True Christianity...

[saturneptune]

Publisher Larry Harrison has stated: “Let America again be forewarned as to Rome’s INTENTION ‘to make America [ROMAN] CATHOLIC’.” (And America is being “Romanized” through massive illegal Roman Catholic immigration coming into the USA from Mexico and from other parts of Latin America – aided and abetted by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in both the USA and in Mexico! If you doubt this, then I again ask that you please read the article “Romanizing America Through Illegal Immigration” on Internet website www.ctwilcox.com.) Larry Harrison also said: “Popes have been consistent in their declarations that freedom of religion should NOT exist, and that the Church of Rome represents the ONLY true faith and therefore should ALONE be allowed to spread its doctrines.”



On March 16, 1960 Raymond Frazier warned: “Persecution of non-Catholics in [Ed.: Roman] Catholic-controlled countries should WARN Americans as to what will happen here if the pope ever gains full control of this country. [Ed.: Papal] Rome NEVER changes.”



Author David W. Daniels, in the Sept./Oct. 2005 issue of the “Battle Cry” newsletter, stated: “…The new pope, Benedict XVI, was recently in Germany for World Youth Day 2005. He urged Europe to return to its ‘Christian roots’. What does that mean? It means a time when kings lived in FEAR of the POPE. This new Roman Catholic leader was formerly the Chief Inquisitor, head of the ‘Holy Office’ of the Inquisition. Is it any coincidence that this German pope is still referred to by his colleagues as ‘Der Panzerkardinal’? …Get ready, folks, and hang onto your Bibles. What this new pope really wants is a 21st CENTURY VERSION of the DARK AGES.”



The Marquis de Lafayette, French statesman and general, stated: “It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country – the United States of America – are DESTROYED, it will be by the subtlety of the ROMAN CATHOLIC JESUIT PRIESTS, for they are the most crafty, dangerous ENEMIES to civil and religious liberty. They have instigated most of the wars of Europe.”



We Americans would do well to heed the above warnings!


Your denomination drips with blood of innocents. You have abused the power of God for centuries for your own power. How many lives have you destroyed?

And you have the gall to complain about a nutcase Catholic official that was splashed with water? Good enough for him.

 

[Eliyahu]

Publisher Larry Harrison has stated: “Let America again be forewarned as to Rome’s INTENTION ‘to make America [ROMAN] CATHOLIC’.” (And America is being “Romanized” through massive illegal Roman Catholic immigration coming into the USA from Mexico and from other parts of Latin America – aided and abetted by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in both the USA and in Mexico! If you doubt this, then I again ask that you please read the article “Romanizing America Through Illegal Immigration” on Internet website www.ctwilcox.com.) Larry Harrison also said: “Popes have been consistent in their declarations that freedom of religion should NOT exist, and that the Church of Rome represents the ONLY true faith and therefore should ALONE be allowed to spread its doctrines.”



On March 16, 1960 Raymond Frazier warned: “Persecution of non-Catholics in [Ed.: Roman] Catholic-controlled countries should WARN Americans as to what will happen here if the pope ever gains full control of this country. [Ed.: Papal] Rome NEVER changes.”



Author David W. Daniels, in the Sept./Oct. 2005 issue of the “Battle Cry” newsletter, stated: “…The new pope, Benedict XVI, was recently in Germany for World Youth Day 2005. He urged Europe to return to its ‘Christian roots’. What does that mean? It means a time when kings lived in FEAR of the POPE. This new Roman Catholic leader was formerly the Chief Inquisitor, head of the ‘Holy Office’ of the Inquisition. Is it any coincidence that this German pope is still referred to by his colleagues as ‘Der Panzerkardinal’? …Get ready, folks, and hang onto your Bibles. What this new pope really wants is a 21st CENTURY VERSION of the DARK AGES.”



The Marquis de Lafayette, French statesman and general, stated: “It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country – the United States of America – are DESTROYED, it will be by the subtlety of the ROMAN CATHOLIC JESUIT PRIESTS, for they are the most crafty, dangerous ENEMIES to civil and religious liberty. They have instigated most of the wars of Europe.”



We Americans would do well to heed the above warnings!


Your denomination drips with blood of innocents. You have abused the power of God for centuries for your own power. How many lives have you destroyed?

