He also earned a doctorate in moral theology at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome. Monsignor Bohlin was ordained a priest for the Prelature of Opus Dei in 1997. Prior to coming to New York as the head of Opus Dei in the United States, he worked for the five years with Opus Dei’s Prelate, Bishop Javier Echevarría, at Opus Dei's international headquarters in Rome as chancellor for Opus Dei. Monsignor Bohlin has spoken about faith issues on such news programs as “Hardball with Chris Matthews” and “Meet the Press.” Opus Dei has 87,000 members worldwide and 3,000 in the United States. Pope John Paul II canonized Opus Dei’s founder, Saint Josemaría Escrivá, in 2002, calling him “the saint of ordinary life."
Close.
Thomas G. Bohlin
Monsignor, U.S. vicar of Opus Dei.
Monsignor Thomas G. Bohlin is the U.S. vicar of the Prelature of Opus Dei, an international institution of the Catholic Church that helps people come closer to God in their work and daily activities. A native of northern New Jersey, Monsignor Bohlin received his bachelor’s degree from Northwestern University and a doctorate in history from the University of Notre Dame.
more »
we can look for patterns as it seems pagans and gnostics do from my end or we can proclaim ourselves as saved and everyones else damned
it all leads to do what you feel is right
i have seen this constant many places
....and what if jesus really is the son/sun lightbearer?
if you want no part of it stay away
leave the sun/son worshippers to themselves
if theyre doing wrong some will wake up
as i think alot already of in these last seven years
personally i think america is done for too but icant be sure
not really
we have rome to look to, germany, etc. etc., but really its ALL conjecture
all i believe is its not saving someone if you need to kill them first to get there
sorry but the world is NOT pyschopathic extremes were all seeing in America today
it isn't all 'join us or die', not everywhere
not everyone is locked into fearing
were arent all part of *that*
this begotten son stuff has to end
christians enjoy pain too much, it bleeds over into everything they seem to do
which is just my perception of ocurse......i could go on & on here like you guys
we can look for patterns as it seems pagans and gnostics do from my end or we can proclaim ourselves as saved and everyones else damned
it all leads to do what you feel is right
i have seen this constant many places
....and what if jesus really is the son/sun lightbearer?
if you want no part of it stay away
leave the sun/son worshippers to themselves
if theyre doing wrong some will wake up
as i think alot already of in these last seven years
personally i think america is done for too but icant be sure
not really
we have rome to look to, germany, etc. etc., but really its ALL conjecture
all i believe is its not saving someone if you need to kill them first
sorry but the world is NOT pyschopathic extremes were all seeing America today
were arent all part of that
this begotten son stuff has to end
christians enjoy pain too much
It is rare when an atheist agrees with a believer, but the issue here is not faith but morals. The Rev. Bohlin is absolutely right. Terrorizing or torturing other people (or any living being) has never been and can never be morally or practically correct. This concept is valid for the believer as it is for the atheist. Acts of brutality are wrong for the people doing them and equally wrong for those who witness the acts and say nothing. Why is this simple concept so controversial?
It is rare when an atheist agrees with a believer, but the issue here is not faith but morals. The Rev. Bohlin is absolutely right. Terrorizing or torturing other people (or any living being) has never been and can never be morally or practically correct. This concept is valid for the believer as it is for the atheist. Acts of brutality are wrong for the people doing them and equally wrong for those who witness the acts and say nothing. Why is this simple concept so controversial?
faithdweah@yahoo.co.uk
My Dearest One!
Greetings to you, I hope this mail will find you well & healthy and I hope we can established a relationship since we are meeting here for the first time, I have gone through a profile that speaks good of you on this site: I was impressed when i saw your profile and decide to communicate with you. It is my desire to know you, I like honesty, trust, love, caring,truth,& respect, I have all this qulities in me,easy going girl with sense of humour , very caring , understanding , honest and sincerely looking for a man that i can call my soul mate who will love me just the way i am a real partner to share life , share good and bad moment with , who is ready to marry me alone and stop searching ...........a very sincere person who stands by his word .kindly respond to me through my private mail box (faithdweah@yahoo.co.uk) so we can know ourself 's better.RESPECT is the key for understanding and tolerance among human beings. I hope to read from you if your are also interested. Thanks and hoping to hear from you soonext.
Miss Faith
For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.
After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and to them he said, 'You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.' So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?' They said to him, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You go into the vineyard too.'
And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.' And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, saying, 'These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.' But he replied to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?'
Lol, Joe and Humble! And to get even picker, ANYONE can administer baptism, if done with the correct intention and in the Trinitarian format. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3L.HTM
I think all theological argument comes down to this: which is greater, god's mercy or god's justice?
If you believe god's mercy is greater, then you will find holiness in any form of worship.
If you believe god's justice is greater, then you will strive to bring the correct form of worship to as many people as you can, with the intention of saving them from themselves.
If you believe there is no god, no mercy, or no justice, then you'll do whatever you think you need to, to get by.
Call it irrational, call it irresponsible, whatever. I believe in mercy because I have experienced it. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
To add to it, if someone on their deathbed wants deeply and sincerely to convert at that moment, with no priest available, you as a Catholic have the power yourself to baptize them. The sincere Act of Contrition still has its role here too.
As far as some of the posts above go:
"As if someone who could get past the first part (excusable ignorance in the face of evangelicals in their face constantly) would have any idea how to find grace to move them to seek a god they haven't heard of (through no fault of their own)."
Campbellite: just to be picky, the murderer who converts on death row does go straight to heaven if he dies in a state of grace following the sacrament of pennance (now called reconciliation to sound more PC) or a perfect act of contrition (invented to avoid the unfairness that would ensue if there were no way to go to heaven if you couldn't find a priest just before dying and you had a mortal sin you really wanted to confess), unless he commits some venial sin like an impure thought before the needle does its work. and your quoted concession to the nonbelievers has enough qualifications to make a lawyer giddy (as if it didn't take a few lawyers to come up with the stuff I started with). Your Bhuddist would have to argue that he's never heard of the Catholic Church, and can't be faulted for never glancing at the bible in his hotel room. The passage you quote was invented to avoid the absurdity of deaths before the apostles made it to the ends of the earth. As if someone who could get past the first part (excusable ignorance in the face of evangelicals in their face constantly) would have any idea how to find grace to move them to seek a god they haven't heard of (through no fault of their own).
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."
I'm so often astounded by how many people *think* they know what a religion teaches, when they clearly don't. RTFM, folks. Don't just go by what the cranks on TV say.
==========================
"So, according to Catholicism, a murderer who converts to Catholicism on death row might get to go to heaven, but Aung Sang Suu Kyi, a devout Buddhist, goes to hell. If this thought does not trouble your conscience, Vicar Bohlin, then you have neither love nor compassion within you. "
A Christian ruler may and must defend his subjects against every higher authority that seeks to force them to deny the Word of God and practice idolatry.
The dissolution is such, that the souls entrusted to the clergy receive great damage, for we are told that the majority of the clergy are living in open concubinage, and that if our justice intervenes in order to punish them, they revolt and create a scandal, and that they despise our justice to the point that they arm themselves against it.
There's not a whole lot left to say when a protestant calls catholocism apostate, and suggests that it's followers aren't praying to the true god and will go to hell for their heresy. Canyon then seems to suggest that it hardly matters which reformer you follow, so any protestant sect is just fine, thank you (so they all sort of collectively form the "true" church - even though the respective denominations have never made such a collective claim that I have ever heard). Luther had a few problems with church leadership, but he never suggested that he had discovered a different god.
