far from what the Founding Fathers wanted."

    Many fundamentalist Christians are dominionists including your friend, Sye.
    Fundies have and are, even as I write this, trying to get their religion sposored by the state in the public schools.
    They, and you are not constitutionalists even though the first amendment guarantees in writing your right to worship as you choose.

    The founders knew they were dealing with thirteen mutually exclusive mini theocracies. They all wanted "their" "God" to be wrshipped by all, even though they were all supposedly Christians.

    I cannot imagine the grief that would have ensued had the bible been chosen as our governing document.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Geert A,
    Good comment. I think that if there was actually any religious cohesiveness in electing a fundamentalist candidate, Mike Huckabee would have won by a landslide.
    As a former Govenor he had everything needed, including being a very likeable person and able to connect well with any audience, to at least capture the republican nomination.

    Americans pay a lot of lip service to religious convictions but the vast majority are very wary of a person who makes their decisions based on what their "God" tells them.

    There is a Muslim pilot who is facing criminal charges because instead of using his experience in an an emergency, he prayed while the plane crashed.

    The movement of the Religious Right that gained momentum in the eighties crashed and burned with George Bush.

    We have always had a secular government here but our society is increasingly secular as recent studies have shown.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Chris,

    If our works count in our Salvation, as the Mormons and RCC claims, then what may I ask was the purpose of Christ dying on that Cross? What you are claiming then is that Christ on the Cross wasn't enough. More is needed?

    Also, if you haven't, please listen to the lecture on Foreordination.

    ReplyDelete
  56. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Dan,
    If people are foreordained, or predetermined, then why is it so important to instill your religion in your kids?

    No matter what you do, they are already chosen or not chosen?

    I mean this as an honest question.

    The Debunking Atheist
    Debunking Theism since 1971

    ReplyDelete
  58. Update:

    RCC states that it is not the Scriptures, nor tradition, nor the early church fathers, nor anything other than the Church’s Magisterium, personified in the pope, that is the ultimate and final authority and standard of truth. Now does that sound right?

    Sola Scriptura

    ReplyDelete
  59. Dan:

         You do know that "all you have to do is accept the free gift" is still based on a "work," don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  60. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Dan,

    "RCC states that it is not the Scriptures, nor tradition, nor the early church fathers, nor anything other than the Church’s Magisterium, personified in the pope, that is the ultimate and final authority and standard of truth. Now does that sound right?"

    No you're not right. Catholics have the samebible you do, with a couple old testament ooks added that you all threw out.

    This is kinda hairy because I do not defend any one Chritian church's doctrine or Dogma over any other, but, frankly, if I had to chose one I feel the catholics are slightly more rational than all the others.

    Also, The pope, cardinals, bishops, etc have extrordinary credentials in most cases. Some are even scientists.

    That, along with the fact that they make up over half of all the Christians of the world leads me to believe that the leaders take their jobs very seriously rather than the thousands of itinerent preachers running around this country with no formal education whatsoever claiming they are speaking the word of God.

    The catholic hierarchy speaks from two thousand years of experience and they admit they have made mistakes.

    So, on a scale of 1-10 I give them the highest mark that I give any church and that is a 3.

    The Debunking Atheist
    Debunking Theism since 1971

    ReplyDelete
  62. If our works count in our Salvation, as the Mormons and RCC claims, then what may I ask was the purpose of Christ dying on that Cross?

    Dude, it's your religion. We haven't the slightest clue why you all think it was "necessary" to have your man-god be killed and become a zombie, but only several thousand years after the "fall," and with all this a nonetheless incomplete act, awaiting the rise to power of the devil's child, the unification of the various world governments, and a massive bloody battle...

    [W]hat may I ask was the purpose of Christ dying on that Cross?

    Damned if I know. (Damned either way, evidently.)

    Tell you what; you do some research -- which is, of course, nothing more than looking for sources who corroborate your preconceived notions, dismissing outright any which dissent -- and let us know when you find an article, or a set of articles, which supports what you already believe.

    In fact, why bother? Just give us a list of what you believe, and ignore anything that doesn't comport with those beliefs. Find any supporting sources you feel necessary, and dismiss any others. Why do you even need the bible, since you already know everything you need to know?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  63. So, on a scale of 1-10 I give [the Roman Catholic Church] the highest mark that I give any church and that is a 3.

    Such praise! Really, I'd give them an additional fractional amount, purely for entertainment purposes. Say, an extra 0.1415926535898 or so...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  64. "Such praise! Really, I'd give them an additional fractional amount, purely for entertainment purposes. Say, an extra 0.1415926535898 or so..."

    But, but if you add that to my score the number is irrational....

    The Debunking Atheist
    Debunking Theists since 1971

    ReplyDelete
  65. But, but if you add that to my score the number is irrational....

    ...and that is inappropriate how?

    (Right now, I'm trying to decide what specific religions/sects would get 2.7182818..., and 1.618034...; I don't think any qualify for i, but √2 is available...)

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  66. 2.71828 18284...

    Damn pagans.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I believe the hostility towards religion these days are far from what the Founding Fathers wanted. Fair? We are indeed a secular nation these days and that is why we are drifting away from our constitution daily. BTW I do still consider myself a constitutionalist.
    Dan, where in the Constitution does it mention or imply Christ, or God?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Reynold,

    where in the Constitution does it mention or imply Christ, or God?

    Why just the Constitution? If we are talking about the founding fathers then lets take all their writing in account to determine if they wanted to continue to worship and placed those previsions in the Constitution to prevent the government from making laws against Christianity.

    The poetically brilliant words of the Declaration of Independence comes to mind.

    "WHEN in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to desolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

    Needless to say Bush and his crew of the Neo-Cons changed those rights to inalienable rights.

    Don't forget to watch tinyurl.com/USunderGOD also.

    ReplyDelete
  69. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  70. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>