And you have the gall to complain about a nutcase Catholic official that was splashed with water? Good enough for him.

Excellent Post!~

I may have mistaken you with someone else before! Sorry about that.
But there are some things that you may not understand what I have been saying in other issues.
Please remember I have been away from BB for 5 years though I joined here earlier than you did.

RCC secured Canada completely, only USA is left in North and South America.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Dont you dare come on here and post an article about how Catholic hierarchies are humiliated by spraying with water and being called a name, when your organization has a consistant history since your apostate founding in the fourth century of executing, persecuting, demeaning, and eliminating other Christian groups

Not only have I dared but have done so. As for your statement "your organization has a consistent history since your apostate founding in the fourth century" Shows two things. 1) you are quite clueless to when the Catholic Church was founded since Catholics existed long before the forth Century holding to the same beliefs as do Catholics today. Justin Martyr shows belief in the Catholic view of the Eucharist. Ireneaus shows the view of Papal leadership of the Christian Church. Ignatius refers to all believers as Catholics. The didache show liturgical worship. Marian prayers date back to as early as 250 AD. All of it long before the 4th Century. You don't even know it wasn't Constantine who made the Catholic faith the religion of empire! Clearly your ignorance on Christian history shows itself by your statement. 2) You also show your ignorance about what was going on in the 4th Century. It was Catholics that were regularly persecuted at that time. Arians had outnumbered Catholic Christians and found favor in imperial courts. Churches were being forced from Catholics To Arians for Arian use. Thank God for Ambrose who brought that practice to an end. But because of Arian influence in the empire Athenasius was often persecuted and had to flee for his life on several occasions. Clearly you don't even know that. As far as the reformation. You don't even know that it was political entities which murdered in the name of the Church and not the Church itself. However, there was some complicity by some clergy it wasn't as wide spread as the propaganda at that time would lead you to believe. So yes I dare and expose your ignorance of Christian history. I've read Foxes book of Martyrs and I know for a fact his history is exactly the same as the Catholic history of persecution of the Catholic Church until it comes to the more recent persecutions of the protestants of his day. And just to let you know Foxe was Anglican and the Anglicans had their fair share of killing Catholics but again it wasn't the English Church but the English government that is to blame. You bought into hype without proper research.

Statements by Catholic leaders from the 6th to 15th century CE) had confirmed this belief, and even named specific religious groups who were excluded from salvation. For example, in 1442 CE, Pope Eugene IV issued "Cantate Domino" which stated:

Exclusion from salvation is not the same as persecution. You exclude people from salvation as well to include Catholics what makes you any better? Do you believes Jews who remain jews will be saved? Or Pagans? No you are just looking for justification to persecute the Catholic Church. So when you make this accusation as an attempt to show persecution of Catholics towards others what you have only done is show Catholic belief that they hold their faith as truth that leads to salvation and those not in agreement aren't saved. How is that different from you saying you must be born again and unless you are not saved? How is it any different? It isn't.

Also your attempt to compare Catholic canons calling certain beliefs Anathema to modern "hate crime " legislation" proves that your source and you have combine to non related items showing false relationship to allow you to lay the foundation to persecute the Catholic Church. The Fact that you made 5 back to back post to show this connection reveals to me your intention that the Catholic Church should be persecuted in modern times and wipe out with out prejudice. And when that day of great persecution of the Catholic Church comes will you be holding a gun at my head? Will you salivate at the opportunity to "get back" at us for perceived wrongs committed centuries ago? Will you help the government authorities make list of all Catholics that they might be imprisoned? I wonder.

Eliyahu doesn't realize that the Canadian government also persecutes the Catholic Church because they don't allow Catholics to teach against homosexuality or abortion without being brought up on Charges. The people he calls Catholic in his country are not. They are the apostate Church that doesn't adhere to Catholic teaching.