Canyon is right on one point. All that matters is whether what you believe in is the truth. I have just been pointing out that the more folks who absolutely believe that they have the exclusive franchise on the truhe and everyone else is a deluded fool for not believing in Jesus, Mohammad, neither prophet but a god nonetheless, or someone else, the more likely it is that they are all right, and they are all deluded. Canyon has just added a corollary within Christianity, making my point for me. At a minimum, this calls for some humility. I have no quarrel with believers, agnostics, atheists or anyone else, as long as they 1) keep their faith or lack thereof out of my government, and 2) either keep it to themselves altogether or at least argue it with some respect for their listener's equally held beliefs in search of common ground, or some respect for the sheer improbability that they were just coincidently born of the tiny minority of parents who held the true faith (all of us being in one minority or another on that score, and few of us chosing a faith after adult study without childhood guidance). this is perhaps the one area where we give our parents too much credit.
How dare you insult the faith of our Catholic bretheren by calling their church an "apostasy" and condemning them to hell. Who do you think you are, you coward? Do you think you are God? Please, let God do the judging. It is a great sin to put yourself in God's place.
I am tired of the bullying from you fundamentalist pigs. It's time that the rest of us expose you for the hate-mongers you are.
Obviously I can't shake your faith, and that's why it's good that my time has gone for debating on On-Faith.
Remember, the truth is more important than what you believe, make sure what you believe is the truth.
In your studies, read a few books about/by Jon Huss, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, and John MacArthur, to name a few good reformers. There is a real reason why Catholicism has fallen to the wayside in favor of the true church.
Hell is too hot and lasts too long for you to continue your cultish understanding of the scriptures.
As usual, pretend to address a post by NOT addressing a post.
"The Book of Revelation is first and foremost a book of prophecy, it calls the religious leader in Rome a wh*re; how do you reconcile that?"
I NEVER said "The Book of Revelation" (Apocalypse) wasn't a book of prophecy. You said that Babylon meant Rome. I said that by this thinking, then Peter mentions Rome. Nice sidetrack.
I can reconcile your ridiculous assertion by indicating that the scripture NEVER says "the religous leader in Rome" is the wh*re of Babylon. The Pope does not wear purple anyway.
While Catholic theology may agree that Babylon is Rome, it is PAGAN Rome. As far as prophecy goes, it predicts that pagan Rome will persecute Christians for the coming three hundred years. I guess we can see from the historical record that the prediction was true. Nice try.
Then you change the subject (surprise):
"The Bible says that “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Are you ready?"
I find it stange, but it seems to me that you can only believe in YOUR OWN state of grace by comparing yourself to another and tearing it down. So the question would be of more use to you if you asked YOURSELF; Are you ready? REALLY ready? Do you believe in YOUR faith MORE than you disbelieve mine?
The Bible warns me of those like you. You will NOT shake my faith. I will pray for you.
You guys should put on some gloves and box it out.
As for the Book of Revelations, it is not a book of prophecy, it is a giant metaphor that describes the evils and downfall of Rome.
Just thought you two would like an outside opinion.
I said I wouldn't reply, but I'm taking a break from my book to post a very short reply, because it's important.
The Book of Revelation is first and foremost a book of prophecy, it calls the religious leader in Rome a wh*re; how do you reconcile that?
The Bible says that “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Canyon Shearer's last post is her most telling of herself. Make assertions that are illogical, or can't be backed up and call the other person's faith an apostate.
Oh...and then leave, so you can pretend you were the "rightest".
"CSS, you can post a made up list of people all you want, none of those would agree to the Papacy. Clement I would have probably hit you for making such a claim. Pelagius was the joke of his age and was nearly excommunicated several times. If anyone was in the authority to be Pope during that time, it would have been Augustine, or maybe Jerome, albeit they stand against everything your apostate religion believes."
None of them would agree?! You presume to know the thoughts of dead men...I love it!
By whom would Pelagius have been "nearly excommunicated several times" by? According to you HE was not the Pope (who probably would not excommunicate himself) and there ACTUALLY was NO Pope until 600. So what's up with these repeated and near excommunications?
"How do you account for Peter never ministering in Rome if he was supposedly such an important bishop there?"
No one said that PETER was ever the Bishop of Rome. The Pope would be the Bishop of Rome after the Papacy was CENTERED there, but not before. The Bible does not mention Peter in Rome, but does not mention him not in Rome either. Jesus was not in Rome, so making him the first Pope would not have happened there anyway. His presence, or lack thereof neither proves nor disproves the Papacy beginning with him.
But let's go with what YOU have to say on the subject anyway. Babylon refers to the Papacy and Rome...so I guess it IS in the Bible after all.
"The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark."
First Epistle Of Saint Peter 5:13
"I'll leave you with the rhetorical question: Is it more important what you believe? Or if what you believe is true?"
It's a very good question, but you would do YOURSELF a greater service by asking yourself; Do you believe THE truth, or have you created your own?
Let's suppose I am wrong about all I believe. Your lies and manipulations of information have not made YOU right anyway.
The greatest irony is in your hatred of me, you are the worse for wear.
BC, I can't converse with you if you won't pay attention.
CSS, you can post a made up list of people all you want, none of those would agree to the Papacy. Clement I would have probably hit you for making such a claim. Pelagius was the joke of his age and was nearly excommunicated several times. If anyone was in the authority to be Pope during that time, it would have been Augustine, or maybe Jerome, albeit they stand against everything your apostate religion believes.
How do you account for Peter never ministering in Rome if he was supposedly such an important bishop there?
The Papacy is one of the greatest soap-operas in history, you have womanizers, atheists, and money-grubbers. Not to mention Jon-Paul was a pagan by all accounts. Papal infallibility is the exact opposite of what we see. Not to mention when Germany, France, and Rome had their own Popes...at the same time.
"In all Fairness", Revelation 17 is clearly about the Pope, it describes his dress perfectly. He is undoubtedly the wh*re of Babylon.
Joet, et al. Am starting a new class tomorrow, will not have time to respond. Good because this conversation has passed it's expiration.
I'll leave you with the rhetorical question: Is it more important what you believe? Or if what you believe is true?
The street preacher C. Shearer really is a good salesman for all the terrified simpletons, the "poor in spirit". Just read his hateful and joyful sadomasochistic rants about hell and you will know what he means when he says "...the fruit of the Spirit (his spirit?) is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control etc."
No wonder Jesus (let us grant his existence for the argument's sake) said: "Unless you become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven".
Reading Shearer's infantilisms: He is a dead sure subscriber for heaven. Thank god (excuse me) I will never get there, the mere thought to meet this guy there gives me the measles, lol! He is also one of those retarded creationists that produce laughter all over the world!
"The wh*re of Babylon in Revelation 17 has historically been agreed upon to be the Pope in Rome, and Catholics consistently agree that Babylon in Revelation 18 is Rome...all you have to do is stop being willfully ignorant and connect the dots."
The Catholic agreement regarding the "wh*re of Babylon" being Rome, is that it is referring to PAGAN Rome!
Why are you so vitriolic and blatantly manipulating scripture to YOUR own end (Matthew 16:16&18)to a kid who is (at least) attempting to cite evidence of his faith?
Of course you do, because Christianity originated in an obsessive fixation on a torture scene.
That Christian fixation on torture has continued down the ages, and still infects the core of Christianity.
As with many such sadomasochistic obsessions and fixations, the Christian torture image was projected outward on to others, which is why the Christian Church has tortured so many throughout history.