 

[saturneptune]

Not only have I dared but have done so. As for your statement "your organization has a consistent history since your apostate founding in the fourth century" Shows two things. 1) you are quite clueless to when the Catholic Church was founded since Catholics existed long before the forth Century holding to the same beliefs as do Catholics today. Justin Martyr shows belief in the Catholic view of the Eucharist. Ireneaus shows the view of Papal leadership of the Christian Church. Ignatius refers to all believers as Catholics. The didache show liturgical worship. Marian prayers date back to as early as 250 AD. All of it long before the 4th Century. You don't even know it wasn't Constantine who made the Catholic faith the religion of empire! Clearly your ignorance on Christian history shows itself by your statement. 2) You also show your ignorance about what was going on in the 4th Century. It was Catholics that were regularly persecuted at that time. Arians had outnumbered Catholic Christians and found favor in imperial courts. Churches were being forced from Catholics To Arians for Arian use. Thank God for Ambrose who brought that practice to an end. But because of Arian influence in the empire Athenasius was often persecuted and had to flee for his life on several occasions. Clearly you don't even know that. As far as the reformation. You don't even know that it was political entities which murdered in the name of the Church and not the Church itself. However, there was some complicity by some clergy it wasn't as wide spread as the propaganda at that time would lead you to believe. So yes I dare and expose your ignorance of Christian history. I've read Foxes book of Martyrs and I know for a fact his history is exactly the same as the Catholic history of persecution of the Catholic Church until it comes to the more recent persecutions of the protestants of his day. And just to let you know Foxe was Anglican and the Anglicans had their fair share of killing Catholics but again it wasn't the English Church but the English government that is to blame. You bought into hype without proper research.


Exclusion from salvation is not the same as persecution. You exclude people from salvation as well to include Catholics what makes you any better? Do you believes Jews who remain jews will be saved? Or Pagans? No you are just looking for justification to persecute the Catholic Church. So when you make this accusation as an attempt to show persecution of Catholics towards others what you have only done is show Catholic belief that they hold their faith as truth that leads to salvation and those not in agreement aren't saved. How is that different from you saying you must be born again and unless you are not saved? How is it any different? It isn't.

Also your attempt to compare Catholic canons calling certain beliefs Anathema to modern "hate crime " legislation" proves that your source and you have combine to non related items showing false relationship to allow you to lay the foundation to persecute the Catholic Church. The Fact that you made 5 back to back post to show this connection reveals to me your intention that the Catholic Church should be persecuted in modern times and wipe out with out prejudice. And when that day of great persecution of the Catholic Church comes will you be holding a gun at my head? Will you salivate at the opportunity to "get back" at us for perceived wrongs committed centuries ago? Will you help the government authorities make list of all Catholics that they might be imprisoned? I wonder.

Eliyahu doesn't realize that the Canadian government also persecutes the Catholic Church because they don't allow Catholics to teach against homosexuality or abortion without being brought up on Charges. The people he calls Catholic in his country are not. They are the apostate Church that doesn't adhere to Catholic teaching.

No I am not quite clueless. The Catholic church does not go back to Peter, and your founding was nothing but a written agreement between polticial thugs 400-500 AD. Give or take a hundred years, what does it matter. Your organization is guilty of systematic murder, torture, and basically, just spineless hatred.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No I am not quite clueless. The Catholic church does not go back to Peter, and your founding was nothing but a written agreement between polticial thugs 400-500 AD. Give or take a hundred years, what does it matter. Your organization is guilty of systematic murder, torture, and basically, just spineless hatred.

Lets say you are right and the Catholic Church doesn't go back to Peter or Jesus. Catholic distinctiveness are found long before 300-500s thus showing an earlier date for the start of the Catholic Church. All Constantine did was allow for Christian Toleration. Theodosius made it the sole religion of empire. As for our guilt I will say members with in the Church are guilty as you say but not the organization as a whole. Just as I will not hold you accountable for what the Westboro Baptist choose to do. Yet you don't practice this the other way around. You don't even realize that Apostate Catholic persecuted real Catholics like John of the Cross was persecuted by apostate Catholics. You unfortunately combine the apostates with the actual.

Also I find it curious that not one of your post do you rail against the Homosexual women who abused this priest but take an opportunity to malign the Catholic Church. Also I find it curious that you haven't as yet disagreed about wiping out the Catholic Church without prejudice. Had it been reversed I would have made an outcry against the injured Baptist.