I PREACH THE BUDDHA'S LIFE AND TEACHINGS, HIS COMPASSION, AND HIS PATH TO ENLIGHTENMENT
Well, Canyon, *you* are the one always going on about truth. When you say "millions" and then, basically, "well, never mind, it was an atrocity", I never said it wasn't. I just said 13,000 is not 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 if you want it plural.
Now the number might not matter to you, but to the 1,987,000 Cherokees who did *not* die,I would say it made a difference, wouldn't you?
And "whole people group" is just plain bad English and, you must admit, pretty imprecise. Do you mean "whole people" like people that have not had any limb or, say, appendix amputated? I ask because *you* are the one that who says the Bible sprang fully formed in, I guess, the Council of Carthage in AD 387 (397?)and every word is true.
Yet words can be very imprecise, Canyon.
Words strain,
Carck and sometimes break, under the burden,
Under the tension, slip slide, perish,
Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place,
Will not stay still.
Canyon: and now you come clean and spew protestant hatred of catholics? what happened to your protest that all religions are just fine, don't preach that heaven is reserved for their believers and all we have to do to get there is play nice?
More hate speech. Your "Christian" dogma that those who disagree with you will undergo eternal pain and torture simply represents your hateful wish that it will be so.
And this hate projected onto God, is both idolatry and sacrilege rolled into one.
Canyon: you still don't get it. try as you might to suggest that sin is the only way to Hell, you ignore the fact that that is absolutely not what your (I don't even need to know what it is) or almost any other religion's theology on nonbelievers says. None preach that all that matters is whether you are righteous. All preach that theirs is the only way. "no one comes to the father except through me" is not ambiguous. The best I was ever taught in catholic school was that we believe you have to be catholic to go to heaven, but of course we don't really know what god will do with everyone else (so we could all secretly assume the heresy that they might be saved too, because the alternative was just too stupid to swallow) you can PC it all you want, just don't anyone pretend that Christians, for example, preach that Jews or Muslims can get to heaven with no serious obstacles as long as they don't cheat on their wives.
St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66)
St. Damasus I (366-83)
St. Siricius (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-17)
St. Zosimus (417-18)
St. Boniface I (418-22)
St. Celestine I (422-32)
St. Sixtus III (432-40)
St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
St. Hilarius (461-68)
St. Simplicius (468-83)
St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
St. Gelasius I (492-96)
Anastasius II (496-98)
St. Symmachus (498-514)
St. Hormisdas (514-23)
St. John I (523-26)
St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32)
John II (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (535-36) -- also called Agapitus I
St. Silverius (536-37)
Vigilius (537-55)
Pelagius I (556-61)
John III (561-74)
Benedict I (575-79)
Pelagius II (579-90)
St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
Nice editing Canyon, you surely are the BEST at cleverly manipulating scripture...and so ANGRY when you can't go unchallenged.
Nice try though:
Gospel According to Saint Matthew
Chapter 16:16-19
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
"You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." "On this rock I will build my church." There is a reason there wasn't a Pope until ~600, because it's a recent addition to the heresy that is the Roman Catholic Church.
The reason it was put in is because it was put together by the real church, not the apostasy that you are following to Hell. The wh*re of Babylon in Revelation 17 has historically been agreed upon to be the Pope in Rome, and Catholics consistently agree that Babylon in Revelation 18 is Rome...all you have to do is stop being willfully ignorant and connect the dots.
"In the long war on the truth, the most formidable, relentless and deceptive enemy has been Roman Catholicism. It is an apostate, corrupt, heretical, false Christianity, it is affront for the kingdom of Satan. The true church of the Lord Jesus Christ has always understood this."
Do you think it's a little odd that when the Roman Catholic Church was in charge, we call it the dark ages?
"No surprise from CSS, spouting lies she heard in class."
HE...thank you very much, ma'am.
"There is no room for a Pope in the Bible, because such a position is antithetical to the church."
Peter was the first Pope, per Jesus: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18
"Besides, the seven books you dream contain the missing lies your faith is founded on are worthless books barely worth the history contained in them. They contain no extra doctrine."
And Peter, the first Pope says: "Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." 2 Peter 1:20
You sure are a nasty one, but for all the nastiness you spew at me, you have not answered the question at the heart of my post. Just nastiness and the easy stuff from you.
So if the parable of the unjust steward and of the rich man and Lazarus was referring to the Pope, why did The Church put it in? Furthermore, what evidence is there that parables were also prophecy?
I guess staying home from school with a cold can be a blessing when it allows me to defend the faith.
"In the name of Land, men killed millions of Native Americans.
In the name of Gold, men wiped out whole people groups."
Millions of Amerindians is a big number and there is no evidence. The Amerindians died of germs the Europeans brought with themselves and their animals. The worst atrocity killing Native Americans for their land was the ethnic cleansing of the Cherokee nation, "trail of tears", I think the number dead was 13,000. Hard to bear but a long way from millions.
What is a "whole people groups"? Do you mean tribes? race? What do you mean?
No surprise from CSS, spouting lies she heard in class.
How do you think the Protestants were able to so thoroughly remove themselves from Catholicism? It wasn't because they made up doctrines, it was merely by following the true doctrines of the Bible. There is no room for a Pope in the Bible, because such a position is antithetical to the church.
You know that, I know that. We all know the Bible was COMPLETE according to the Council of Carthage in AD 397, a catholic council, catholic-universal, not Catholic-apostate, as the 66 Books we have today. Besides, the seven books you dream contain the missing lies your faith is founded on are worthless books barely worth the history contained in them. They contain no extra doctrine.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and going, lalalalalalalalalalalala will not make reality go away.
You won't go to Hell for failing to be a Christian.
I never said that, the Bible doesn't say that, it's a ridiculous thought.
Sinners will go to Hell. Sin is transgression against the law. The law is contained in, but not limited to, the 10 Commandments.
You will go to Hell for hating righteousness, worshipping yourself, money, or iniquity, using the name of God in vain, worshipping creation above the Creator, dishonoring authority, murder, hatred, lust, fornication, stealing, lying, and coveting, and tolerating those who do.
The law brings wrath, and the wages of sin is death. You probably think that God doesn't care about your sins because you haven't been punished for them yet. You are storing up the wages of sin, just like you may have worked this week, but won't get paid 'till next week, you still expect to be paid. Expect to be paid for your transgression on the Day of Judgment.
So, while you won't go to Hell for failing to be a Christian, there are so many other reasons you'll go to Hell.
I hope this cleared up your confusion.
trustobey.blogspot.com/2007/08/pop-quiz-hotshot.html
Your so called "Christian dogma" that anyone who disagrees with your religious views will spend "an eternity in Hell," is simply your personal bigotry and hatred for anyone who is different from you, projected onto your idea of god -- idolatry and sacrilege combined.
No surprise from Canyon Shearer: "The Pope is not a Christian, read the Biblical story about him in Luke 16:19-31"
The Bible was origianlly compiled by the Catholic church. Protestant Bibles, among other edits, are otherwise the same Bible with some (7?) books removed.
So if the parable of the unjust steward and of the rich man and Lazarus was referring to the Pope, why did The Church put it in? Furthermore, what evidence is there that parables were also prophecy?
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5
You're right, Christianity is not the only way to God:
It is appointed once for a man to die, and then the judgment. On that day, you will spend at least some amount of time in Heaven standing before the Great White Throne.