So, am I right about the persecution to come? I hope not. But know this the United States government (military) has listed the Catholic Church as religious extremists and know have done so to all evangelical Christians including Southern Baptist? They are censoring Church related websites on their computers. I think Catholics will be first then the rest of Christianity. We should stand together not apart.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Not only have I dared but have done so. As for your statement "your organization has a consistent history since your apostate founding in the fourth century" Shows two things. 1) you are quite clueless to when the Catholic Church was founded since Catholics existed long before the forth Century holding to the same beliefs as do Catholics today. Justin Martyr shows belief in the Catholic view of the Eucharist. Ireneaus shows the view of Papal leadership of the Christian Church. Ignatius refers to all believers as Catholics. The didache show liturgical worship. Marian prayers date back to as early as 250 AD. All of it long before the 4th Century. You don't even know it wasn't Constantine who made the Catholic faith the religion of empire! Clearly your ignorance on Christian history shows itself by your statement. 2) You also show your ignorance about what was going on in the 4th Century. It was Catholics that were regularly persecuted at that time. Arians had outnumbered Catholic Christians and found favor in imperial courts. Churches were being forced from Catholics To Arians for Arian use. Thank God for Ambrose who brought that practice to an end. But because of Arian influence in the empire Athenasius was often persecuted and had to flee for his life on several occasions. Clearly you don't even know that. As far as the reformation. You don't even know that it was political entities which murdered in the name of the Church and not the Church itself. However, there was some complicity by some clergy it wasn't as wide spread as the propaganda at that time would lead you to believe. So yes I dare and expose your ignorance of Christian history. I've read Foxes book of Martyrs and I know for a fact his history is exactly the same as the Catholic history of persecution of the Catholic Church until it comes to the more recent persecutions of the protestants of his day. And just to let you know Foxe was Anglican and the Anglicans had their fair share of killing Catholics but again it wasn't the English Church but the English government that is to blame. You bought into hype without proper research.


Exclusion from salvation is not the same as persecution. You exclude people from salvation as well to include Catholics what makes you any better? Do you believes Jews who remain jews will be saved? Or Pagans? No you are just looking for justification to persecute the Catholic Church. So when you make this accusation as an attempt to show persecution of Catholics towards others what you have only done is show Catholic belief that they hold their faith as truth that leads to salvation and those not in agreement aren't saved. How is that different from you saying you must be born again and unless you are not saved? How is it any different? It isn't.

Also your attempt to compare Catholic canons calling certain beliefs Anathema to modern "hate crime " legislation" proves that your source and you have combine to non related items showing false relationship to allow you to lay the foundation to persecute the Catholic Church. The Fact that you made 5 back to back post to show this connection reveals to me your intention that the Catholic Church should be persecuted in modern times and wipe out with out prejudice. And when that day of great persecution of the Catholic Church comes will you be holding a gun at my head? Will you salivate at the opportunity to "get back" at us for perceived wrongs committed centuries ago? Will you help the government authorities make list of all Catholics that they might be imprisoned? I wonder.

Eliyahu doesn't realize that the Canadian government also persecutes the Catholic Church because they don't allow Catholics to teach against homosexuality or abortion without being brought up on Charges. The people he calls Catholic in his country are not. They are the apostate Church that doesn't adhere to Catholic teaching.

Let me just comment on one of your points: When church and state are united, the church cannot be excused of torture, persecution, and murder. State churches were all guilty of that, and that includes the RCC and Magisterial Protestants. We've discussed this before, and I know you will continue to deny it, but the facts show otherwise. What the RCC did to the Waldensians, and the Inquisition are enough to prove the genocide on the Catholic side.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Lets say you are right and the Catholic Church doesn't go back to Peter or Jesus. Catholic distinctiveness are found long before 300-500s thus showing an earlier date for the start of the Catholic Church. All Constantine did was allow for Christian Toleration. Theodosius made it the sole religion of empire. As for our guilt I will say members with in the Church are guilty as you say but not the organization as a whole. Just as I will not hold you accountable for what the Westboro Baptist choose to do. Yet you don't practice this the other way around. You don't even realize that Apostate Catholic persecuted real Catholics like John of the Cross was persecuted by apostate Catholics. You unfortunately combine the apostates with the actual.

Also I find it curious that not one of your post do you rail against the Homosexual women who abused this priest but take an opportunity to malign the Catholic Church. Also I find it curious that you haven't as yet disagreed about wiping out the Catholic Church without prejudice. Had it been reversed I would have made an outcry against the injured Baptist.