God will open the book of your conscience and see everytime you've disrespected your parents, everytime you did something deceitful to the detriment of someone else, everytime you were unfaith to your spouse in flesh or in spirit. Remember that God considers hatred as murder (Matt 5:21), lust as adultery (5:28), lying lips are an abomination (Proverbs 12:22), and all of these will have their part in the lake of fire. (Revelation 21:8)
Deeds done in darkness will be brought to the light, and just as on earth, a sliding scale of judgment will not save a murderer no matter how much good he's done, neither will the good you've done save you from your transgressions. A rapist who painted eldery peoples' houses won't stand any better than a rapist who didn't paint eldery people's houses.
The punishment for a transgression against an infinitely holy God is an eternity in Hell, where you will forever pay your fine, but never pay all of it. God will be glorified both for being patient and giving you the opportunity to repent, and for being perfectly just.
Or you can realize that while an infinite punishment was due, Jesus Christ paid that fine on the Cross at Calvary when the eternal Trinity was torn in twain. The Bible says that Jesus Christ was made sin for us, your sin was on His back and when He was separated from His Father, your sin was separated from the Father.
But just as if a criminal can pay his fine, but shows no remorse and will continue breaking the law, the judge won't let him go; so is it with God, that while your fine is paid, an unrepentant heart will keep you in damnation.
Repent, therefore, of your wickedness, and embrace the God who loved you so much that He DIED for you.
In closing, ask yourself this important question, when your religion brings you into the presence of God, will you face Him as your Saviour, or as your Judge?
While Jews, Christians, and Muslims traditionally have no particular objection to killing both their 'enemies' and each other for that matter,
Buddhists are by and large supreme pacifists - they may be victimized by governments, but these modern-day governments and their minions are not followers of the pacifist philisophy of Buddhism by any stretch of the imagination - they're militarist despots, killers and egomaniacal psychopaths in the same fashion as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and the rest of their evil breed. These mass murderers can't even be called atheists, because any kind of philosophical outlook whatsoever is alien to their kind, other than feeding the supreme ego gratification of total dominance. Now that kind will burn in a hell of their own making.
As usual, this is a forum for the well-known brand of Christian bigotry: No other spiritual path leads to god except theirs.
In fact, there are many excellent paths to God, and the one chosen by most Christians today involves endorsing war and hate, unlike that of Buddhists like the Dalai Lama, who has sacrificed even his country in favor of the Buddhist principle of Peace and Compassion.
Try telling any Christian today that according to Christ's teaching, they must be prepared to give up everything to follow Him, up to and including forswearing war in "defending" their country.
You'd be immediatly "slimed" as a coward and traitor.
The Christian Way is an excellent path to God if followed; unfortunately, most Christians don't follow it. They are too interested in Hate and War.
I'm unaware of Buddhists killing for Buddha - this would be a profound sacrilege for those that take his message of self-less compassion for others to heart. On the other hand, countless millions have been slaughtered in the name of God and Allah.....on that I can completely agree.
In the History of the world, there have been some truly heinous acts committed.
In the name of God, men crucified Christ.
In the name of Christ, men made the streets of Jerusalem flow blood.
In the name of Allah, men flew airplanes into buildings.
In the name of Buddha, men murder those who deny him.
In the name of Kings, men oppressed nations.
In the name of Queens, men allowed nations to starve.
In the name of Evolution, men proclaimed the master race and murdered six million.
In the name of Socialism, men in charge of the Soviet Union documented over 100-million murders.
In the name of Atheism, men have murdered clergymen.
In the name of Money, men murder in cold blood.
In the name of Drugs, men sell daughters into slavery.
In the name of Land, men killed millions of Native Americans.
In the name of Gold, men wiped out whole people groups.
In the name of Helen, men have gone to war.
In the name of Women, men have taken high-powered rifles into clock towers.
In the name of Peace, men dropped nuclear weapons.
In the name of Self-Expression, men have murdered dozens of students.
In the name of Babies, men bombed abortion clinics.
In the name of Tolerance, men ignore gross sexual acts.
In the name of Sex, men allow 1 in 4 dead from the AIDS virus to be babies.
In the name of Choice, men have murdered fifty million human beings.
In the name of Road-Rage, men kill each other on the freeway.
There is one common theme through all this. There is no limit to the deceitfulness of the human heart; just when we expected that nothing could top atheistic communism, we find a terrorist group which trains its children that strapping a bomb to their little bodies and running into a marketplace is their highest and best usefulness. As shocking as this is, I do not think it will be the last great measure of depravity we will see.
It is odd that the most vicious, non-compassionate religion, Christians, continue to preach love. This group of people dropped the atomic bomb. This religious group spread military arms throughout the world that kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people and destroy the property of the poor. This religious group preaches democracy while condoning the most heinous racism. This religious group is money driven and displays contempt for the very God they profess to love. Many of us who are proud to believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are just as proud NOT to believe in church and religion both of which are nothing more than organized gangs. They may as well be the Bloods or the Crips. END THE WAR IN IRAQ.
It is odd that the most vicious, non-compassionate religion, Christians, continue to preach love. This group of people dropped the atomic bomb. This religious group spread military arms throughout the world that kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people and destroy property of the poor. This religious group preaches democracy while condoning the most heinous racism. This religious group is money driven and displays contempt for the very God they profess to love. Many of us who are proud to believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are just as proud NOT to believe in church and religion both of which are nothing more than organized gangs. They may as well be the Bloods or the Crips. END THE WAR IN IRAQ.
Is it just me, or have you gotten considerably more angry in the past few weeks?
"Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those
All Comments (178)
this is all heresay
we can look for patterns as it seems pagans and gnostics do from my end or we can proclaim ourselves as saved and everyones else damned
it all leads to do what you feel is right
i have seen this constant many places
....and what if jesus really is the son/sun lightbearer?
if you want no part of it stay away
leave the sun/son worshippers to themselves
if theyre doing wrong some will wake up
as i think alot already of in these last seven years
personally i think america is done for too but icant be sure
not really
we have rome to look to, germany, etc. etc., but really its ALL conjecture
all i believe is its not saving someone if you need to kill them first to get there
sorry but the world is NOT pyschopathic extremes were all seeing in America today
it isn't all 'join us or die', not everywhere
not everyone is locked into fearing
were arent all part of *that*
this begotten son stuff has to end
christians enjoy pain too much, it bleeds over into everything they seem to do
which is just my perception of ocurse......i could go on & on here like you guys
May 4, 2008 8:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 4, 2008 20:48
this is all heresay
we can look for patterns as it seems pagans and gnostics do from my end or we can proclaim ourselves as saved and everyones else damned
it all leads to do what you feel is right
i have seen this constant many places
....and what if jesus really is the son/sun lightbearer?
if you want no part of it stay away
leave the sun/son worshippers to themselves
if theyre doing wrong some will wake up
as i think alot already of in these last seven years
personally i think america is done for too but icant be sure
not really
we have rome to look to, germany, etc. etc., but really its ALL conjecture
all i believe is its not saving someone if you need to kill them first
sorry but the world is NOT pyschopathic extremes were all seeing America today
were arent all part of that
this begotten son stuff has to end
christians enjoy pain too much
May 4, 2008 8:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 4, 2008 20:46
Hello, nice site :)
December 3, 2007 1:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 3, 2007 13:24
Hello, nice site :)
December 3, 2007 1:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 3, 2007 13:24
It is rare when an atheist agrees with a believer, but the issue here is not faith but morals. The Rev. Bohlin is absolutely right. Terrorizing or torturing other people (or any living being) has never been and can never be morally or practically correct. This concept is valid for the believer as it is for the atheist. Acts of brutality are wrong for the people doing them and equally wrong for those who witness the acts and say nothing. Why is this simple concept so controversial?
November 12, 2007 11:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 12, 2007 11:28
It is rare when an atheist agrees with a believer, but the issue here is not faith but morals. The Rev. Bohlin is absolutely right. Terrorizing or torturing other people (or any living being) has never been and can never be morally or practically correct. This concept is valid for the believer as it is for the atheist. Acts of brutality are wrong for the people doing them and equally wrong for those who witness the acts and say nothing. Why is this simple concept so controversial?
November 12, 2007 11:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 12, 2007 11:25
faithdweah@yahoo.co.uk
My Dearest One!
Greetings to you, I hope this mail will find you well & healthy and I hope we can established a relationship since we are meeting here for the first time, I have gone through a profile that speaks good of you on this site: I was impressed when i saw your profile and decide to communicate with you. It is my desire to know you, I like honesty, trust, love, caring,truth,& respect, I have all this qulities in me,easy going girl with sense of humour , very caring , understanding , honest and sincerely looking for a man that i can call my soul mate who will love me just the way i am a real partner to share life , share good and bad moment with , who is ready to marry me alone and stop searching ...........a very sincere person who stands by his word .kindly respond to me through my private mail box (faithdweah@yahoo.co.uk) so we can know ourself 's better.RESPECT is the key for understanding and tolerance among human beings. I hope to read from you if your are also interested. Thanks and hoping to hear from you soonext.
Miss Faith
October 26, 2007 4:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 26, 2007 16:49
For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.
After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and to them he said, 'You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.' So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?' They said to him, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You go into the vineyard too.'
And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.' And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, saying, 'These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.' But he replied to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?'
So the last will be first, and the first last."
October 23, 2007 5:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 23, 2007 17:48
Campellite, Joet, Humble,
Nice posts all around!
Campellite,
"I believe in mercy because I have experienced it. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
I agree!
October 23, 2007 4:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 23, 2007 16:29
Lol, Joe and Humble! And to get even picker, ANYONE can administer baptism, if done with the correct intention and in the Trinitarian format. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3L.HTM
I think all theological argument comes down to this: which is greater, god's mercy or god's justice?
If you believe god's mercy is greater, then you will find holiness in any form of worship.
If you believe god's justice is greater, then you will strive to bring the correct form of worship to as many people as you can, with the intention of saving them from themselves.
If you believe there is no god, no mercy, or no justice, then you'll do whatever you think you need to, to get by.
Call it irrational, call it irresponsible, whatever. I believe in mercy because I have experienced it. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
October 23, 2007 3:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 23, 2007 15:45
Campbellite and Joet,
Both good posts!
To add to it, if someone on their deathbed wants deeply and sincerely to convert at that moment, with no priest available, you as a Catholic have the power yourself to baptize them. The sincere Act of Contrition still has its role here too.
As far as some of the posts above go:
"As if someone who could get past the first part (excusable ignorance in the face of evangelicals in their face constantly) would have any idea how to find grace to move them to seek a god they haven't heard of (through no fault of their own)."
I could not have said it better, Joet!
October 23, 2007 3:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 23, 2007 15:30
Let me rephrase: not pay off his debt, but heal the inner spirit which caused him to murder in the first place. Cosmic therapy, if you will.
October 23, 2007 3:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 23, 2007 15:29
Campbellite: just to be picky, the murderer who converts on death row does go straight to heaven if he dies in a state of grace following the sacrament of pennance (now called reconciliation to sound more PC) or a perfect act of contrition (invented to avoid the unfairness that would ensue if there were no way to go to heaven if you couldn't find a priest just before dying and you had a mortal sin you really wanted to confess), unless he commits some venial sin like an impure thought before the needle does its work. and your quoted concession to the nonbelievers has enough qualifications to make a lawyer giddy (as if it didn't take a few lawyers to come up with the stuff I started with). Your Bhuddist would have to argue that he's never heard of the Catholic Church, and can't be faulted for never glancing at the bible in his hotel room. The passage you quote was invented to avoid the absurdity of deaths before the apostles made it to the ends of the earth. As if someone who could get past the first part (excusable ignorance in the face of evangelicals in their face constantly) would have any idea how to find grace to move them to seek a god they haven't heard of (through no fault of their own).
October 23, 2007 2:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 23, 2007 14:44
Nope. The murderer who truly repents goes to pergatory to pay off his debt. Aung Sang Suui Kyi goes straight to heaven.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."
I'm so often astounded by how many people *think* they know what a religion teaches, when they clearly don't. RTFM, folks. Don't just go by what the cranks on TV say.
==========================
"So, according to Catholicism, a murderer who converts to Catholicism on death row might get to go to heaven, but Aung Sang Suu Kyi, a devout Buddhist, goes to hell. If this thought does not trouble your conscience, Vicar Bohlin, then you have neither love nor compassion within you. "
October 23, 2007 1:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 23, 2007 13:29
A Christian ruler may and must defend his subjects against every higher authority that seeks to force them to deny the Word of God and practice idolatry.
October 23, 2007 1:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 23, 2007 13:10
The dissolution is such, that the souls entrusted to the clergy receive great damage, for we are told that the majority of the clergy are living in open concubinage, and that if our justice intervenes in order to punish them, they revolt and create a scandal, and that they despise our justice to the point that they arm themselves against it.
October 23, 2007 1:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 23, 2007 13:06
UCCER: "I am tired of the bullying from you fundamentalist pigs. It's time that the rest of us expose you for the hate-mongers you are."
Agreed - then when you're finished with that, look back over Catholic history to remind youself of how often Catholics treated others the same way.
October 23, 2007 12:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 23, 2007 12:23
There's not a whole lot left to say when a protestant calls catholocism apostate, and suggests that it's followers aren't praying to the true god and will go to hell for their heresy. Canyon then seems to suggest that it hardly matters which reformer you follow, so any protestant sect is just fine, thank you (so they all sort of collectively form the "true" church - even though the respective denominations have never made such a collective claim that I have ever heard). Luther had a few problems with church leadership, but he never suggested that he had discovered a different god.
Canyon is right on one point. All that matters is whether what you believe in is the truth. I have just been pointing out that the more folks who absolutely believe that they have the exclusive franchise on the truhe and everyone else is a deluded fool for not believing in Jesus, Mohammad, neither prophet but a god nonetheless, or someone else, the more likely it is that they are all right, and they are all deluded. Canyon has just added a corollary within Christianity, making my point for me. At a minimum, this calls for some humility. I have no quarrel with believers, agnostics, atheists or anyone else, as long as they 1) keep their faith or lack thereof out of my government, and 2) either keep it to themselves altogether or at least argue it with some respect for their listener's equally held beliefs in search of common ground, or some respect for the sheer improbability that they were just coincidently born of the tiny minority of parents who held the true faith (all of us being in one minority or another on that score, and few of us chosing a faith after adult study without childhood guidance). this is perhaps the one area where we give our parents too much credit.
October 23, 2007 11:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 23, 2007 11:55
To Canyon Shearer:
How dare you insult the faith of our Catholic bretheren by calling their church an "apostasy" and condemning them to hell. Who do you think you are, you coward? Do you think you are God? Please, let God do the judging. It is a great sin to put yourself in God's place.
I am tired of the bullying from you fundamentalist pigs. It's time that the rest of us expose you for the hate-mongers you are.
October 23, 2007 11:02 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 23, 2007 11:02
CSS,
Obviously I can't shake your faith, and that's why it's good that my time has gone for debating on On-Faith.
Remember, the truth is more important than what you believe, make sure what you believe is the truth.
In your studies, read a few books about/by Jon Huss, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, and John MacArthur, to name a few good reformers. There is a real reason why Catholicism has fallen to the wayside in favor of the true church.