So, am I right about the persecution to come? I hope not. But know this the United States government (military) has listed the Catholic Church as religious extremists and know have done so to all evangelical Christians including Southern Baptist? They are censoring Church related websites on their computers. I think Catholics will be first then the rest of Christianity. We should stand together not apart.

I agree with you on this, if such standing together is possible.

 

[mactx]

Hmmm Why were they allowed to do this? if this was supposed to be a "debate" then some decorum should have been in order.
Something smells funny about the episode.
As a Christian he should have left since it was an obviously pagan party.

 

[annsni]

Because that would amount to idlolatry? Or just not inclined?

Honestly - a bit of both.

 

[DHK]

Lets say you are right and the Catholic Church doesn't go back to Peter or Jesus. Catholic distinctiveness are found long before 300-500s thus showing an earlier date for the start of the Catholic Church. All Constantine did was allow for Christian Toleration. Theodosius made it the sole religion of empire.

I think this is too easy of a scape-goat for you. Indeed Constantine did allow for toleration of religion, but he made a false profession of faith. He used Christianity for his own political gain. It was the religion of the day that was growing and gaining popularity among the people. He was an astute politician. To make it even more palatable to the masses, mostly pagans, he introduced idols. In short he "paganized Christianity and Christianized paganism."
You may be correct in that some of the concepts existed before this time like transubstantiation and baptismal regeneration. But they became more formalized and more organized into one religion with the introduction of more idolatry at the time of Constantine. Thus we point to this time as the origin of the RCC, and not to an earlier date. Constantine did much more than just offer religious toleration.

 

[saturneptune]

Lets say you are right and the Catholic Church doesn't go back to Peter or Jesus. Catholic distinctiveness are found long before 300-500s thus showing an earlier date for the start of the Catholic Church. All Constantine did was allow for Christian Toleration. Theodosius made it the sole religion of empire. As for our guilt I will say members with in the Church are guilty as you say but not the organization as a whole. Just as I will not hold you accountable for what the Westboro Baptist choose to do. Yet you don't practice this the other way around. You don't even realize that Apostate Catholic persecuted real Catholics like John of the Cross was persecuted by apostate Catholics. You unfortunately combine the apostates with the actual.

Also I find it curious that not one of your post do you rail against the Homosexual women who abused this priest but take an opportunity to malign the Catholic Church. Also I find it curious that you haven't as yet disagreed about wiping out the Catholic Church without prejudice. Had it been reversed I would have made an outcry against the injured Baptist.

So, am I right about the persecution to come? I hope not. But know this the United States government (military) has listed the Catholic Church as religious extremists and know have done so to all evangelical Christians including Southern Baptist? They are censoring Church related websites on their computers. I think Catholics will be first then the rest of Christianity. We should stand together not apart.

There is no "lets say" to it. The foundation of the Roman Catholic Church is a document to gain power amongst political thugs, that has nothing to do with worshipping Jesus Christ. Had it been the founding of the one true New Testement church, then it would have been more like Christ than an instrument of idolitry, magic acts, torture and execution. Name one instance in history where an organized Baptist group murdered others for the sheer pleasure of it.

Oh send my condolences to the Catholic official that got all wet. Poor baby.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is no "lets say" to it. The foundation of the Roman Catholic Church is a document to gain power amongst political thugs, that has nothing to do with worshipping Jesus Christ.

You are soooo wrong! Its actually documented all the way back to the apostles. I was just showing you that if you were correct about not going back to Jesus I could prove Catholics existed long before Constantine by verifiable documentation. Unfortunately, You don't have similar documentation backing your denomination. You don't know Catholicism at all. All you know are the Catholics who claim to be Catholic but are outside the actual faith. Apart from that you know nothing of the Catholic Church. Ireneaus has a list which can be cross referenced with Eusebius cross referenced with many other documents showing direct succession.

Oh send my condolences to the Catholic official that got all wet. Poor baby.

And thus you prove my point with your sarcasm.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I think this is too easy of a scape-goat for you.

Not a scapegoat at all but the Truth.

Indeed Constantine did allow for toleration of religion, but he made a false profession of faith.

That may be but I won't judge because I don't know.

He used Christianity for his own political gain. It was the religion of the day that was growing and gaining popularity among the people.

I would agree that was likely.