Hell is too hot and lasts too long for you to continue your cultish understanding of the scriptures.
October 23, 2007 10:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 23, 2007 10:38
Come now, Canyon,
As usual, pretend to address a post by NOT addressing a post.
"The Book of Revelation is first and foremost a book of prophecy, it calls the religious leader in Rome a wh*re; how do you reconcile that?"
I NEVER said "The Book of Revelation" (Apocalypse) wasn't a book of prophecy. You said that Babylon meant Rome. I said that by this thinking, then Peter mentions Rome. Nice sidetrack.
I can reconcile your ridiculous assertion by indicating that the scripture NEVER says "the religous leader in Rome" is the wh*re of Babylon. The Pope does not wear purple anyway.
While Catholic theology may agree that Babylon is Rome, it is PAGAN Rome. As far as prophecy goes, it predicts that pagan Rome will persecute Christians for the coming three hundred years. I guess we can see from the historical record that the prediction was true. Nice try.
Then you change the subject (surprise):
"The Bible says that “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Are you ready?"
I find it stange, but it seems to me that you can only believe in YOUR OWN state of grace by comparing yourself to another and tearing it down. So the question would be of more use to you if you asked YOURSELF; Are you ready? REALLY ready? Do you believe in YOUR faith MORE than you disbelieve mine?
The Bible warns me of those like you. You will NOT shake my faith. I will pray for you.
October 23, 2007 9:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 23, 2007 09:45
Canyon & CSS:
You guys should put on some gloves and box it out.
As for the Book of Revelations, it is not a book of prophecy, it is a giant metaphor that describes the evils and downfall of Rome.
Just thought you two would like an outside opinion.
Canyon......where's that MGD at boyo?
October 23, 2007 9:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 23, 2007 09:40
CSS,
I said I wouldn't reply, but I'm taking a break from my book to post a very short reply, because it's important.
The Book of Revelation is first and foremost a book of prophecy, it calls the religious leader in Rome a wh*re; how do you reconcile that?
The Bible says that “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Are you ready?
October 23, 2007 6:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 23, 2007 06:28
BTW...I Googled Tina Yothers...HA! A novena...ROFLMAO!
October 22, 2007 11:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 23:09
Canyon Shearer's last post is her most telling of herself. Make assertions that are illogical, or can't be backed up and call the other person's faith an apostate.
Oh...and then leave, so you can pretend you were the "rightest".
"CSS, you can post a made up list of people all you want, none of those would agree to the Papacy. Clement I would have probably hit you for making such a claim. Pelagius was the joke of his age and was nearly excommunicated several times. If anyone was in the authority to be Pope during that time, it would have been Augustine, or maybe Jerome, albeit they stand against everything your apostate religion believes."
None of them would agree?! You presume to know the thoughts of dead men...I love it!
By whom would Pelagius have been "nearly excommunicated several times" by? According to you HE was not the Pope (who probably would not excommunicate himself) and there ACTUALLY was NO Pope until 600. So what's up with these repeated and near excommunications?
"How do you account for Peter never ministering in Rome if he was supposedly such an important bishop there?"
No one said that PETER was ever the Bishop of Rome. The Pope would be the Bishop of Rome after the Papacy was CENTERED there, but not before. The Bible does not mention Peter in Rome, but does not mention him not in Rome either. Jesus was not in Rome, so making him the first Pope would not have happened there anyway. His presence, or lack thereof neither proves nor disproves the Papacy beginning with him.
But let's go with what YOU have to say on the subject anyway. Babylon refers to the Papacy and Rome...so I guess it IS in the Bible after all.
"The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark."
First Epistle Of Saint Peter 5:13
"I'll leave you with the rhetorical question: Is it more important what you believe? Or if what you believe is true?"
It's a very good question, but you would do YOURSELF a greater service by asking yourself; Do you believe THE truth, or have you created your own?
Let's suppose I am wrong about all I believe. Your lies and manipulations of information have not made YOU right anyway.
October 22, 2007 11:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 23:03
Canyon,
""In all Fairness", Revelation 17 is clearly about the Pope, it describes his dress perfectly. He is undoubtedly the wh*re of Babylon."
Look here, Champ, you RE-WRITE scripture to argue with KIDS...you have NO CREDIBILITY whatsoever!
Sheeps clothing describes YOUR dress perfectly.
Say whatever you want, and I will pray for those you successfully trick on your path to perdition.
Thanks for the Kirk Cameron link, but I am busy saying a novena with Tina Yothers and can't spend too much time on that.
October 22, 2007 8:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 20:59
The greatest irony is in your hatred of me, you are the worse for wear.
BC, I can't converse with you if you won't pay attention.
CSS, you can post a made up list of people all you want, none of those would agree to the Papacy. Clement I would have probably hit you for making such a claim. Pelagius was the joke of his age and was nearly excommunicated several times. If anyone was in the authority to be Pope during that time, it would have been Augustine, or maybe Jerome, albeit they stand against everything your apostate religion believes.
How do you account for Peter never ministering in Rome if he was supposedly such an important bishop there?
The Papacy is one of the greatest soap-operas in history, you have womanizers, atheists, and money-grubbers. Not to mention Jon-Paul was a pagan by all accounts. Papal infallibility is the exact opposite of what we see. Not to mention when Germany, France, and Rome had their own Popes...at the same time.
"In all Fairness", Revelation 17 is clearly about the Pope, it describes his dress perfectly. He is undoubtedly the wh*re of Babylon.
Joet, et al. Am starting a new class tomorrow, will not have time to respond. Good because this conversation has passed it's expiration.
I'll leave you with the rhetorical question: Is it more important what you believe? Or if what you believe is true?
http://www.wayofthemaster.com/goodperson.shtml
October 22, 2007 8:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 20:39
I'm not Canyon...I was agreeing with Gerry about Canyon. But it does look like Canyon is speechless all of a sudden.
October 22, 2007 8:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 20:19
HAHAHAHA, Now Shearer won't even reply under his own name, using ????? !!!!
Well, there's no ? but that he's a pathetic creature. Maybe in a future incarnation, he'll learn....
October 22, 2007 6:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 18:34
Gerry,
Like a Jack Chick comic, without the camp value. The manipulation of "facts" is like he took a correspondence course.
October 22, 2007 5:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 17:16
The street preacher C. Shearer really is a good salesman for all the terrified simpletons, the "poor in spirit". Just read his hateful and joyful sadomasochistic rants about hell and you will know what he means when he says "...the fruit of the Spirit (his spirit?) is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control etc."
No wonder Jesus (let us grant his existence for the argument's sake) said: "Unless you become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven".
Reading Shearer's infantilisms: He is a dead sure subscriber for heaven. Thank god (excuse me) I will never get there, the mere thought to meet this guy there gives me the measles, lol! He is also one of those retarded creationists that produce laughter all over the world!
October 22, 2007 4:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 16:54
Canyon Shearer posted:
"The wh*re of Babylon in Revelation 17 has historically been agreed upon to be the Pope in Rome, and Catholics consistently agree that Babylon in Revelation 18 is Rome...all you have to do is stop being willfully ignorant and connect the dots."
The Catholic agreement regarding the "wh*re of Babylon" being Rome, is that it is referring to PAGAN Rome!
Why are you so vitriolic and blatantly manipulating scripture to YOUR own end (Matthew 16:16&18)to a kid who is (at least) attempting to cite evidence of his faith?
October 22, 2007 4:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 16:02
"WE PREACH CHRIST CRUCIFIED"
Of course you do, because Christianity originated in an obsessive fixation on a torture scene.