He was an astute politician. To make it even more palatable to the masses, mostly pagans, he introduced idols

An astute Politician he was however where is your proof Constantine "introduced" Idols into Christianity. What document are you referring to? Actually, According to Peter Brown, The Rise of Christendom 2nd edition (Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 2003) p. 60. By the end of his reign Constantine he produced an edict which allowed for pagans to practice as long as they didn't force Christians to join them saying of pagan practices that they

"celebrate the rites of an outmoded illusion

And Eusebius records a letter Constantine wrote to the king of the Persians claiming he worship the one God alone and shunned

"abominable blood and hateful odors" of pagan sacrifices

Constantine also prohibited the building of pagan temples in Constantinople according to Gerberding, R. and J. H. Moran Cruz, Medieval Worlds (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004) p. 28. So it seems your supposition is wrong once again for lack of actual historical knowledge.

In short he "paganized Christianity and Christianized paganism."

And you have no proof.

You may be correct in that some of the concepts existed before this time like transubstantiation and baptismal regeneration

Yes they did.

But they became more formalized and more organized into one religion with the introduction of more idolatry at the time of Constantine

Not true the didache proves things were already formulized before the Apostles even disappeared. Justin Martyrs rendition of the Liturgy can be closely related to modern liturgy. We even see many of the same words Hippolytus records in that Liturgy all well before Constantine.

And Thus we point to this time as the origin of the RCC, and not to an earlier date. Constantine did much more than just offer religious toleration.

Do you really want to know why you point to Constantine rather than an earlier date though the evidence is overwhelming for an earlier date? I'll tell you why. For 2 reasons. 1) Constantine was a turning point for Christians as he brought an end to Christian persecution and Christians could openly practice their faith so to speak. and 2) you carry on the errors of certain 19th century historians made which modern historians are able to argue against with archeological and documents found in the current period.

 

[saturneptune]

And thus you prove my point with your sarcasm.

Let me tell you something. Your priest, cardinal, bishop, whatever, it makes no difference if it was the Pope's wife, was play acting just like a Pharisee. He broke every principle of Christ in Matthew 23. He wanted a worldly audience. Woe to scribes and Pharisees, they pray so man can hear them, they give an offering but help no one, making sure the coins cling loudly in the offering plate. The best description of the priest is a whitewashed tomb, glistening white on the outside, and rotten meat on the inside. He was nothing but a sideshow for all the world to see.

While I do not condone the action itself, as it shows disrepect for an authority figure, it is for that reason only. It shows nothing towards Christian love.

 

[saturneptune]

You are soooo wrong! Its actually documented all the way back to the apostles. I was just showing you that if you were correct about not going back to Jesus I could prove Catholics existed long before Constantine by verifiable documentation. Unfortunately, You don't have similar documentation backing your denomination. You don't know Catholicism at all. All you know are the Catholics who claim to be Catholic but are outside the actual faith. Apart from that you know nothing of the Catholic Church. Ireneaus has a list which can be cross referenced with Eusebius cross referenced with many other documents showing direct succession.

I know plenty of the Catholic Church. I know at periods of your pathetic history, the Catholic Church acted no different in the treatment of human beings than Hitler did the Jews.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Let me tell you something. Your priest, cardinal, bishop, whatever, it makes no difference if it was the Pope's wife, was play acting just like a Pharisee. He broke every principle of Christ in Matthew 23. He wanted a worldly audience. Woe to scribes and Pharisees, they pray so man can hear them, they give an offering but help no one, making sure the coins cling loudly in the offering plate. The best description of the priest is a whitewashed tomb, glistening white on the outside, and rotten meat on the inside. He was nothing but a sideshow for all the world to see.

The problem is you don't adhere to Matthew 23. How does Matthew 23 start out?

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you

As for the hypocrisy aspect of the chapter I am certain there were clergy and lay Catholics who were. On the other hand it is no different in protestant Churches. There are plenty of hypocrites there as well. Let me give you a for real example. At the Baptist Church I went to there was a man who was a member and contracted to do work for the Church. He never got the job done though was paid over $30,000 for it. The Church ended up having to Contract with someone else. And strangely enough he was shortly there after voted in as a deacon. Upon his nomination he didn't apologize for swindling the Church and only said "I know some of you have bad feelings about me but you need to not judge". Interestingly enough some years later this guy is one of Catholicism greatest critics making the same claims you do. Though this man easily finds "lack of biblical faithfulness" in someone else fails to look at himself.