That Christian fixation on torture has continued down the ages, and still infects the core of Christianity.
As with many such sadomasochistic obsessions and fixations, the Christian torture image was projected outward on to others, which is why the Christian Church has tortured so many throughout history.
I PREACH THE BUDDHA'S LIFE AND TEACHINGS, HIS COMPASSION, AND HIS PATH TO ENLIGHTENMENT
October 22, 2007 3:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 15:22
Re: number killed on the "Trail of Tears"
Well, Canyon, *you* are the one always going on about truth. When you say "millions" and then, basically, "well, never mind, it was an atrocity", I never said it wasn't. I just said 13,000 is not 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 if you want it plural.
Now the number might not matter to you, but to the 1,987,000 Cherokees who did *not* die,I would say it made a difference, wouldn't you?
And "whole people group" is just plain bad English and, you must admit, pretty imprecise. Do you mean "whole people" like people that have not had any limb or, say, appendix amputated? I ask because *you* are the one that who says the Bible sprang fully formed in, I guess, the Council of Carthage in AD 387 (397?)and every word is true.
Yet words can be very imprecise, Canyon.
Words strain,
Carck and sometimes break, under the burden,
Under the tension, slip slide, perish,
Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place,
Will not stay still.
October 22, 2007 2:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 14:04
Canyon: and now you come clean and spew protestant hatred of catholics? what happened to your protest that all religions are just fine, don't preach that heaven is reserved for their believers and all we have to do to get there is play nice?
October 22, 2007 1:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 13:43
Canyon Shearer:
Blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda
More hate speech. Your "Christian" dogma that those who disagree with you will undergo eternal pain and torture simply represents your hateful wish that it will be so.
And this hate projected onto God, is both idolatry and sacrilege rolled into one.
October 22, 2007 1:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 13:17
Canyon: you still don't get it. try as you might to suggest that sin is the only way to Hell, you ignore the fact that that is absolutely not what your (I don't even need to know what it is) or almost any other religion's theology on nonbelievers says. None preach that all that matters is whether you are righteous. All preach that theirs is the only way. "no one comes to the father except through me" is not ambiguous. The best I was ever taught in catholic school was that we believe you have to be catholic to go to heaven, but of course we don't really know what god will do with everyone else (so we could all secretly assume the heresy that they might be saved too, because the alternative was just too stupid to swallow) you can PC it all you want, just don't anyone pretend that Christians, for example, preach that Jews or Muslims can get to heaven with no serious obstacles as long as they don't cheat on their wives.
October 22, 2007 1:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 13:13
For Canyon:
Succession of Popes prior to 600:
St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66)
St. Damasus I (366-83)
St. Siricius (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-17)
St. Zosimus (417-18)
St. Boniface I (418-22)
St. Celestine I (422-32)
St. Sixtus III (432-40)
St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
St. Hilarius (461-68)
St. Simplicius (468-83)
St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
St. Gelasius I (492-96)
Anastasius II (496-98)
St. Symmachus (498-514)
St. Hormisdas (514-23)
St. John I (523-26)
St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32)
John II (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (535-36) -- also called Agapitus I
St. Silverius (536-37)
Vigilius (537-55)
Pelagius I (556-61)
John III (561-74)
Benedict I (575-79)
Pelagius II (579-90)
St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
October 22, 2007 1:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 13:08
Nice editing Canyon, you surely are the BEST at cleverly manipulating scripture...and so ANGRY when you can't go unchallenged.
Nice try though:
Gospel According to Saint Matthew
Chapter 16:16-19
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
October 22, 2007 1:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 13:00
Good comma use.
"You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." "On this rock I will build my church." There is a reason there wasn't a Pope until ~600, because it's a recent addition to the heresy that is the Roman Catholic Church.
The reason it was put in is because it was put together by the real church, not the apostasy that you are following to Hell. The wh*re of Babylon in Revelation 17 has historically been agreed upon to be the Pope in Rome, and Catholics consistently agree that Babylon in Revelation 18 is Rome...all you have to do is stop being willfully ignorant and connect the dots.
"In the long war on the truth, the most formidable, relentless and deceptive enemy has been Roman Catholicism. It is an apostate, corrupt, heretical, false Christianity, it is affront for the kingdom of Satan. The true church of the Lord Jesus Christ has always understood this."
Do you think it's a little odd that when the Roman Catholic Church was in charge, we call it the dark ages?
October 22, 2007 12:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 12:51
"No surprise from CSS, spouting lies she heard in class."
HE...thank you very much, ma'am.
"There is no room for a Pope in the Bible, because such a position is antithetical to the church."
Peter was the first Pope, per Jesus: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18
"Besides, the seven books you dream contain the missing lies your faith is founded on are worthless books barely worth the history contained in them. They contain no extra doctrine."
And Peter, the first Pope says: "Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." 2 Peter 1:20
You sure are a nasty one, but for all the nastiness you spew at me, you have not answered the question at the heart of my post. Just nastiness and the easy stuff from you.
So if the parable of the unjust steward and of the rich man and Lazarus was referring to the Pope, why did The Church put it in? Furthermore, what evidence is there that parables were also prophecy?
I guess staying home from school with a cold can be a blessing when it allows me to defend the faith.
October 22, 2007 12:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 12:37
Recusant,
What weird and worthless questions.
Whether one or a trillion Native Americans were killed, it was an atrocity.
People groups means people groups. There is only one race, so obviously it wasn't that.
More importantly, "What's it to thee? Follow me." Says Christ.
Or perish.
October 22, 2007 12:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 12:37
Canyon wrote:
"In the name of Land, men killed millions of Native Americans.
In the name of Gold, men wiped out whole people groups."
Millions of Amerindians is a big number and there is no evidence. The Amerindians died of germs the Europeans brought with themselves and their animals. The worst atrocity killing Native Americans for their land was the ethnic cleansing of the Cherokee nation, "trail of tears", I think the number dead was 13,000. Hard to bear but a long way from millions.
What is a "whole people groups"? Do you mean tribes? race? What do you mean?
Incoherent.
October 22, 2007 12:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 12:14
No surprise from CSS, spouting lies she heard in class.
How do you think the Protestants were able to so thoroughly remove themselves from Catholicism? It wasn't because they made up doctrines, it was merely by following the true doctrines of the Bible. There is no room for a Pope in the Bible, because such a position is antithetical to the church.
You know that, I know that. We all know the Bible was COMPLETE according to the Council of Carthage in AD 397, a catholic council, catholic-universal, not Catholic-apostate, as the 66 Books we have today. Besides, the seven books you dream contain the missing lies your faith is founded on are worthless books barely worth the history contained in them. They contain no extra doctrine.
October 22, 2007 12:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 12:08
BC,
Sticking your fingers in your ears and going, lalalalalalalalalalalala will not make reality go away.
You won't go to Hell for failing to be a Christian.
I never said that, the Bible doesn't say that, it's a ridiculous thought.
Sinners will go to Hell. Sin is transgression against the law. The law is contained in, but not limited to, the 10 Commandments.
You will go to Hell for hating righteousness, worshipping yourself, money, or iniquity, using the name of God in vain, worshipping creation above the Creator, dishonoring authority, murder, hatred, lust, fornication, stealing, lying, and coveting, and tolerating those who do.
The law brings wrath, and the wages of sin is death. You probably think that God doesn't care about your sins because you haven't been punished for them yet. You are storing up the wages of sin, just like you may have worked this week, but won't get paid 'till next week, you still expect to be paid. Expect to be paid for your transgression on the Day of Judgment.