In the end you don't know the motivation of this clergy member. Yet you certainly put yourself in the place of God by Judging the mans motives on supposition rather than actual knowledge of them.

While I do not condone the action itself, as it shows disrepect for an authority figure, it is for that reason only. It shows nothing towards Christian love.

It shows follow through with Jesus teaching in Matthew 5.

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also

What you don't know is 1) if he was kissing the bottle because it was a representation of Jesus' mother or 2) because it was the instrument of his humiliation. Catholics hold to this strong belief by Paul.

but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

and

The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

and again

For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too.[

also as we see in Peters teaching

But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

And therefore believing that sufferings let us share in Christ and his suffering which bring us even closer to Jesus Christ this clergy could have been kissing the instrument of his suffering just as easily as respecting the image of Mary or even with both. Your assumption is just that an assumption.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I know plenty of the Catholic Church. I know at periods of your pathetic history, the Catholic Church acted no different in the treatment of human beings than Hitler did the Jews.

Now you are resulting to name calling. So, I guess I was right. Its a shame saturneptune that your hatred of my faith has lead you to anger which has lead you to insults. You may not want to be charitable to a Catholic like me but that is between you and God. As for me, I have no ill will towards you.

 

[saturneptune]

In reference to the quote before the one above, sometimes I cannot follow your posts because you quote part of my post and part of someone else without posting the name. That aside, the focus is the motivation of the priest. Surely he knew what would happen before the event. That is common sense. You have brought up Westboro Baptist Church many times, although you and I know that it is not a true church. The point is, their reaction is the same no matter how many times they play out their antics. One knows exactly how they are going to react to true Baptists and other faiths at their protests.

First of all, the priest (or whatever office) is a member of your denomination, whereas Westboro is not ours. The priest had seen the pattern before and knew exactly what to expect. What would have been the purpose of even giving such an organization as gay rights advocates, abortionists, etc, the opportunity to engage in such an act?

Matthew 23 is quite clear, giving glory to God over attention from man. How did this priest think that his actions or the actions of the protest group was going to bring glory to God?

If he did not do what he did, what else could he have done given the circumstances? How did this priest think his actions or for that matter, his participation in that stunt would bring glory to the Lord? Would not the common sense thing to do would have been to not be there?

It seems you never defend the actions of the priest, but rather find some fault with the Baptist faith in a like sin. From the web site about Baptist predators, to now, a story about the misuse of church money. Is that the standard? Which denomination has sinned less in their leadership?

The purpose of a New Testement church is to tell others about Jesus. I do not see how allowing ones self to be soaked by water shows Christian love or lets someone know about the Gospel. The only purpose I can see in allowing the whole world to see such an antic is attention.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In reference to the quote before the one above, sometimes I cannot follow your posts because you quote part of my post and part of someone else without posting the name. That aside, the focus is the motivation of the priest. Surely he knew what would happen before the event. That is common sense.

Why do you make that assumption. Catholics are engaged at speaking events all the time without the nonsense displayed at this event. Catholics are involved in debates, conferences, all the time. Why should one expect this kind of behavior? Let me tell you another event. It was probably one of my first times taking my family to Mass after leaving C&T Baptist Church. Just as we were leaving our car and going to church a group of homosexual protesters were marching with signs (which had profanity written on them) in front of the church building and as we walked passed them they hurled insults at us and the church. We had no idea that there was going to be a demonstration that day in front of the church because this group didn't like something our Bishop said. The Police eventually did come and dispersed them. This demonstration was impromptu and this group didn't get permission from the city to demonstrate. These things happen and there is no reason to expect that they will happen apart from the promise Jesus gave us saying that the world hated him and would hate us as well.

You have brought up Westboro Baptist Church many times, although you and I know that it is not a true church. The point is, their reaction is the same no matter how many times they play out their antics. One knows exactly how they are going to react to true Baptists and other faiths at their protests. First of all, the priest (or whatever office) is a member of your denomination, whereas Westboro is not ours.