So, while you won't go to Hell for failing to be a Christian, there are so many other reasons you'll go to Hell.
I hope this cleared up your confusion.
trustobey.blogspot.com/2007/08/pop-quiz-hotshot.html
October 22, 2007 11:58 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 11:58
To Canyon Shearer:
Blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda
Your so called "Christian dogma" that anyone who disagrees with your religious views will spend "an eternity in Hell," is simply your personal bigotry and hatred for anyone who is different from you, projected onto your idea of god -- idolatry and sacrilege combined.
October 22, 2007 11:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 11:41
No surprise from Canyon Shearer: "The Pope is not a Christian, read the Biblical story about him in Luke 16:19-31"
The Bible was origianlly compiled by the Catholic church. Protestant Bibles, among other edits, are otherwise the same Bible with some (7?) books removed.
So if the parable of the unjust steward and of the rich man and Lazarus was referring to the Pope, why did The Church put it in? Furthermore, what evidence is there that parables were also prophecy?
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5
October 22, 2007 11:23 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 11:23
BC,
You're right, Christianity is not the only way to God:
It is appointed once for a man to die, and then the judgment. On that day, you will spend at least some amount of time in Heaven standing before the Great White Throne.
God will open the book of your conscience and see everytime you've disrespected your parents, everytime you did something deceitful to the detriment of someone else, everytime you were unfaith to your spouse in flesh or in spirit. Remember that God considers hatred as murder (Matt 5:21), lust as adultery (5:28), lying lips are an abomination (Proverbs 12:22), and all of these will have their part in the lake of fire. (Revelation 21:8)
Deeds done in darkness will be brought to the light, and just as on earth, a sliding scale of judgment will not save a murderer no matter how much good he's done, neither will the good you've done save you from your transgressions. A rapist who painted eldery peoples' houses won't stand any better than a rapist who didn't paint eldery people's houses.
The punishment for a transgression against an infinitely holy God is an eternity in Hell, where you will forever pay your fine, but never pay all of it. God will be glorified both for being patient and giving you the opportunity to repent, and for being perfectly just.
Or you can realize that while an infinite punishment was due, Jesus Christ paid that fine on the Cross at Calvary when the eternal Trinity was torn in twain. The Bible says that Jesus Christ was made sin for us, your sin was on His back and when He was separated from His Father, your sin was separated from the Father.
But just as if a criminal can pay his fine, but shows no remorse and will continue breaking the law, the judge won't let him go; so is it with God, that while your fine is paid, an unrepentant heart will keep you in damnation.
Repent, therefore, of your wickedness, and embrace the God who loved you so much that He DIED for you.
In closing, ask yourself this important question, when your religion brings you into the presence of God, will you face Him as your Saviour, or as your Judge?
October 22, 2007 10:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 10:48
While Jews, Christians, and Muslims traditionally have no particular objection to killing both their 'enemies' and each other for that matter,
Buddhists are by and large supreme pacifists - they may be victimized by governments, but these modern-day governments and their minions are not followers of the pacifist philisophy of Buddhism by any stretch of the imagination - they're militarist despots, killers and egomaniacal psychopaths in the same fashion as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and the rest of their evil breed. These mass murderers can't even be called atheists, because any kind of philosophical outlook whatsoever is alien to their kind, other than feeding the supreme ego gratification of total dominance. Now that kind will burn in a hell of their own making.
October 22, 2007 10:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 10:31
As usual, this is a forum for the well-known brand of Christian bigotry: No other spiritual path leads to god except theirs.
In fact, there are many excellent paths to God, and the one chosen by most Christians today involves endorsing war and hate, unlike that of Buddhists like the Dalai Lama, who has sacrificed even his country in favor of the Buddhist principle of Peace and Compassion.
Try telling any Christian today that according to Christ's teaching, they must be prepared to give up everything to follow Him, up to and including forswearing war in "defending" their country.
You'd be immediatly "slimed" as a coward and traitor.
The Christian Way is an excellent path to God if followed; unfortunately, most Christians don't follow it. They are too interested in Hate and War.
October 22, 2007 10:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 10:17
I'm unaware of Buddhists killing for Buddha - this would be a profound sacrilege for those that take his message of self-less compassion for others to heart. On the other hand, countless millions have been slaughtered in the name of God and Allah.....on that I can completely agree.
October 22, 2007 10:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 10:09
Jim,
Reposted from an article I wrote in June:
In the History of the world, there have been some truly heinous acts committed.
In the name of God, men crucified Christ.
In the name of Christ, men made the streets of Jerusalem flow blood.
In the name of Allah, men flew airplanes into buildings.
In the name of Buddha, men murder those who deny him.
In the name of Kings, men oppressed nations.
In the name of Queens, men allowed nations to starve.
In the name of Evolution, men proclaimed the master race and murdered six million.
In the name of Socialism, men in charge of the Soviet Union documented over 100-million murders.
In the name of Atheism, men have murdered clergymen.
In the name of Money, men murder in cold blood.
In the name of Drugs, men sell daughters into slavery.
In the name of Land, men killed millions of Native Americans.
In the name of Gold, men wiped out whole people groups.
In the name of Helen, men have gone to war.
In the name of Women, men have taken high-powered rifles into clock towers.
In the name of Peace, men dropped nuclear weapons.
In the name of Self-Expression, men have murdered dozens of students.
In the name of Babies, men bombed abortion clinics.
In the name of Tolerance, men ignore gross sexual acts.
In the name of Sex, men allow 1 in 4 dead from the AIDS virus to be babies.
In the name of Choice, men have murdered fifty million human beings.
In the name of Road-Rage, men kill each other on the freeway.
There is one common theme through all this. There is no limit to the deceitfulness of the human heart; just when we expected that nothing could top atheistic communism, we find a terrorist group which trains its children that strapping a bomb to their little bodies and running into a marketplace is their highest and best usefulness. As shocking as this is, I do not think it will be the last great measure of depravity we will see.
------------------
Frank Burns,
An interesting idea you have there...how do you suppose we do that? Grow our children in incubators until they reach 18 years old?
Take a look at our state religion:
http://trustobey.blogspot.com/2007/06/dying-religiong-of-evolution.html
October 22, 2007 9:22 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 09:22
It is odd that the most vicious, non-compassionate religion, Christians, continue to preach love. This group of people dropped the atomic bomb. This religious group spread military arms throughout the world that kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people and destroy the property of the poor. This religious group preaches democracy while condoning the most heinous racism. This religious group is money driven and displays contempt for the very God they profess to love. Many of us who are proud to believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are just as proud NOT to believe in church and religion both of which are nothing more than organized gangs. They may as well be the Bloods or the Crips. END THE WAR IN IRAQ.
October 22, 2007 9:07 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 09:07
It is odd that the most vicious, non-compassionate religion, Christians, continue to preach love. This group of people dropped the atomic bomb. This religious group spread military arms throughout the world that kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people and destroy property of the poor. This religious group preaches democracy while condoning the most heinous racism. This religious group is money driven and displays contempt for the very God they profess to love. Many of us who are proud to believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are just as proud NOT to believe in church and religion both of which are nothing more than organized gangs. They may as well be the Bloods or the Crips. END THE WAR IN IRAQ.
October 22, 2007 9:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 09:05
Religion should be free for adults, but no one should have the right to indoctrinate children. It simply isn't fair to the kid. Sad, very sad.
October 22, 2007 7:58 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 22, 2007 07:58
Paganplace,
Is it just me, or have you gotten considerably more angry in the past few weeks?
"Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those