What do you mean its not a true church? Do you mean that they aren't really born again believers a part of the body of Jesus Christ or that they aren't legally a church? as for the first part I may certainly agree. On the second part, I believe they are quite rightly a church in all legal aspects. There are many types of Baptist American Baptist, Southern Baptist, Independent Fundamental Baptist, etc... but all hold to the distinctiveness of Baptists. Though they may not be members of your church or church missionary collective that doesn't mean they aren't a part of your denomination in the general sense. That like AnaBaptist trying to say Zwigli wasn't AnaBaptist. Though they are an extreme group certainly. But then again my point is that true Catholics are not the same as radical Catholics that aren't true members of the Church.

The priest had seen the pattern before and knew exactly what to expect. What would have been the purpose of even giving such an organization as gay rights advocates, abortionists, etc, the opportunity to engage in such an act?

The article states that he has been attacked before for standing up for the Catholic Moral Teachings which teaches against homosexual behavior. That doesn't mean he should have expected such a demonstration at an academic debate. These things are to have more decorum. That's like telling Giffords that she should have expected to get shot at a rally.

Matthew 23 is quite clear, giving glory to God over attention from man. How did this priest think that his actions or the actions of the protest group was going to bring glory to God?

Well, he was there to debate on behalf of church teaching to academics in a university setting. The idea then is to spread the truth by debating for the truth. How is that glorifying yourself over God? In fact it honors God by teaching his truth to people who are asking question. He didn't go for the protest. The protest was spontaneous action on the part of homosexual women.

If he did not do what he did, what else could he have done given the circumstances?

He could have shouted back at them. Punched them in the face. Thrown something at them. Run away. Many things. But he didn't choose any of those things rather he stood up to injustice by taking it following Jesus teaching in Matthew 5. Expressed his love by not retaliating and praying (probably) for them.

How did this priest think his actions or for that matter, his participation in that stunt would bring glory to the Lord? Would not the common sense thing to do would have been to not be there?

Its not a stunt. But happened at a debate. It brings glory to God because any time we follow the teachings of Jesus it brings Glory to him. By not retaliating he exposed their violence. By praying he showed proper direction towards God in adversity.

It seems you never defend the actions of the priest, but rather find some fault with the Baptist faith in a like sin. From the web site about Baptist predators, to now, a story about the misuse of church money. Is that the standard? Which denomination has sinned less in their leadership?

Well, saturneptune, I didn't bring up the website indicating "sins" in the Baptist Church. That was Walter but he had his reasons. My first post was to comment that this event which was posted by Westminsterman and discussed a little bit before by you and others shows the world's hatred towards Catholic teaching and that some of the post on this site showed not outraged at the event but used this persecution of a Catholic Bishop as an opportunity to malign the Church. Thus giving rise to a theory I have that soon there will be regular horrible persecution of Catholics by the world and that certain (not all) other people of Christian faith would both participate in this persecution or turn a blind eye to it because there is an atmosphere of general hatred of Catholics. And in the end it won't only be Catholics but once the Catholics have been dealt with other Christians would then follow in persecution. Therefore I suggest as Christians who hold to Christian moral teaching we stand together and not apart but a few will not and will condone the open persecution of Catholics, because (they believe) we had it coming.

The purpose of a New Testement church is to tell others about Jesus. I do not see how allowing ones self to be soaked by water shows Christian love or lets someone know about the Gospel. The only purpose I can see in allowing the whole world to see such an antic is attention

I assure you the Bishop did not go to be soaked but to defend the faith teaching the truth expressed in the Gospel.

 

[saturneptune]

Ah yes, there are three of you, Walter, Westminsterman, and Thinkingstuff. I believe there is a group of about the same number from the SDA/Pentecostal group pulling the same thing as we speak. For all of our faults, there is great tolerance on this board for ripping our distinctives to shreds. The point as been well made before. If we traveled to either a Catholic or chasasmatic board and pulled the same stunts, we would be gone within a few days, if that long.

The emptiness of your post shows up in the phrase "Walter had his reasons." I gave you specific Scripture why the bishop's actions were attention towards man. You give no counter Scripture. The only defense is a Baptist predator website and a story about how church funds were misspent, oh yes, and imply all Baptist churches are like Westboro.

That really takes a lot of nerve considering the documented torture and executions by your denomination, and those were not "radical Catholics." They were the governing authority.

And by the way, Baptists do not believe in any shape form or fashion that members of other denominations are headed for hell as your denomination does.